The moon landings didn't happen.

If we agree that the main categorical evidence for man landingon the moon is the testimony of the people who have been there, the eyewitnesses if you will.

We have to accept what these individuals explain as being the truth unless strong evidence to the contrary is given.

Buzz Aldrin; Aldrin is an American former astronaut,engineer and fighter pilot. He made three spacewalks as pilot of the 1966Gemini 12 mission. He was the Lunar Module Eagle pilot on the 1969 Apollo 11mission and became the second person to walk on the Moon after missioncommander Neil Armstrong. Aldrin graduated third in the class of 1951 with a Bachelorof Science degree in mechanical engineering.

In merit and achievement Buzz can be described as among themost intelligent, experienced and competent human beings America has ever produced. A direct quote fromBuzz Aldrin;

“I saw this illumination, that was moving with respect tothe stars. We where smart enough to not say; Houston there’s a light out there,Its following us. So Technically it becomes an unidentified flying object.”

This quote is video evidenced; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkmhY_ju8o

To accept Buzz Aldrins testimony that he was the second manto land on the moon as truth, we must also accept his testimony of what occurredwhile he was on the moon as truth, as he is the eye witness. To accept as truth that man landed on the moon we must alsoaccept all parts of the testimony from the individual who claims to have been thereas truth.

If the moon landings are real then there are aliens up there too as testified by Buzz Aldrin who’s foot print is up there. If the alien story isn’t true then buzz could be considereda known liar, placing his eye witness testimony in jeopardy.  

I am going to start with five reasons we know that we landed on themoon.  These would have to beindividually debunked in order for Pro to meet their BoP.

-  Agreed

I will respond to each point you’ve made using their number as reference:

Point 1. To this point I would ask how many of the scientists countries have themselves have set foot on the moon, it is claimed only 12 humans have ever set foot on the moon. These 12 people directly handled the materials in question I have given evidence of how one of those men, the second man on the moons testimony may be compromised. Why is it compromised if what he says is the truth? I don’t dispute the presences of robots on the moon to gather such materials, I dispute the presence of man on the moon.

My counter point would be that various countries having studied the material doesn’t add weight or authority to their argument as countries beyond the US have not physically walked there, they didn’t bring back the rocks themselves damaging the validity of their experience as an authority. As to the materials and their uniqueness;  ‘as of December 2015 four new earth elements—with atomic numbers 113, 115, 117, and 118—earned their spots on the periodic table. They were temporarily named ununtrium, ununpentium, ununseptium, and ununoctium until the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry revealed their "unofficial" names in June’. The key to this statement is the word ‘Revealed’ suggesting they where known about prior to revelation i.e. ‘Secrecy’.

 https://www.science.org/content/article/four-new-elements-officially-added-periodic-table

This presents the case those elements of the materials with unique isotopic ratios may mere be isotopic ratios not yet discovered as present on earth, or in the case of conspiracy kept hidden until knowledge of them proved useful.

Point 2. I agree that it is true these reflectors have been positioned on the moon and are current present on the surface as evidenced by their continued use; however NASA's Perseverance rover sent to mars on Feb. 18,2021 – was carrying a palm-size Laser Retro reflector Array (LaRA). This shows retro reflectors do not require a human to be placed on another planet’s surface.

Point 3. Humanity since the conception of the photography and videography has used the medium to tell all manner of stories. Experts in these fields have been shown to be able to produce photo realistic variants of scenes that are not the actual places. It is widely known that during the infancy of media content audiences could become spooked and physically reactive to what they have seen or heard believing it to be real. The hysteria surrounding a war of the world’s radio broadcast in 1938 causing mass panic, with  people in their thousands sharing the false reports with others calling the media, newspapers and police to ask if the broadcast was real. This gives rise to the validity of a falsehood being believed as real during a highly anxious time of conflict.

Locations such as the Israeli desert have been used in simulated training scenarios for Mars missions, the landscape is so similar to that of Mars it would take an expert to identify which is which if images or film were to be placed side by side.

To further this idea that footage can be faked below is a link to footage of Stanley Kubrick engaged in what appears to be an attempt to stage and record a moon landing scene. Whether or not this is actual footage of fakery related to the Apollo missions remains an unknown however it adds to the proof that not only where film makers of the time interested in presenting a moon landing scene, they clearly had the capability to do so in a relatively realistic way.

