Instigator / Pro
0
1465
rating
31
debates
59.68%
won
Topic
#5575
There is a legitimate chance the moon landing is fake
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
baggins
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
7
1527
rating
8
debates
87.5%
won
Description
I obviously don't believe the moon landing was faked, it's just a fun devil's advocate debate.
Round 1
Introduction:
This is obviously an absurd argument, but I want to improve my debating skills, so I decided to give this a go.
An organization as powerful as NASA, with backing from the government, would have no problem faking some photos of men on the moon. Especially when they have the motive of winning a cold war.
Argument One:
I'd like to begin with providing this propaganda article: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795
Notice the flag? It's rippling in the wind. Wind that the moon doesn't have.
Experts have a convenient excuse for this. There is a pole keeping the flag strait, and the astronauts had difficulty getting the flag smooth. This is a perfect lie. We have no reason to believe this is true. It's an obvious attempt to cover up an error. There is not reason they couldn't have gotten the flag to stay flat.
Argument Two:
There is not crater or any sign of disturbance where the space craft landed.
Argument Three:
In the photos, you can find a rock stamped with the letter "C." It's weird that an astronaut decided to do that while on the moon.
Argument Four:
There are photos of different landscapes, but with the same back grounds.
Conclusion:
While it's understandable that there may have been a weird blip, or a freakish event, all of these things, along with others, show that NASA may be trying to cover up some mistakes in a hasty performance. There could be several different things that would of caused this. A discovery that the moon landing was guaranteed to fail, some info that Russians were going to finish faster than the Americans.
It's not unbelievable that, for a multitude of reasons, they would fire an empty rocket just to fall into an ocean, or drift into the void of space, and create some videos making it look like they succeeded.
You can see some elaboration on the arguments, some others, and all of the photos mentioned here:
"legitimate chance" - refers to a good and reasonable possibility of success or achieving a particular outcome. It implies that the probability of success is significant enough to be considered realistic and feasible, based on available evidence, circumstances, or conditions.
REBUTTALS
Introduction:
PRO's conclusion does not follow his premises. Just because "they have the motive of winning a cold war" and they are "powerful organization, with backing from the government" does not mean there's a legitimate chance they faked the moon landing.
- Both sides have the motive to win the space race
- Both NASA and The Soviet Space Program are backed by their governments
- Further evidence is needed to show how that happened and explain certain issues that make the scenario improbable such as:
- If NASA had faked the moon landing, the Soviet Union, with its own advanced space program and tracking capabilities, would have had a strong incentive to reveal the deception. Both NASA and the Soviet space program were backed by their respective governments, meaning that if either side had evidence of fakery, it would have been a powerful propaganda tool. The lack of any credible evidence from the Soviet side supports the authenticity of the moon landing.
- The scale and complexity of faking the moon landing would have involved thousands of people, including astronauts, engineers, scientists, and contractors. Keeping such a large-scale conspiracy secret for over 50 years, especially in an open society with a free press, is highly improbable.
- Independent verification by other countries and organizations provides additional evidence that the moon landings were real.
Argument 1:
The claim that the flag appears to be rippling in the wind on the moon is addressed by the fact that the flag had a horizontal rod to keep it extended. The ripples were caused by the astronauts twisting the flagpole into the lunar surface, and the fabric retained the ripples due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon. The lack of atmosphere on the moon means there is no air resistance to stop the motion, so the flag continues to move for longer than it would on Earth. Multiple sources, including video footage, show the flag only moving when astronauts are handling it, consistent with the lack of atmosphere.
Argument 2,3 and 4:
You only presented the titles of your arguments and linked a page if I want to read more elaboration. If I would to do the same I would just send a couple links of websites that have already debunked all of those conspiracies and tell you "for more info read there". This is not what you do if you want to "improve your debating skills".
Anyway here's the rebuttals to your title arguments:
- The lunar module's descent engine was throttled down during landing to avoid blowing too much dust and creating a large crater. The moon’s surface is firm and compact, and the lack of a significant crater under the lander is consistent with the reduced thrust used during the final descent and with the physics of a low-gravity environment like the moon's, where the descent speed is much lower than it would be on Earth.
