It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Challenge Match: Pinke vs SonoftheSun: The Moon Landings Were Real

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:45 AM
Good afternooon everybody. Today we have a debate regarding one of the largest conspiracies of all time.

The title of this Debate is " The United States Moon Landing Was Real."

This Debate will follow the new format.

Pinke will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
SonoftheSun will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by one alternating reply each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, host edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the host who posted this debate thread. The host has the responsibility to make a post within a debate explaining such corrections.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging by the host in a separate post within this thread. The host will tally from the beginning of the post, and state which sentences are beyond the debate limits.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging by the host in a separate post that is edited to exclude the excess. The edited post will be considered to be the debater's original post. The host will notify the “fighter” via u2u of any changes before posting publicly.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

There will be no time limit for responding, however if a debater believes he or she will take more than a day or two to respond, it would be courteous to let the opponent know in advance that you still intend to continue when able.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges, selected by me.

Members wishing to judge, please PM me

The thread host will also accept the responsibility of u2uing the member judges to notify them of a debate's conclusion.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

Good luck to both challangers and let the best debater win.

edit on 8/22/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/22/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:54 AM

Excelsior - Opening Statement

Proof is a funny thing. Over the years philosophers have debated the meaning of the word ‘truth’ and its applications. Some would have us believe it is appropriate to doubt all things and entertain all ideas; in this realm the world could be populated by unicorns and we may exist in the dream of a small circus midget living on Sirius B …

I tend to think truth is a much easier and more material thing to grasp in most circumstances. Yes, there is always a chance as I sit here typing on a dark evening that I reside inside a midget’s fevered slumber but it’s much more likely I’m actually here. If a court of law accused me of being on my laptop posting on ATS this evening I’d likely have little defence against the evidence of my IP address, and my familiar writing styling’s gracing my beloved web board. The midget I live inside cannot interfere with this truth.

This, therefore, is how I approach the truth of the moon landing. I formally accuse that NASA , on 2:56 UTC July 21, 1969, trespassed upon the moon. This act was continued repeatedly multiple times until the end of the moon landing program. I believe this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I qualify reasonable using the rules of the Canadian court:

• a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
• rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
• it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
• it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and
• more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.


I will also state that I firmly believe the defence in this case may have to rely heavily on imaginary or frivolous doubts as raised above. I firmly believe that beyond these doubts, little legally applicable information can be raised that would urge a jury to declare NASA innocent of stepping foot on the moon.

For my opponent to produce doubt in my mind that man has set foot on the moon, the following would have to be dismissed:

• The repeated visits to the moon which return imagery as expected from the original missions decades ago.
o Can my opponent comment on the results of SELENE photographs provided by JAXA (Japan) and the LRO from NASA providing the results we would expect? What is the likelyhood of a 1960’s film crew matching survey data from the moon? (Question#1)

• The epic historical record and massive number of witnesses … which hold up not just on the larger elements but also on a single person career based level and spans thousands.
o Take for example John Lowry, the creator of the Lowry Process and founder of Lowry Digital. Lowry demonstrated to NASA in February of 1972 that they could clean up the video feed from the moon. Feeds were run through his company ‘Image Transform’ to perform image averaging to reduce random noise throughout feeds. Lowry continued to work in the field of image processing until his recent passing. Many artists have worked with him and more have worked under him. How do we explain these characters who continued to make huge impacts in their field decades later? Please comment. (Question#2)

• Further evidence persists in the advances NASA made during this time. The Unified S-Band communication system has been used by almost every mission to space under taken by humans. It was invented for Apollo. This progression can be tracked linearly through the entire Apollo program. Almost every single step has a document or witness to attest for it’s start and completion. This point also covers the data brought back and explored during the missions.

I have not yet heard my opponent state a motive for the deception, but the most common goals presented for fakery are political in nature. The question which can be asked opaquely is, does the act provide the desired outcome? (Question#3) I’d ask readers to be aware that those hatching this scheme would have to be smart, intelligent, and capable.

Applying simple logic, could an event of this magnitude be kept secret for the decades to come? Without applying imaginative of frivolous doubts as defined above I would say unequivocally no. Even the most over confident genius would have to recognise that such a ruse would be detected over time if not immediately by foreign powers. The damage done to America even 100 years later could be massive. It would be a betrayal to the entire human race not just a single political faux pas or easily explained error.