To further this point a number of strange anomalies exist in the claimed real footage, for example when Neill steps out of the lander he is recorded from distance and tracked with a panning camera claiming down the steps of the lunar module, the famous one small step sequence, if all astronauts where onboard the lunar lander who was recording it from the outside as Neil took his first steps? Who was panning the camera? Where was it positioned and how did it get there in order to record the first steps? I would also further note there are no known telescopic or orbiteer images since the Apollo missions that have captured the flag, lander reminisce or artefacts’ from all the lunar missions until 2008 as you state below. We aren’t exactly talking about a needle in a haystack the exact coordinates are known precisely yet no images or footage exists independent of Nasas own imagery from the surface itself. Surly a quick swing of Hubble’s on board camera suite could put all notions of fakery to bed but for some reason this cannot be achieved. 

Point 4. The origin of the signals could indeed be real, I have no dispute that man has entered space, or that it did so in the 1950s however radio signals are a form of verification without direct visual evidence, they could well have come from one of the lunar orbiting satellites or robotics already existent on the moon at the time for all the observers on earth know without a visual frame of reference. If we consider that this was the first time man had entered lunar space can we really say that those on earth monitoring radio signals could be considered experts? What experience would they have had in gathering and verifying signals coming from the lunar surface prior to the Apollo missions when they had up until that point had nothing to point their equipment at? How could these verifiers be considered expert on this the very first occasion their skills are tested, with a signal produced by equipment that was kept behind a known veil of secrecy to prevent the Russians stealing the knowledge?

The images presented by SELENE, are presented in 2008 39 years after the fact and in a time of enhanced ability to fake images. It’s questionable why it took so long for these images to emerge given that Lunar orbiteer one had been circling the moon since 1966 equipped with an Eastman Kodak camera. This may not be the greatest of cameras but lunar orbiteer 2 was right behind it ‘Lunar Orbiter 2 began its photography mission, returning excellent quality medium and high-resolution photographs, including the impact point of Ranger 8. The spacecraft ended its photography mission Nov. 26, 1966, and transmission of the images was concluded Dec. 7, 1966, by which time the probe had transmitted back 211 pictures of both the near side of the Moon and large areas of the far side. This shows that prior to the Apollo missions Nasa has had the capability to photograph the lunar surface, yet it took a Japanese orbiteer in 2008 to snap the landing site? that’s a suspiciously long delay to say the least given that the lunar landing stands as the pinnacle of human achievement. Wouldn’t the country who achieved it want the evidence immediately?

“Astronaut Testimonies: The astronauts who participated in the moon landing missions have consistently provided first-hand accounts of their experiences.  Their testimonies are supported by detailed mission logs, voice recordings, and video footage, all of which corroborate their presence on the lunar surface.”

Agreed, but as we know from the time before and after the Apollo missions humans are more than capable of concocting a lie and presenting it as truth. The word conspiracy was coined in order to describe a collective of people engaged on a falsehood. It is possible to have a large group of humanslie especially when the reward for such an action is fame and money. The band the monkeys prove this possibility wherein they successfully presented as a band while hiding the fact they could play an instrument or sing. It was this lie that propelled them to stardom rather than any actual talent. I wouldn’t say it’s a huge international conspiracy more so than a simple lack of capability, most countries across the world where still reeling from the effects of WW2, most where in a state of rebuilding as the Apollo missions took place. To be able to verify the validity of the US presence on the moon at the time would have required a substantial space program on par with that of the US. The only country capable of this in real time was Russia, and they were distracted by the cold war arms race and the financial burden of communism on top of rebuilding a shattered population that lost 17plus million Russians over the course of WW2.

Simply accepting the US lie may have proven a lot more financially viable than proving the US a liar while also trying to compete with it on all fronts of the cold war. I can’t be 100% sure of intentions of nations at the time. I concede that the reason why Russia would go along with a US lie is an unknown however I personally believe there is firm ground under the idea that this was a financially motivated decision. Additionally As we can see in the US today accepting a rival’s truth is an exceptionally unusual step for a propagandised population to take especially during active tensions. This presents the ease with which Russia accepted the moon landing as highly suspicious in the least, and possibly covering an anterior motive. Such an easy acceptance today would be akin to a President of the US stating the withdrawal from Afghanistan was an unsuccessful mess of the USA's own doing, in reality that position would never be accepted by the president overseeing it during an active super power struggle thus a lie is created instead and repeated until it takes hold.

Political leaders often take the politically expedient over the morally principled position, this lends itself to the possibility that for Russia accepting the landings was politically expedient given that the Cold war was already at the arms race stage and in the Russian perception the US had just wasted billions going to the moon to prove a point. Had the US had it simply faked the landings it could claim the points and keep the money it would have spent going to the moon instead paying of 12 people to keep a secret with the reward of fame and fortune.