- The C doesn't appear in the original Nasa negatives or prints. The “letter” can only be seen in one print and later generation copies of it. Under close magnification, it looks like a hair or fiber that has contaminated a later reproduction or piece of lint or a scratch on the photographic film.
- The moon has a relatively uniform terrain with rolling hills, so backgrounds can appear very similar from different vantage points. The lack of atmosphere means there is no haze to give a sense of depth, making distant objects appear much closer than they are. The moon’s surface has few distinguishing features, making distant objects appear the same in photos taken from slightly different angles. This can be demonstrated by examining the topography and camera positions. High-resolution imagery and studies of the lunar surface by other missions, such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have confirmed the accuracy of the Apollo landing sites and their surroundings.
- The conclusion that NASA could have faked the moon landing is based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the evidence. The physical and photographic evidence from the Apollo missions has been extensively analyzed and verified by experts worldwide. Independent missions by other countries, like Japan and China, have also confirmed the Apollo landing sites.
Round 2
Rebuttals:
If NASA had faked the moon landing, the Soviet Union, with its own advanced space program and tracking capabilities, would have had a strong incentive to reveal the deception. Both NASA and the Soviet space program were backed by their respective governments, meaning that if either side had evidence of fakery, it would have been a powerful propaganda tool. The lack of any credible evidence from the Soviet side supports the authenticity of the moon landing.
The Soviet Union weren't racing to space. Granted, they were attempting to launch men to the moon, but not for the purpose of beating America. America produced propaganda making it appear that they had beaten the Soviets in some challenge to make them look stronger.
The scale and complexity of faking the moon landing would have involved thousands of people, including astronauts, engineers, scientists, and contractors. Keeping such a large-scale conspiracy secret for over 50 years, especially in an open society with a free press, is highly improbable.
Nobody knew everything about the operation, that's how individuals thought they were sending people to the moon, when in reality the operation was a failure, and ended up being staged in the end. The few who did know, could be payed off.
Independent verification by other countries and organizations provides additional evidence that the moon landings were real.
For this, I'll provide a time line of sorts of events that could have occurred.
America decides to put people on the moon. They frame it as a race with the Soviet Union to try to make themselves look better than an enemy.
Later, they realize that with current technology, they're going to fail, and the Soviets might make them look like idiots, or it's just not worth the funding anymore.
So, they make some fake footage. Later, with more advanced understanding and technology, they fly a real rocket to the moon, and make it look like astronauts were there before, so they wouldn't be found out.
This is just one variation of possibilities.
Rebuttals to the Rebuttals:
You seem to have a convenient counter argument for every thing, and that makes sense, given that a government agency poured much money and effort in to creating them. For things that aren't based only on logic, there would be nothing stopping NASA from creating lies to cover it up, and if the initial moon landing was fake, then they definitely would make lies. Take the argument about the impact crater. Take the following example; how do you know the surface of the moon in dense and firm. You are not a moon expert. You know that from third party research, NASA.
I understand that the moon landing being faked is not probable, but the government, with all of its resource and control, could absolutely fake it, and with said power and control could completely convince us otherwise.