My following responses will be based on where my opponent chooses to place their armies so to speak, and I await to see where they will choose to stand.


posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:06 AM
First and foremost,

I wish to thank Pinke for choosing such a great controversial subject, Tothetenthpower for hosting the debate and the many Moderators, members and viewers for your exceptional effort in helping to revive the Debate Forum.


Twenty four men.

Twenty four courageous souls that have dedicated their lives to go where no other human being has gone before. Out of those, only twelve would make it to the moon surface. From Armstrong to Cernan. 1969 to 1972. All Americans.

The All Mighty American Dream. Or so we were told...

During this debate, I would like all of you to forget about 2012 as I will try to bring you all back in time, back to the sixties. Two major countries were on a tight race about everything. On two different continents, two different Powers that would fight a non military war that would eventually lead to World Dominance, in many people’s view.


The cold war was at its peak and the competition between those two countries was at an all time high. From the Olympics to the Nuclear race, from Catholicism to Communism, from the industrial boom to space domination. The overall National Pride of both countries about superiority transpired in every newspaper, over the radio and on television broadcasts. The race over space was just beginning and was not to be considered any different.

In the late fifties, the Russians had sent Sputnik up there, the very first satellite. Then in 61, the Russians achieved an historical feat by sending a man in space, Yuri Gagarin. The pressure was on. The Media was talking. American citizens were whispering. The Big Bad Reds were better. The race for the moon was beginning and there was just no way that Uncle Sam could let the Russians get to the moon and leave their footprint up there first. The World was watching...

That would never happen. They had to win this psychological war. No matter what. And at all costs.

And here lies the Foundation for the Biggest Conspiracy of All Times...


Now, my opponent is in favor of NASA being charged guilty for trespassing on the moon. I would never plead innocent to this claim. There are numerous items left behind that prove that we went to the moon. But a real trial should be on the assumption that MEN have set foot on the moon and I would not plead innocent on that presumption either. Not if it was a well made deception.

Accusing NASA of trespassing on the moon is like accusing Ford of building safe cars at the beginning of its venture. True, they made cars. Not true that they were safe. Yes, we have been to the moon. But not a single shred of evidence proves – without a doubt – that men have set foot on it. And if there is a doubt, as tiny as it might be, basically, the case simply gets ruled out.

Now, what would be the motive for NASA and the United States in deceiving the world?

One word. Supremacy.

Because a well made deception, perpetrated by the U.S. Government, orchestrated by NASA and its affiliates would be politically legitimate to gain Supremacy over space and ultimately put an end to rumours of its technological and intellectual inferiority.

During the course of this debate, I will show you the inconsistencies of the Apollo program. Inconsistencies in the technology at hand for human landing, inconsistencies in the stories, inconsistencies in the evidence that has been provided by NASA.

In concluding this debate, I will emphasize on the fact that the space race emanating from that era was perhaps ahead of its time but nowhere close to the point where a single man could have set foot on the moon.


My Answer #1:

I sure can. It simply proves that we have material left behind. It does not prove in any way that a man was up there. We’ll eventually get neat pictures from Mars and what was left behind. Yet, not a single man has set foot on there either.

My Answer #2:

John Lowry’s field of expertise was to restore and preserve films. He later worked on “special effects” and finally went into creating tv commercials. His passion for his field of expertise would be the answer to your question. Nothing to do with having worked with NASA as this was just a contract. A contract for which none of us have seen the details.

My Answer #3:

To answer your question, let us reflect on what President Kennedy had to say about it in his 1962 moon race speech:

it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for for space.

And no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind the race for space.


Eloquent. Direct. Non equivocal. There is no way they were going to let the Russians be THAT leader.



I have no questions at this time.

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM

Voices from the Moon

“Complexity begets ambiguity, which yields in all ways to prejudice and avarice. Complication does not so much defeat Men as arm them with fancy.”
― R. Scott Bakker, The White Luck Warrior

My opponent states that men did not reach the moon. My opponent also states "if there is a doubt, as tiny as it might be, basically, the case simply gets ruled out."

A simple question. Can you prove, without a doubt, by your own definition of the term that you exist and actually think? I promise you, not a single shred of evidence proves without a doubt that you exist or that your mind is real. My doubt means I should rule you out.