The Apollo missions cost approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 (28.5billion in 1959). To quantise that Nasa with such a budget could afford to pay up to 257,000 individuals in 1959 the 108,949$ each to keep the secret. For comparison amounts from sources other than earnings. For year- round full-time women workers, incomes averaged $3,200 in 1959. For men who worked full time throughout the year, the corresponding average was $5,200.  Nasa itself estimates that a total of 400,000 men and women across the United States were involved in the Apollo programme, that’s approximately 50,000$ each with change to spare in a time when 5000$ was the average wage or (10 years’ worth of wages) to 400,000 people however I concede if true it is more likely lower downs where not paid and a form of mass cohesion may have been used in its place as the idea I proposed above suggests faking the landings may have been a money saving exercise.

I look forward to your response.

It appears that your argument is a true source argument.  Because one of the 12 men, maybe compromised (which I do not accept), the entire validity of the source of the rocks being collected by human effort, and not mechanical, loses credibility.  

I disagree with the premise that only those who study the materials should have had to collect them.  A chain of custody that strict is not necessary in any other scientific field.  And whilst  Pro accepts there could be mechanical devices on the moon, nothing is postulated for how the rocks work collected.    If we look at the chain of custody of the rocks from the collection.  The care, and transparency in which the rocks had been collected, inventoried and currently stored is very robust.  

Pro's argument about new elements being "revealed" has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  No new isotopes were discovered from the moon.  What was discovered was the concentrations of certain elements, or isotopes being distinctively different from earth.    In particular we have Hellium 3, which is created by solar winds on the moon, because it has no magnetic sphere to protect it.  He3 is a radioactive version of Helium, not found in the same quantities on Earth.

I shall point out that Pro has not debunked my first point.

I agree that when framing my arguments I tent to ask additional questions during my responses, this is an attempt predict a counter argument and provide new argument point however I understand the counterproductive nature of this as described in Cons criticism of this approach as such will seek going forward to stick to the points raised and counter those specifically avoiding asking new questions mid counterargument to avoid any confusion.

Response to New Point 1.

Buzz being the second man on the moon presents his eyewitness testimony as the 2nd most viable source evidence next to that of Neil Armstrong. In the video provided in my opening argument Dr. Ken Johnston also provides witness testimony for reference;

Dr. Ken Johnston learned to fly in the US Marine Corps and in the 1960’s and was one of the five test pilots assigned to work with the astronauts during the Apollo Moon Program at NASA in Houston. His job was to help train the astronauts to fly the Lunar Module.

Description of Dr Johnstons’ credentials:  https://www.thespaceshow.com/guest/dr.-ken-johnston

Video Testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkmhY_ju8o 

During his testimony Dr Johnston provides the following as a statement of fact:

“While Neil and Buzz where on the lunar surface, Neil switched to thee, the Medical channel and spoke directly with the chief medical officer saying; ‘they’re here they are parked on the side of the crater they are watching us”

During this testimony he describes Neil ‘the first man on the moon’ detailing a possible alien encounter directly to an unnamed medical officer on the ground. This eye witness account from a credentialed Doctor, and qualified pilot offers a strange explanation of events that occurred, added to the first hand testimony of Buzz and we now find ourselves forced to either acknowledge that the First and Second man to set foot on the moon encountered an unknown alien presence or alternatively that they are lying in some capacity.

With this testimony the fact is established that we have 2 eye witness accounts of an alien presence on the moon. As to the validity of aliens being in our universe at all is a topic for its own debate however I would postulate that if we accept that the moon landings are in fact real we have to accept the full evidence provided by all involved as the truth. If one of those involved formulates a lie or deception we have to question the necessity of such a lie or deception especially when the validity of the truth of such a monumental event is at stake.

If we accept the testimony of an alien presence as fact then Nasa has done a mighty fine job of covering the truth of the alien encounter its first and second astronauts reported observing. If we accept as fact there is no alien presence on the moon, the testimony of individuals who were present on the moon at the time is compromised by a lie or mis-truth. One or the other has to be true, either Nasa is covering up the existence of an alien presence or the astronauts are lying about encountering it. Somebody is lying and without knowing who we are left to the conclusion that something isn’t quite right here, that somebody is covering something up.

Chain of custody;

Chain of custody, in legal contexts, is the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of materials, including physical or electronic evidence.

I agree with the point raised that a chain of custody is not required in any other scientific field however when used as a form of validating evidence during a discussion of truth. The lack of a Chain of Custody when presenting evidences places those responsible for such a lack in a position that could be considered dubious. As I concluded in the ‘Alien Presence’ counter point I have made above ‘Somebody is lying’, a Chain of Custody in the hands of Nasa if it is found to be already engaged in a cover up or lie isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. In order for a Chain of Custody to prove it-self effective the arbiters of that Chain of Custody must present them-selves in a position that is beyond reproach to ensure the validity of the truth a Chain of Custody is designed to provide.

