The moon is hollow and we are transporting back and forth from there through portals, and have been doing so for some time.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think the more interesting conversation about the moon is why it's there (nasa still don't know) and why are there ancient civilizations that reference the arrival of the moon.

Giordano Bruno (a 16th century Italian philosopher) is reputed to have written in De Immenso: (Bk IV, x, pp. 56-57): “There are those who have believed that there was a certain time (as our Mythologian says) when the moon, which was believed to be younger than the sun, was not yet created. The Arcadians, who dwelt not far from the Po, are believed to have been in existence before it (the moon).” “Theodorus writes in his first book that the moon had appeared a little while before the war which was fought by Hercules against the giants. Aristochius and Dionysius Chalcidensis, in the first of their works, confirm the same.” “Mnaseas said that the Arcadians were born before the moon, and so they were called ‘proselenian’; meaning, ‘before the moon’.” [1]

http://www.halexandria.org/dward200.htm

Iterestingly the Wikipedia page for Giordano Bruno has no mention of him stating these things although there is plenty about his martyrdom for science

The moon landing debate is an irrelevant distraction in comparison

[deleted]

They don't have to be real or fake, I believe its a bit of both. Im pretty sure we landed something on the moon, however, I highly doubt any humans were aboard it. It is likely we were stumped with overcoming a complication in manned spaceflight past a certain difference; so we embelished to trick the USSR and made high budget films to act as evidence.

My thoughts as well. The pressure to get there before the other guy forced them to fake it until they made it. Bragging rights seem to be up there on the list of shit that rich people want.

Debate yourself. You might actually learn something.

Maybe it would be best to approach those who have done research and have publicly put forth evidence on the matter, rather than to a bunch of random Redditors.

No... I'm not well versed on this topic.

Why do you need an organised, planned debate when you can just hang around here for a while till one randomly pops up or go to /r/theworldisflat or /r/spacefraud and do it like any other normal Reddit comment?

Your and I both know there's no discussion allowed there

Perhaps you should contact the guy that set this site up. Have you seen this site before? I think most would be pulling from this site as a source anyway. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

slomotion

eof

im a heckler deal with it

I dont have time for a full debate but I think there are a few points that are not debatable and tells me that it was fake. There are no rational counterpoints to the following, although I'm willing to review your eventual debate:

• lack of testing; first testing of Apollo beyond low earth orbit was with live humans. That means first attempts for re-entry at escape velocity was with live humans. That is irrational.

• no flights beyond low earth orbit before or since Apollo (by nasa or any other nation). Cost is not a rational answer because the tech has supposedly already been developed. And if it was possible with 1960s tech, then advances in technology since (e.g.: materials sciences, etc) should have make the mission past Leo easier.

• timeline - 1961 nasa barely makes sub orbit and 9 years later they allegedly walk on the moon. However zero progress on manned flight since. Bullshit if you ask me.

• loss of telemetry data, LEM blueprints, original video footage and 700 cartons of other evidence by NASA. Losing a little data is incompetence - but the scale of information loss here is more likely a cover up.

• lack of radiation shielding (NASA now claims the Orion needs radiation shielding to get past van Allen belts).

• lack of testing for lunar landing and takeoff they had a few tests on earth where an unsimilar mockup went up only a few feet (most of these crashed anyway). Nothing compared to the 4000mph descent and 69mile ascent allegedly performed without any symmetrically testing. Don't say math - people don't bet their lives on math. Also battery tech was in the dark ages in the 60s (they basically used car batteries) - no way they had enough energy to maintain envrionment amongst extreme lunar conditions.

• abandonment of Saturn - a highly desirable single chamber weight saving design. No other nation could do it because single chamber design is unstable as far as combustion. NASA has since abandoned single chamber design and now uses the much heavier Russian multi chamber design for heavy lift atlas 5. Not just Russian design but actual Russian rd-180 engines.

• multiple flaws with pictures and videos that others have documented - but my favorite is clear delineation between background and foreground which is evidence of projection screen. Also movements of astronauts appear to be supported by wires - see multiple videos on /r/moonhoax. Also all the pictures were perfectly framed and composed in spite of the fact that the astronauts had no viewfinder and were clicking pictures blindly.

• astronauts deny seeing stars but much later claims to have seen stars (which would be expected in an atmosphere less environment). Also astronauts retire shortly after mission and after initial press have generally kept a low profile (except buzz - and he has had an interesting history since).

• a couple of rebuttals on your 1st debAte. Lunar rock has been documented to be available on earth. Studies of the rock assume chain of custody from Apollo but do not prove it (not to mention moon rock given to Dutch has been proved to be petrified wood and most of the moon rock can no longer be located now per collect space.com). Pictures from Lro and Selene could have been photoshopped and cannot be used for definitive proof.

There are no rational counter points to the above.

Ha I'm in vacation right now and then go back to a stressful consulting job. Your debate format, while appropriate, is a little too time consuming for me. I'm sure someone will pick up the slack.