I stand by ignoring imaginary or frivolous doubts. I challenge my opponent to name an extraordinary claim that has been dismissed with as much extraordinary evidence as the moon landings. List of extraordinary events that have provided hours of clear video and signal data, a massive work force, and scientific discovery as evidence:

[x] Moon Landing
[ ] Time Travel
[ ] Aliens
[ ] Ghosts

If man landing on the moon was a faked event it would be of such complexity we would be left with two unique options:

•Thousands of people managed to work together to produce a near flawless hoax. No other hoax has reached a percentage of such complexity.


•A handful of people played several thousand people like a harp of +10 winning to produce the greatest illusion of all time

But then why so complex? The obvious answer is the complexity was so that the hoax appeared 'convincing'. The issue with this is that the result would be the same as doing the real thing. It's like creating a fake basket ball game by bouncing a ball and throwing it at the net. There comes a point when you're just playing basket ball.

To give an idea of how complex this is, we will look at something small; the television signal.

Fox Mason had the task of maintaining the pointing of the Parkes Observatory towards the Apollo 11 signal once the moon peeked over the Australian horizon. The independent Parkes Observatory was approached in 1966 by NASA to assist in receiving signal from the Apollo missions; years in advance. The Observatory was modified to receive the unified s-band communication system developed specifically for the Apollo missions. Later, during Apollo 13 Parkes played a key role rescuing the crew by downlinking signals from the command module which allowed issues to be diagnosed. Later still, the signal from Apollo 16 was routed through the offices of John Lowry's (RIP) Image Transform. In a very short examination of the Apollo work flow the signal has gone through several signal professionals. Not one to this day has spoken up.

The voice from the moon strengthened throughout the entire Apollo missions. During Apollo 12 Alan Bean would point the westinghouse camera at the sun, damaging it. The mistake rendered the effort to pass the signal through a low pass filter at the goldstone MSFN station utterly pointless. The crew would take the camera back with them and return it to westinghouse to be examined. Later the Apollo 13 camera was altered and handling procedures changed to reduce the chance of this occurring again.

For Apollo 15, Dick Nafzger (television systems engineer) assisted with the development of the subcarrier cancellation unit. I simply don't have enough space to explain, but this system required manual real time level and phase setting tweaks during the transmission as even the slightest change introduced interference from transmitted data.

Already we have multiple heavily documented real time interactions with Earth by skilled operators. The ground commanded television assembly was introduced in Apollo 15 as part of the Lunar Rover. Now scientists on the ground could control a camera using the astronaut placed antennae. We now have:

• Multiple highly skilled technicians evaluating and constantly improving a group of allegedly fake signals in real time. These signals would have to match the activities of the astronauts on the moon.
• NASA providing hardware to for improvement directly to westinghouse from the moon. Why?
Multiple documented advances in image signal processing Source
• Astronauts roleplaying dangerous situations using piles of data accurately to the point scientists, signal operators, and all others are fooled
• Astronauts adlibing a fake mission live without error (audio feeds include real world references) over a time
period that would make most stage actors cry. No amount of money can prevent stage fright.

Haven't even touched

• faking of low gravity/lack of atmosphere
• the accurate photography record
• the risk of using robotics to leave evidence
• real time VFX

As for USA vs USSR. The allies hated the axis in 1945 ... no fakery there. Sometimes it's just a war (or cigar).

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:54 PM

It’s all about inconsistencies...

As I have stated in my opening statement, there are many inconsistencies about men landing on the moon. It is clearly impossible to state them all in this post and then having to reach a conclusion. So I will simply highlight some of them that are (seems like forever) debated amongst conspiracy theorists:

• How did men survive going through the radiation emanating from the Van Allen Belts?

• How did men survive being exposed to solar radiation without the protection of Earth?

• How did men figure out to get in and out of small openings with suits that were 32”+ wide?

• Why are most of the pictures provided by NASA regarding men on the moon controversial?

• Why doesn’t Earth have the right proportions (3X the moon) on all Apollo photographs taken from men on the moon?

• Why does the LM look so unsafe and so patched up when these men supposedly travelled 200,000+ miles to get there, land, leave and get back?

• Do the viewers know that their household calculator has more power than the prehistoric computer that accompanied these men, landed them like a piece of cake and brought them back?