I fully acknowledge it may have been within the capability of Nasa to collect moons rocks robotically using the technology of the time. I fully acknowledge the technology existed to take a craft to the moon, and the budget was there to achieve it. The main premise of my argument is not whether a moon landing was possible but rather if it was actually achieved successfully given the various holes in the story told by the people who allegedly achieved it.

To the point raised on Hellium 3

The effects of Helium 3 as described by Con are the result of solar winds unfiltered by a magnetosphere colliding and embedding the element within moon rocks.

I have made no denial that  man has entered space, nor have I denied that man made crafts have entered space, or that said crafts of the time had the capability of collecting and returning moon rocks to earth . If I were to dismantle the point raised on helium 3 logically I would state that; all craft that leave earth’s protective atmosphere are subject to Hellium 3 contamination, it is not a requirement that one go to the moon to be contaminated merely leaving earth’s protective atmosphere is enough to contaminate. This removes the idea that Hellium 3 is an isotope unique to the lunar surface and thus a proof of having been to the lunar surface.

Response to New Point 2

I accept the point that is made by Con that I have not provided evidence to suggest the Mirrors where placed mechanically on the moon. I also note that I agree they are present on the moon however I would state that in the context of the argument I have made I don’t believe man landed on the moon as evidenced by the rest of my argument and the over arching premise of my argument, thus I have seen no categorical evidence as yet that a human hand placed the mirrors on the moon either. I am left to logically speculate and employ deduction in the absence of this evidence. I note that the absence of evidence on Nasas part is a fundamental point within my overall argument that leads my dis-belief in the validity of Nasas moon landing story. Without direct evidence either way, logical deduction is the only evidence available as tentative as it is. I argue that it is this lack of evidence that damages the validity of the truth Nasa has presented.

Response to New Point 3

To the counter point raised by Con here I argue that the validity of photographic and video evidence is of vital importance when proving an event has occurred. I would strengthen this point by stating that; A lack of valid evidence is in it-self a valid ‘Evidence’. As agreed by Con in the point raised alteration of evidence diminishes the validity of said evidence, further more evidence of ‘intent’ is as valid an evidence as any form of evidence. Nasa presents it intent via the process of manipulation of raw evidence prior to presentation of said evidence rather than the presentation of raw non-manipulated evidence for independent scrutiny. If Nasas intent is to present the truth it would not engage itself in the control of truth via intentional alteration of raw evidence. If Nasa was applying the scientific methodology correctly it would present raw data rather than pre manipulated data. In this display of intent to hide a truth Nasa can be viewed as dubious at the least, lying at the most.

Response to Third Point 'Anomalies'

Hubble:

I agree with the point raised by Con that Hubble lacks the image quality and calibration to perform the task of taking a picture of the site, however I would argue that modern ground based telescopes, technologies as well as spaced based technologies currently exist that are capable of triangulating and imaging the lunar landing sites, this is further evidenced by the following:

Apollo Landing Site Coordinates ; degrees N · latitude,degrees E · longitude ; Apollo 11 ; LRRR, 0.67345, 23.47307 ; Lunar Module,0.67416, 23.47314

The most powerful telescopes civilians can purchase in 2023 are calibrated to a maximum aperture of 8 inches to 16 inches allowing visibility of the moon’s surface. While I accept that earth based observations are not an Ideal condition for observation due to atmospheric distortion given the image quality presented in the below link to a photograph taken of the moons surface at an aperture of 16inces I would postulate that at the very least the shadows cast by the debris left behind as a result of the lunar missions should be visible under certain conditions.

To solidify this point I would add that many earth observation satellites can easily present photographic imagery in minute details, such as those used by Google earth imagery. While Con has presented the case that Japanese orbiters have provided imagery of the landing site is baffles me as to why the US built Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter or ARTEMIS P1and P2 have not been used as yet to capture evidence the most monumental moment in American history considering their constant close orbit of the moon and equipped Reconnaissance equipment. It appears to me as if the US doesn’t want to validate its achievements; this drives my suspicion and speculation that something is not quite right about the truth being told.

Response to New Point 4

I agree with Con that experts in radio frequency technology, and the technology itself existed long before the moon landing took place. My argument is based upon the technology and expertise being used for the first time as part of the tracking of a lunar landing mission.

While I can fully accept experts exist I would put the counter point to Con that this expertise could only have been trained within the limitations of earth conditions. To accept that the unique conditions of a lunar landing could be trained for to an expert level while on earth and outside of those conditions, suggests that other forms of expertise could be gained without entering the conditions for which the expertise is intended to be used.