- The Space Race was a highly publicized aspect of the Cold War, and both nations used their achievements in space exploration as symbols of their technological and ideological superiority. I wont go in detail here because you are not going anywhere with your points which should be leading to the legitimate chance of the fake moon landing and you are trying to rebut insignificant small details. The idea that the Soviets would not have been interested in exposing a fake moon landing by the U.S. to discredit them doesn't align with their history of using such opportunities for propaganda. You failed to address the main point my argument
- The Soviet Union closely monitored the Apollo missions using their own space tracking network. If the United States had faked the moon landings, the Soviet Union, with its advanced space capabilities and intense rivalry with the U.S., would have had a strong incentive to expose any deception. The fact that the Soviet Union never disputed the authenticity of the moon landings and acknowledged the achievement further supports their credibility
- The credibility of the mission is supported not only by NASA but also by independent analysis from scientists, engineers, and international observers who tracked the mission. I don't know what propaganda you are talking about , surely there's always some propaganda about something in every country. The moon landing itself was backed by substantial scientific evidence and technological achievement
- The Apollo program was a massive, multi-billion-dollar endeavor involving thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, and contractors from various organizations across the United States. The idea that such a complex operation, spanning years of planning and execution, could be staged and kept secret by a select few is highly implausible. While conspiracies involving payment or coercion can occur, the moon landing involved too many individuals and organizations, including international partners and independent verification. It's implausible that everyone involved could be effectively silenced or manipulated for such an extended period without anyone coming forward. Historically, individuals involved in large-scale deceptions or cover-ups often reveal the truth over time, especially as personal motivations or circumstances change. I will give moreinfo on that nextround bc of characterlimit
- All Apollo missions leading up to Apollo 11 were either test flights, Earth orbit or lunar orbit missions. NASA's missions, especially those involving human spaceflight, were extensively documented both in real-time broadcasts, photographs, mission logs, and scientific data. Any failed attempts to reach the moon or to land there would have left significant traces in records and would've been impossible to conceal. There is no historical evidence or credible documentation to support the claim that the United States attempted and failed to land astronauts on the moon before Apollo 11
- The technological achievements made during the Apollo program have been independently verified and validated by scientists, engineers, and international space agencies
- Scientific knowledge is built on peer-reviewed research and collaboration among experts worldwide, not solely on information from NASA. The authenticity of the moon landings is supported by independent verification from astronomers, scientists, and international space agencies, including the Soviet Union
- My opponent thinks "legitimate chance" is the same as "coulda, woulda" scenarios. Reminder: There were no definitions provided by him and mine was not objected. His rebuttal to the independent verification from other countries not only missed the "other countries" and the "independent" part but included something that could be taken from a science fiction conspiracy YouTube video. 'Endless' possibilities does not mean "legitimate chance". Fantasies with 0 evidence is not defined as "reasonable possibility". You dropped all of your 'arguments' and focused only on my critic of your introduction. Conspiracy theories are not legitimate without evidence (even if possible on theory). You need at least a decent chance of success to call it a legitimate chance. Legitimate chance is a synonym of "probable" not merely "possible"
- Claims that the lunar surface is dense and firm are supported by scientific research and data gathered from lunar missions. The understanding of lunar geology and physics is not solely based on NASA's statements but on a broad consensus within the scientific community. In your scenario they all should be lying. Which is improbable. At some point even if it was faked it could be easier to just admit they faked it then to put up all this façade forever like history has shown. Any attempt by NASA or any government agency to fabricate evidence on such a grand scale, especially in collaboration with international partners and under global scrutiny, would be highly improbable and unsustainable over time
Round 3
I knew it would be hard to argue for this absurd idea, but it was harder than I thought. I'll concede this debate. My opponent did an exceptional job in countering my nonsense.
Thank you for the debate, PRO!
Round 4
Forfeited
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀. . ﾟ . . ✦ ☀️ , .
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🛸
* .
. . ✦⠀ , *
⠀ ⠀ 🌘
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀. ⠀ ⠀.
˚ ⠀ ⠀ , .
.🛰️
*⠀🚀 ⠀ ⠀✦⠀
* 🌎 .
. . ⠀☄️
.
👽 ˚ ﾟ 🪐.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🛸
* .
. . ✦⠀ , *
⠀ ⠀ 🌘
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀. ⠀ ⠀.
˚ ⠀ ⠀ , .
.🛰️
*⠀🚀 ⠀ ⠀✦⠀
* 🌎 .
. . ⠀☄️
.
👽 ˚ ﾟ 🪐.
Youre right, Ill change it
This is kinda hard for your opponent to argue. They have to prove that there is no chance that they were fake, and 100% chance that they were real.