• Why did Buzz Aldrin state ( in the controversial documentary “Astronauts Gone Wild”) that ”They can do all kinds of things with fake photography”?

Which brings me to the core of this debate. My esteemed opponent has talked about the technology used by men filming on the moon and coincidentally, this was the already prepared subject of this post as I think that everything we think we know about men on the moon is from what NASA has given us, as proof that it has occurred.

I would like to expand a little on a statement that Pinke made and I quote:

The ground commanded television assembly was introduced in Apollo 15 as part of the Lunar Rover.

True. Yet in the same document that Pinke has provided, we can see that a camera was attached to the LM since Apollo 11. In Pinke’s sourced document, there is a neat picture of it attached to Apollo 12’s LM (page 26/45). Even though it looks restless to me, I will agree that filming and pictures could have been taken from the LMs and Rovers – as long as they would remain within room temperature – as I will explain below.

But what about filming and pictures taken from men on the moon?

I would like to point out that some of the fancy filming by men could have been made in a studio, and not on the moon. Not necessarily naming Kubrick, but Hollywood had highly advanced technology to reproduce such films. And many great producers to pull it off. Curiously, John Lowry (who had worked on special effects and the show Space Command as stated in my opening statement) was also part of the team. The beginning of “2001 a Space Odyssey” is good evidence that the U.S. Government and NASA could have produced - in any secret location - ALL filming and ALL pictures taken – supposedly – by men on the moon. All they then needed was adding those to the already existing pictures taken from inside the LMs and Rovers.

Let me show the viewers why I do not believe that men have filmed or taken a single picture on the moon surface.

Astronauts from Apollo 11 supposedly used modified Hasselblad 500EL Data Cameras, as shown here:

Source 1 and Source 2

The films used were Kodak Ektachrome 160T Professional. Which, as stated in this Source, will preserve longer and better refrigerated at -13C. This film will also be best producing at room temperature.

My one and only Socratic Question:

Not even considering the obvious damage that would occur from radiation, could you please explain to the viewers how such a film could have survived the moon surface environment which goes from -153C to +107C ?

Because...for me... this creates ONE very very serious doubt.

And if there is a doubt, as tiny as it might be, basically, the case simply gets ruled out.

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:17 AM

The End

Solar radiation? Durante and Cucinotta (2008, Physical and biological dosimetry analysis from
International Space Station astronauts. Radiat. Res. pp170:127–138) believe that radiation counter measures ‘may not be needed for a lunar base’. (Remember later when considering radiation + film) Nealy and Simonsen also agree that once on the moon the radiation hazards are less severe.( 1991, Radiation Protection for Human Missions to the Moon and Mars pp14)

Russian cosmonauts have spent over 400 days at a time in space. Long term studies determine changes in astronauts and a higher chance of cancer but only nine American astros by my count have died of cancer. The vast majority did not die young. Unaffiliated doctors also helped discover cataracts being more common in astronauts. The cancer/death rate is over rated by conspiracy theorists in this area.

Experts agree that long term exposure is the biggest issue. (Russians too)

Pictures controversial? See my opening quote in first post.

Moon proportions? Distance. Our eyes are stupid?

LM unsafe? Because you’re looking at the outer shielding of a one of a kind non-mass-produced craft. Wasn’t built for pretty.

Calculator more power? This stance would equally kill the argument that NASA used automated methods to deposit tracks, gather survey data, and place a fake lander. 3D data of the moon is available. It is several gigabytes in file size. How was the ‘set’ built?

Buzz: ”They can [sic] fake photography”?

Because they can?

Answers regarding the camera temperature:

• The landings were planned at times before the temperature reached hottest temperatures (note a lunar day is about 29.5 days long)
• Surface heat is different from air heat. A dashboard in a car on Earth can reach over 200F (93C) easily spending hours in the sun. The contents of your glove box will be fine. You can do this experiment with a small box also.
o Using the surface heat from the moon exaggerates temperatures to furnace or snow like. Cars and cameras don’t melt immediately.
o Temperatures in the thermosphere of earth where many satellites are reach 1,500 °C (2,730 °F). The moon is cooler. Hasselblad 500C cameras were used in orbit 1962/3 during project Mercury. Its been a long road between Hasselblad and NASA.
• The camera body was also painted silver and lubricants were removed so they could not boil in the sun.
o The reflective (unlike dashboard) camera body would be in direct sunlight receiving radiation heat. The film wouldn’t. The film would only receive heat via thermal conduction. This heat would be primarily at points of contact and would be slower and less efficient. In the sun the camera would absorb heat, and in the shadow would become colder over time. The film was likely not even touching the outside surface. There is no heat convection on the moon. Side note: Charlie Duke’s family photo he placed on the moon unfortunately suffered heat radiation. It was in direct sun light and plastic wrapped.