An example of this logic would be;

If I were to become an expert on ‘Nature Survival’ without having ever set foot in a forest could I be considered an expert alongside a person who built their expertise from within the forest. My fundamental position on this point is that an Expert is not technically an expert until they pass far beyond their experience level on day one of their expertise building process. For those tracking the lunar landing whether scientific/technical experts or not, they were faced with a ‘Day One’ scenario when they moved to put their expertise to the test tracking the lander they did so beyond the known conditions used to train their expertise. At that moment it time they would be considered as on the ‘frontier’ in their expert fields. I would presume it is common knowledge given the covid vaccine scenario that Frontier science could be considered less than reliable and is clearly open to manipulation of facts the 'Fresher' the subject mater is relative to scientific understanding.

I argue that no radio frequency expert would have had the credentials to determine the validity of the truth of the lunar landings as cohobating evidence would be required as per the scientific method. As I have argued above there is a distinct lack of cohobating evidence namely the lack of pictures of the Lunar landing site among other evidences or lack there of.  

Response to New Point 5

I fully accept that cold war conditions and speculation around this don’t fundamentally present any tangible evidence of the truth of the moon landings; this has been correctly identified by Con as mere conspiracy based speculation of intentions of nation states and thus counter productive. To this I would defend the use my angle of attack as a mistake that is the result of ignorance generated by time spent arguing on twitter in a less than constructive sphere of influence. I will however solidify the Point raised by offering it as an evidence in it-self that critical thinkers can very easily be rendered ignorant via mere interaction with a state or private apparatus such as social media that has been designed to be coercive. Con agrees in the counter point raised that the propagation of conspiracy is assisted by the actions of state and security entities within that state. Apparatus such as FBI, CIA and private apparatus such as Pfizer are associated with known conspiracy theories. I would further add to this point; Nasa forms a part of state apparatus in that it is directly funded by Government, in addition it is beyond speculation that CIA and FBI where directly involved in the Apollo missions with the alleged intent of protecting national security as this new technology was explored. I would infer that the mere involvement of such apparatus in scientific discovery pollutes any evidence produced with the stain of collusion and the potential for mis-direction in aid of national security objectives that are in conflict with the production of raw evidence in an unmanipulated format.

If it is the case that FBI and CIA can legally withhold scientific evidence based on a national security agenda I propose that that evidence is corrupted by the intention to ‘Hide’ it and the truth that it presents in its raw form.

Given the evidence I have provided of direct eye witness testimony from Buzz and Dr Johnston, and the absence of this eye witness testimonial evidence in official data and accounts of the moon landing presented by Nasa on the moon landing it could be reasonably inferred that Nasa is engaged in tactics that are normally the remit of security based apparatus. If Nasa is not guilty of interfering with the truth a full and raw data set would be readily available to all in the interest of applying the scientific method to the data set allowing independent verification of said data set. Anything less than full application and adherence to the scientific method within the scientific fields could be considered an attempt to mislead or mis-represent the truth presented by a data set. It could reasonably concluded that Nasa has not followed the protocols of the scientific method correctly, as evidenced above, and lack of evidence where evidence should exist. Thus it could be established as fact that Nasa own actions contrary to their stated principles and objectives  as scientists have invalidated the evidence they them selves have provided for their alleged achievements in the field of space exploration.   

Ironically it is well known that Nasa simply ‘Lost’ or ‘Recorded over’ the initial data set that comprised of the schematics for building the lunar missions equipment using 1950s technology. Nasa itself states:

“In early 2005, responding to inquiries from NASA retirees and others, NASA began a search for the 14-track data tapes. Ultimately, the agency couldn't find the tapes and determined that they had most likely been erased and used again, which was standard practice at the time.”

Standard practice at the time? the erasure of Data related to the the most monumental scientific achievement in known history! this alone as evidence of 'Lack' is a damming indictment of reverence with which Nasa should have treated evidence of this event. Such incompetence stands in the face of any idea that Nasa is a reliable arbiter of truth or what could be considered a processional organisation of experts operating within the scientific fields.  

Again I stress my point that in order to validate the moon landings as real, the entity providing the evidence for its achievement is required to be beyond reproach, anything less than this ferments doubt in the minds of the jury and subsequently as an engaged in activity must be viewed as an attempt to sabotage truth.

I look forward to your response.   

Why I agreed to a  12 hour turn around...  Uggh.   Rules are rules.

Neil and Buzz's experiences have 0 application to this debate.  Are you saying, because they claim their was some form of other wordily body, that means the moon landing was fake?  I would postulate that said statements support a moon landing.  Do you think 2 very distinguished test pilots would respond the same way if it was a movie set?  I am afraid I do not understand the argument.  Because there is a claim of aliens, that means it had to have been shot on a movie set, which would seriously negate the alien theory.  I am sorry if I do not understand, please clear it up.

