I strongly agree with myself.

:)))

:)))

:)))

:)))

:)))

:)))

:)))

:)))

The moonlanding was not a hoax. Good afternoon children of Year 9, my name is Ishaan Singh and I strongly disagree with the proposal that the moonlandings were an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the USA in order to gain prestige. Before I begin my speech I would like to offer rebuttal to the points made by the proposition. The proposition stated about lunar dust. Unlike on Earth, there is no erosion by wind or water on the moon because it has no atmosphere and all the water on the surface is frozen as ice. Also, there is no volcanic activity on the moon to change the lunar surface features. Nothing gets washed away, and nothing gets folded back inside. The lunar dust molds over a footprint which was also proved by the Russian astronauts that have been to the moon and the countless number of rovers that have been on the surface, the tyre tracks are still present. Another point is the movement of the flag, as my team mate Hassan said the motion of the flag is likely to be made because of the turning of the flag pole enough to drill it in the lunar soil. My last point of rebuttal was the apparent faking of the photographs. Some people claim that an external light source was added well this is in part true due to cameras in the Early 70s having an inbuilt flash. As it turns out, the conspiracy theorists were correct that an artificial light source illuminated the famous photograph of Aldrin. Only it wasn’t a studio light, but the man taking that photograph—Armstrong. “We found a clip of videotape that was shot from the other side of the ladder,” Daly said. “There is a huge glowing bright white light. And as we analyzed that video a little more we realized it’s Neil Armstrong himself. The bright white spacesuit that he was wearing reflected all that sunlight off of him and back onto Buzz Aldrin so essentially Neil Armstrong himself was a light source in that scene.” Moreover, the shadow in the images are parallel which represent a diffused source of light such as the sun and if NASA were to recreate this they would have spent far more on laser technologies far ahead of its time to recreate this scene. Such laser technology costs 23 billion dollars now and had it been around would have cost far more possibl more than the whole moon mission. Moving on to the first of my three points. First point was the cameras. If the astronauts had cameras on tripods set to have long exposure times, the stars would become visible. Instead, the cameras were set up to take pictures of the bright astronauts with the bright Sun and the bright lunar surface. This means the shutter time was much faster and the stars didn’t have time to get exposed on the camera.In contrast, a host of astrophotographers take images known as “nightscapes.” These images are able to reveal brilliant color and texture of the sky that you can’t get with the unaided eye (because the long exposure allows the camera to record more than a fraction of a second’s worth of data). Consider someone attempting to take an image of the stars with a disposable camera. Their attempts would be less than successful. If you want stars, you need to have a long exposure time. That’s precisely why Hubble took so long to capture the Ultra Deep Field Image. My second point completely diminishes all of the oppositions claims of a crater being formed. When landing, the Lunar Module only exerted a pressure of about 1.5 pounds per square inch (that isn’t a lot).