The -13C temperature my opponent cites applies to long term storage. Operating temperatures for the camera and film are for specific long term consumer uses. Yes, room temperature film might develop perfectly. Warm film will still function.

Reliability theory states:

Reliability applies to a specified period of time and is restricted to operation under explicitly defined or stated conditions. The requirements of a one time use camera on a moon are different from a consumer life-time investment. This also applies to the 3D IMAX film shot in space. Slight variations in stereoscopic images mean post artists have to individually process each stereo pair separately to match one another or have problems. Different requirements; different numbers.

To give an idea of how far things can be pushed:

Peter Carsten stands next to 1100C (2000F) lava with his camera; ten times moon surface temperature.

NASA did have heat issues: The TV control unit from Apollo 15 was designed for temps up to 122F (50C) but likely reached temperatures of up to 180F (82C). The clutch was redesigned after section 14.5.1 of Apollo 15 report. There were several other similar reports during other Apollo missions regarding heat problems.

This constant improving of equipment, process and people only highlights how unlikely it is that the moonlanding could have possibly been hoaxed. Each tiny detail gives more data to be scrutinised, and yet only a handful of issues come up in comparison to the thousands available.

I’ll finish by quoting the findings of a study into the effects of radiation on professional film in space:

The effects on 6028 (film) are minimal and would not be apparent in secondary products from these originals.
(1995, The effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film pp13)

This was after over 128 hours in space. Good debate!

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:03 PM



During the course of this great debate, we have seen two sides of a same coin. We both conclude that we have made it to the moon. Where our opinions differ is in the fact that men may or may not have been on the moon.

Here are my concluding statements:

Durante and Cucinotta have had great studies about the effects of radiation...for the International Space Station astronauts...which were nowhere close to the moon. Source

From my esteemed opponent’s conclusion, and I quote:

believe that radiation counter measures ‘may not be needed for a lunar base’.

Let me emphasize on the May Not part of this quote. Doesn’t sound like a certitude to me. Also, a lunar base is somewhat totally different from being an individual in a space suit in a harsh environment.

And here lies the whole problem and the main reason why this moon landing conspiracy persists.

NASA and its affiliates, the US Government, the astronauts, the pictures, the questions that have various answers, the technology at hand for human landing, they ALL show evidences that are filled with “mays or may nots”, “ifs and coulds”, ” shoulds and suggests”...where is the proof in ALL of those?

THERE IS NONE. Just overwhelming evidence.

Everyone should agree that evidence has never been a substitute word for proof. If that was such a case, this whole forum would be a circus, a delirium...or a total zoo.

The United Stated Moon Landing Was Real...

Then why is this part of our World History that should not be questioned so full of contradictions and assumptions?


Sometimes, we let our biases do the job for us. And sometimes, our biases lead us in the wrong direction. Like showing a picture of Peter Carsten standing next to 1100C (2000F) lava with his digital camera. A 16mm or a 35mm film would never survive this heat.

In my rebuttal post, I admit to being a little sarcastic with the Apollo 12’s LM. But the way I look at it is this: If it failed - as it looks to me like a tin can piece of junk tied up with wires and scotch tape (my own bias here) - we lost money, we lost material but we haven’t lost human life.

Big difference.

Again, same goes with the prehistoric computer that I mentioned. If it failed, no Human Loss.

There are just too much conjecture and contradictions for men to have been on the moon. NASA is nowhere close to being transparent about it, the American government is silent and the very astronauts themselves – that are part of our history as men that have set foot on the moon – remain, after so many years, ...evasive. So, where is the truth?

Only inside our own biases. One can only make his own conclusions.

Pro or con. Here are mine, and they are con:

• I did ask a friend photographer about the risks of film exposure to the moon surface temperature and radiation stimuli. His answer...not a clue. Helpful, isn’t it?