Addressing Retort 1:

Con states; “Neil and Buzz's experiences have 0 application to this debate.”

I refute this statement as their first hand eye witness testimony forms part of the most significant evidence that man walked on the moon ‘The Man Walking on it’ Part. To exclude this evidence would be an admission of its invalidity. If the testimonies of the astronauts who walked on the moon is not valid then why are we having this debate surly with a lack of applicable first-hand accounts the debate is over, man didn’t walk on the moon.

Con States:  Are you saying, because they claim there was some form of other wordily body, that means the moon landing was fake?

Clarification; I have used the unusual alien encounter testimony of these men as a way of showing evidence of how Nasa has covered up portions of the official story. This video evidenced testimony is mitigated from Nasas official accounts. The intention of this device is to highlight the idea that Nasa is capable of hiding a truth and actively engaged manipulation of the facts. This exposure is in it-self evidence. Unless a solid counter claim can be made as to why Nasa chose to hide this information it can be logically assumed its intention was to deceive.

When we have an organisation or actor willing to deceive we have to ask the question why, and where the limits of that deception are.

I will state: I don’t know either way if aliens are existent on the moon and their existence is not a part of my argument, the withdrawal of eye witness testimony is a part of my argument.

Addressing Retort 2:

With respect this is what you said, you exact text was; “A chain of custody that strict is not necessary in any other scientific field” I accept that you may not have intended to say this and prefer the use of the term ‘Realm’ but I fail to see how this change modifies your stance.

Here you also mention it would be anti-scientific if the collector of the materials was the only one aloud to analyse it. We are incomplete agreement on this point. As part of my argument I also made the point that all raw un-manipulated data should be readily available, this includes data collected on the moon rocks, as yet this is not the case as the chain of custody has been handled by what I have described and evidenced as a known dubious actors i.e. Buzz and Neil being the first link in the chain of custody yet presenting a story of aliens in direct conflict to the official Nasa story, the second link in the chain is Nasa itself who has shown that it is willing to engage in cover up evidenced by the fact Neil an Buzz’s accounts of alien encounters are mitigated from the official story. When manipulation of information is at play a chain of custody is worthless because the entire story fall’s victim to doubt which is what a chain of custody is ideally designed to prevent

I do not dispute that 300+ kg of material was collected, my evidence has been presented to infer the idea that the way in which the evidence was collected damaged the validity of the moon rocks as evidence of man having walked on the moon.

I don’t wish to use ‘you never knew’ statements to overwhelm what is a great debate with pointless rabbit holes, i can see i have done that as evidenced however I will add that this part of my argument was used to merely present the idea that we are at the beginning of the thread pulling exercise that should have already taken place long before now and we have already identified so much conflicting narrative in this small5 point argument that its difficult to discern the objective truth of the matter. My questions are as to why we need to investigate the most monumental achievement in human history, why this event was not recorded in intricate unfaultable detail. For comparison the ancient Egyptians did a better job recording their discovery’s among the starts than Nasa did when it landed on the thing the Egyptians used to worship as a God. How can it be that Nasa, the pinnacle of modern human knowledge and understanding cant record history correctly and free from manipulation given that they claim to follow the scientific method which in practice should guarantee at the least accurate recording of data.

The scientific method involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.

It cannot be said that Nasa during the moon landings followed this method as it proves impossible to conduct rigorous scepticism if those providing the evidence are withholding portions of it. Had people in the 1960shad access to Buzz and Neils accounts of aliens its likely rigorous scepticism would have damaged a large part of Nasas moon landing story namely the first hand eyewitness accounts.

For humans an eye witness testimony is the gold standard in evidence, it is held above all other forms of evidence. All scientific experiment requires the testimony of the observer, unless it’s a double slit experiment of course.

Helium 3

I agree Helium 3 in the concentrations present in the rocks brought back is irrefutable however I would point out that I do not dispute that rocks where brought back from the moon. The soviets without having ever landed a man on the moon collected their own moon rocks with relatively inferior technologies. While not in the same capacity as the US I would argue this as proof man is not needed to collect moon rocks thus the validity of moonrocks having been collected at all does not support the idea that a man walked on the moon to collect them, as collection of moon rock does not require a man evidenced by the soviets capability and known Nasa robotic collections took place in 1979. This can then be set aside as uncorrelated evidence that does not add to the evidence base that a man walked on the moon it merely suggests that rocks where recovered from the moon.