From OP's Debate page:

"I ask that anyone accept do so only if they are relatively well versed in the subject and are willing to post detailed and sourced evidence to back up their claims."

This is ridiculous because if there was a cover up, then how does OP suppose there were "detailed and sourced evidence" that was documented?

And the moon debate has been argued to death and it's fucking pointless because the people arguing either for it or against it don't know one way or another if the US landed on the moon or not.

People either believe it or they don't and no amount of arguing is going to change a person's mind on the matter.

How can this be a fair debate when the consenting view can't be properly defended since there wasn't any documented evidence contrary to what the official narrative is so how can a person who doesn't believe man went to the moon "REFUTE WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE?"

And you yourself don't know for fucking sure. You're just going off of the shit that was documented and it's not like in the history of the world that governments don't fucking lie.

It is 100% fair.

You're a fucking tool. Nothing in life is 100% fair and that's why it's full of compromises. What, are you still in high school?

And what can you possibly add to the argument that hasn't been argued to fucking death? Why beat a dead horse?

So get over yourself. You're not some moon expert, you're just an armchair quarterback trying to make yourself feel better about your insignificant life.

I understand the word fair and it's obviously something that you can't comprehend because nothing in life is 100% fair, nothing. It's all compromises. How fucking old are you? It seems like you're a little young buck who has an idealistic outlook on life but is really oblivious to what real life is.

And again, I'm asking you, what can you possibly add to the argument that hasn't been argued before?

Quit fooling yourself. All you want to do is argue about a subject that has been beaten to death already and the only reason you want to do it is because you know that there isn't much documented evidence contrary to the narrative and that's the main crux of your argument and the only reason you're doing this is to make yourself feel better by trying to ridicule someone else and not under the guise to "spread some knowledge and understanding" because there were others wayyyyy before you doing the same bullshit.

I'm not asking for documented evidence to the contrary.

Then wtf do you mean when you say this:

"I ask that anyone accept do so only if they are relatively well versed in the subject and are willing to post detailed and sourced evidence to back up their claims."

So wtf is "sourced evidence" if it isn't documented?

So you're already flip flopping on your replies. How can anyone have a serious argument when all you're going to do is flip flop your answers when trapped in a corner.

I asked but you didn't answer, do you believe in the moon landings?

My answer is, I don't know but I do question the authenticity of it all.

And that's my answer. I'm not going to get baited into a bullshit ass argument that, like I've said before, has been beaten to death.

So let me ask you this question again, what can you possibly bring to the argument that hasn't already been argued before?

And btw, nice downvotes faggot.

I know the main arguments against the lunar material and I have done some reasonable research that proves beyond doubt, in my mind, that the samples came from the moon during the apollo missions, not found in antartica or whatever other ideas people band around. I'd like to test this in a debate. Seems not many people are willing to though, par for the course.

Well, good for you. But one things for certain and that's, just like me, you don't know for sure if man went to the moon or not. All you're doing is believing it and arguing for it. And there's nothing wrong with that but no matter what you say, you're not going to change anybody's mind.

Not if that mind is already closed

You're the one with the closed mind since you can't see some of the anomalies and question it's authenticity.

Wtf? Why the fuck do you keep wanting to argue?

The bullshit you're going to present probably has been presented already so who gives a fuck?

Why are you so ignorant?

You ooze ignorance.

You're showing your true ignorance in spades.

actually now that I think about it, I expect nothing less.

You do have somewhat of a brain!!!! I didn't expect anything from you and you shouldn't have expected jack shit from me either.

Do you get it now, ignorant one?

No

Dude, why are you such a troll and an idiot?

How can this be a fair debate when the consenting view can't be properly defended since there wasn't any documented evidence contrary to what the official narrative is so how can a person who doesn't believe man went to the moon "REFUTE WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE?"

And you yourself don't know for fucking sure. You're just going off of the shit that was documented and it's not like in the history of the world that governments don't fucking lie.

It is 100% fair.

You're a fucking tool. Nothing in life is 100% fair and that's why it's full of compromises. What, are you still in high school?

And what can you possibly add to the argument that hasn't been argued to fucking death? Why beat a dead horse?

So get over yourself. You're not some moon expert, you're just an armchair quarterback trying to make yourself feel better about your insignificant life.

I'm not asking for documented evidence to the contrary.

Then wtf do you mean when you say this:

"I ask that anyone accept do so only if they are relatively well versed in the subject and are willing to post detailed and sourced evidence to back up their claims."

So wtf is "sourced evidence" if it isn't documented?

So you're already flip flopping on your replies. How can anyone have a serious argument when all you're going to do is flip flop your answers when trapped in a corner.

I asked but you didn't answer, do you believe in the moon landings?

My answer is, I don't know but I do question the authenticity of it all.

And that's my answer. I'm not going to get baited into a bullshit ass argument that, like I've said before, has been beaten to death.

So let me ask you this question again, what can you possibly bring to the argument that hasn't already been argued before?

And btw, nice downvotes faggot.