• The Van Allen Belts. Van Allen himself is bordering evasiveness...Why?

• NASA having found out that some openings would not make it possible to get through them with a 32”+ space suit changed some of them to 42”...after the facts...Why?

• Pictures on the moon ARE controversial. Multiple shadows, wrong shadows, over exposed shadows, dual source shadows, the lighting environment is all screwed can that be?

• The earth, seen from the moon isn’t our eyes playing tricks. They are photographs. So unless the iris, film or the camera itself is playing tricks...there is a good base for questioning here, no?

• Buzz Aldrin was not mentioning fake photography because he could. Nor was it taken out of context. He meant what he said. So why even saying it, if not to further more infatuate the controversy?

I remain as skeptic (my own bias) of the official story as I was before starting this match.

But I hope that this debate has invigorated your curiosity. I do not pretend to have all the answers. Nor do I understand half of the studies that I have looked into about this subject. But questions remain.

The United States Moon Landing Was A Deception. Until proven otherwise.


This isn’t the end. It’s just a journey...towards the truth.

And I strongly believe that this conspiracy will still be debated – and more so – as decades go by.

Thank you Pinke for a great debate. It was complicated, challenging and most of all, FUN !

Hope everyone enjoyed as much as I did.


Houston? This is SonoftheSun...logging off.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:09 AM
The Debate Judgments are in!

This really was a very good debate. It was nice to see both parties focus on the more easily understood yet technical aspects involving the possibility of a moon landing by human beings.

I thought Pinkie started out strong and asked 3 very good solid questions to open. Unfortunately though Sonofthesun (S&S) answered those questions very well and even raised some very good doubts of his own. I could not help but notice that Pinkie never goes back to attack these opening points or cast any doubt on the answers given and for this reason I give round 1 to S&S.

Round 2 Pinkie really lost me. Much of the reply focuses on the camera but a camera in space is not proof of a human being on the moon surface. Which is a point that goes to the heart of S&S's position. It is simply proof of a camera in space. When discussing the real time transmissions, again it is proof of transmissions coming from space, but not the actual surface of the moon. The one part of Pinkie's second post that really struck me however was the following statement...

" In a very short examination of the Apollo work flow the signal has gone through several signal professionals. Not one to this day has spoken up. "

I found this to be a very weak argument and for me, Pinkie really lost points for this one. We know Chriss Angel is a magician. We know what he does is tricks and illusions. There have been countless Magicians over the years who have spoke up about different tricks. So when Chriss Angel levitates himself in the middle of the Las Vegas strip, just because no other Magician has spoke up to tell us how he does this- does not mean by default that Chriss Angel can legitimately defy gravity and levitate.

S&S in round 2 really comes out swinging. It starts with his title and runs throughout the whole post. Summed up in one word, "inconsistencies", and S&S continues to point them out while directly attacking the meat and potatoes of Pinkie's previous post. The "nail in the coffin" for me is when S&S takes Pinkie's own quote and further expands on it, creating even more questions.

Round 3 was a bit painful for me. For every point Pinkie makes, he then makes another that falls very very short. Especially when answering the questions from S&S in post #2, then the points Pinkie does make is torn to shreds by S&S in his conclusion. Pointing out the difference between the picture taken by lava with a digital camera vs 16 or 35mm film really went to the heart of Pinkie's points made in his final post.

In my opinion, SonoftheSun was a clear winner in this debate.

I am going to go with Pinke as my vote for the winner,.,.,

her opponent didnt do much to argue the technical difficulties of the moon landing,
in fact he admits that NASA sent shuttles to the moon,
which I am assuming returned to earth,,
If the supposed truth, and Pinkes arguement is that NASA sent shuttles to the moon with men on them,,
the men got out and walked on the moon,
got back and returned in the shuttle...,
and both parties admit that men have traveled in space before,., and the evidence is in favor of men being in the shuttled missions and on the moon in those missions,,
Then I dont see too big of a leap in logic to assume men were in fact on board those shuttles, got off on the moon, re boarded and returned to earth,,
Pinkes arguments and rebuttals do a better job at defending this point, this supposed truth..
then SonofTheSun does with proving men walking on the moon is a complete hoax and lie..

This debate is a tie.

Congratulations to a VERY informative debate that can be henceforth used as a reference on the Moon-subject.

new topics

top topics


log in