Con states: I think my friend is falling into a strawman gap. Any argument, no matter how small or irrelevant destabilizes the entire contention.  Yet my friend may be ignoring the totality of evidence that is very strong, and unimpeachable.

Con Continues: Again, I urge my friend to demonstrate what evidence is there that no moon landing occurred.  Everything is speculation that one may no thave occurred, yet there are 6 moon landings.

To this I would respond; I have stated repeatedly that evidence in my argument is based upon ‘Lack of Evidence’ or the absence of evidence. In this case there is a substantial ‘lack of evidence’ The onus was on Nasa to collect valid evidence in a scientific way it failed remarkably in this objective, my argument is pinned to the lack of evidence presented by Nasa.

How can I provide such evidences when my points are designed to present evidence that there is a lack of valid evidence man went to the moon. I too would like to see evidence unfortunately Nasa during the course of its actions destroyed the validity of its own evidence in various ways.

If it were not the case that Nasa acted in a dubious way, humanity would at this current time have access to the technology that landed man on the moon, a technology that used mere floppy discs during the course of its operation. The lack of this information has set humanity back 60 years and we are only now considering another run at it. Is it not illogical that we with all of 2023’s technology cannot replicate 1959 technology? When we ask who or what is responsible for this lack of understanding we surprisingly find Nasa at its center.

A further point on the scientific method;#Are we truly expected to believe the story that; a buggy and golf clubs along with the men to play golf where landed on the moon over 14missions and Nasa simply recorded over the semantics for the technology that got us there. If any other scientist presented their work as fact but omitted the schematics would we believe their evidence?

Of course as the scientific method is not able to be applied and thus the evidence of accomplishment devalued, in Nasas case this is to the extent that they expect us to believe they got there without the ability to tell us how they got there on a technological level. This means their accomplishment cannot be replicated using the methods they used, if an experiment cannot be replicated it fails the test laid out by the scientific method. If it is Nasa who fails this test how can the evidence they present as ’scientific’, be believe if it cannot be fully understood?

Response to: Earth observation satellites

Japans imagery is not a part of the debate on the validity of the moon landing as it was captured at a time when fakery exists to an extreme extent, 2008 and the financial collapse that occurred is wildly known and accepted as the true start point for the post truth world we now occupy. While it is true this evidence cannot be simply struck off, it would require its own investigation separate to that of this debate as to its validity. As to the potential for fraud on Japans part I cannot speak to this as Japan is a country unknown to me, I would prefer to stick to the evidence base provided by the key players in the moon landing rather than engaging 3rd parties arriving39 years after the fact with ‘evidence’ that may be subject to nations we know are actively engaged in mis-information and propaganda campaigns of their own as part of the cold war of our times. Discerning truth in within the simplicity of 1959 versus an attempt to discern truth in the complexity of the 20th century are two vastly different concepts with their own unique challenges beyond the framing of this debate.

Images and video in 2011 are not the same as images and video from 1959. The reason I focused on ground based telescopic apparatus available in a civilian capacity was part of the following reasoning: Given that we have the exact coordinates, it should be reasonably possibly for any civilian in 2023 given the technology we have to view the lunar landing site from earth, however as we have established this is not the case.

As Con has delivered a new evidence during this argument I would like to introduce a piece of my own with the understanding that it can simply be disregarded as per the request that we not add new rabbit holes to the argument;#The headline reads:  NASA warns China as Beijing eyes same landing sites near Moon's south pole as US.

Below is an extract from that article:#The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)has lashed out at China to be "open and transparent" about its lunar mission, the Daily Mail reported. This comes after reports claimed that China's potential landing sites on the Moon overlap with the United States. TheUS-based space agency appeared concerned over destinations on the Moon's south pole.

NASA told DailyMail.com, "Just as the lunar South Poleis of scientific interest to NASA, it is also of scientific interest to other nations, so overlap in potential landing regions is to be expected."

I find it interesting that Nasa is concerned that China may indeed capture first hand evidence of the lunar landing site. During the article Nasa is described as calling for transparency and cooperation yet rather than cooperate Nasa seeks to warn the Chinese away from the site as if Nasa holds the site in reverence, it is a shame Nasa didn’t hold the records of the technology that supposedly got Man to the site in such reverence.

Radio Experts

It is a well established norm that when new technologies arrive the creators of these technologies are best placed to present their capabilities. The technology used to send signals back from the moon was very new not old technology. Weather truthful or not Nasa was the controlling factor for the signal coming from the lunar missions that earth bound independent scientists received in order to examine and verify, as stated in my war of the world’s point, a lack of understanding of new technologies can be used to mislead and manipulate a response. We also touched on this with Pfizer application of their new technology.

To return the signal to earth Nasa claims: The image and sound signals were transmitted via a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The umbrella-like antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/moon-to-living-room-apollo-11-broadcast#:~:text=The%20image%20and%20sound%20signals,250%2C000%20miles%20back%20to%20Earth.

These were state of the art signal generation technologies that Nasa had built specifically for the lunar missions Nasa was the controller of that signal generation and as the rest of my argument attempts to establish Nasa is a bad actor as evidenced in previous points, this bad actor status devalues the evidence provided by Nasa as it both then and now is known as an actor that manipulates raw data to ‘Ensure’ it is correctly interpreted. This methodology requires trust in Nasa rather than the application of the scientific method and this trust based approach Nasa choses to use instead of the open transparency of the scientific method is evidence for Nasas manipulative tendency’s. It is this evidence that stands as counterproductive to the idea that earth bound scientists would have had adequate information with which to determine validity of the evidence presented.

I have made no mention of deep state in my argument, its, its own debate entirely. I have not suggested Nasa is under the influence of Conspiracy rather I have sought to establish that Nasa is the generator of the conspiracy. As to why they would do this is unknown but strong evidence certainly suggests Nasa is engaged in cover up and thus conspiracy. Note I almost certainly very interested in a debate on the topic ‘Deep State’ should Con wish in future to set up such a debate however I believe we may find both on the pro side of a debate of the existence of the deep state. this infers its own Widley accepted norm 

I appreciate Cons feedback on my approach. I believe my flaw here is that I have attempted to present my argument in the form of logic traps and pits, using the idea that when there is a break-down of logic, and reasonable presentation of untainted evidence it becomes more difficult for truth be determined. Arguing from this perspective has hindered my ability to present the type of solid facts normally used within the framing of a debate. As I have argued from the perspective of the non existence of truth to highlight this as my evidence, this appears weakened by the fact it is intangible evidence and relies to heavily on though experiments and theoretical 'what if's'. I'm a beginner so I cannot comment as to flaws in Cons argument or debating style other than to say I've learnt something from it and am appreciative of this. I will also add that the way I have applied language during this debate is not my standard format, normally a more passionate less concise style of arguing akin to a bar room scuffle. I have presented in this way as Con correctly identified in order to debate in a respectful manner. I'm here for debate on the subjects covered as this as an action in it self presents excellent insight and points of interest. Also its quite fun to pretend to be smart for a while, next thing you know al be sitting in an anorak smoking a pipe to add to the entertainment value of my delusions of grandeur. When I be in this space it be like some oxford union type shit, out side that space Big G Galloway is dressed as a cat for the views on big brother when he talks, her really can talk yo. Just a taste of the unprofessional standard there.

To that I will conclude:

The over arching premise of my argument is that there is no substantiated reasoning for Nasa to engage in methodology that devalues and undermines truth yet we find ourselves engaged in a substantial and on-going debate as to what the truth really is. I agree there is strong evidence to support both sides of this argument however I am left to question why there are two sides to this argument in the first place, it stands to reason that if the scientific method Nasa promotes had been followed correctly by the scientists at Nasa, this argument wouldn’t be occurring at all as the correct raw evidence would be available and had 69years to be independently verified and rigorously tested.

It is Nasas direct actions that have lead us to this outcome of Doubt, thus Nasa itself and its conduct is the Key piece of evidence in this case, the lack of coherent evidence presented by Nasa, and missing pieces of evidence is I would postulate evidence within it-self of a bad actor at work. The only actor with the capability of mis-presenting evidence in this scenario is Nasa, and it has been established that Nasa is engaged actively in manipulation of data to this day.

I put it to Con that evidence presented by scientists who do not follow the scientific method is invalid. In all fields of scientific discovery those found to have not followed the scientific method are considered fraudulent by their peers. We must consider a Nasa that failed to engage in the scientific method and thus failed to engage in the values and principles it itself promotes.

If Upheld this is a damming indictment of Nasa’s character and its practices, in which case we can’t be expected to believe what it says is truth is actually the truth

Realistically all we have to go on is Nasas word that those floppy discs contained schematics that got man to the moon; we only have Nasas word that the lunar site is up there. We are required to Trust Nasa, to believe that man was landed on the moon rather than test Nasas claims rigorously. The claims can’t be rigorously tested as Nasa has itself destroyed the validity and in some cases physical parts of the evidence base.

As Con knows the idea of ‘Trust’ has no place within the logic and reason of a debate given the known nature of Man to be capable of deceit. Furthermore if Trust isn’t acceptable in a court of law it is certainly not applicable to the presentation of scientific evidence.

I look forward to your response and concluding arguments.

Great debate, Thank You