- The document describes a debate that occurred in a science class about the validity of the moon landings. The author defended that the moon landings were real, while most classmates believed theories they had read online claiming they were fake. - The author argued that there were reasonable scientific explanations for the claims made by skeptics and that reliable sources like NASA, National Geographic, and the BBC confirmed the moon landings occurred. They questioned why internet sites should be believed over evidence from NASA scientists and engineers. - After further discussion about the testimonies of astronauts and the thousands of people involved in the missions, as well as an observatory in Spain, some classmates were open to reconsidering their views but a few still

2. YES, I DID
 I was in a science class when a debate arose about the truthfulness of some scientific conquests.
I couldn’t believe it, but most of my classmates upheld that the “supposed to be true” journeys to the
moon were completely false.
Of course, I defended the veracity of the trips to the moon.

3. ARGUING
 I thought their astonishing stance was based upon some solid argument, but when they were asked they
just answered that they had read about it in some website, in internet.
 There are, certainly, hundreds of sites that anyone can fin easily just typing “man on the moon fake” or
things like that. Everyone repeat the same arguments:
- In some photos, crosshairs seem to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a clear glass plate
with crosshairs etched on, making it impossible for any photographed object to appear "in front" of the
grid. This suggests that objects have been "pasted" over them.
- Crosshairs are sometimes rotated or in the wrong place.
- The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
- There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press
conference to not remember seeing any stars.
- The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent. This suggests that artificial lights were used.
- The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon.
- Footprints in the Moon dust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture.
- The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter
- The second stage of the launch rocket and/or the Lunar Module ascent stage made no visible flame.
AND SO ON…

4.  I replied that there were perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for each of the objections raised by
sceptics. These explanations are easily found in absolutely reliable sites, beginning, of course, in NASA site
and following in National Geographic and other prestigious science sites, in addition to media reliable,
accurate and influential as BBC or The Telegraph.
 So, why people believe whatever is told in internet without contrasting the information contained in pages
that are not recognized by scientific publishing? Why should I believe in “Listverse”, for instance, instead
believing to NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts?
REASONING

5. THE DEBATE HEATS AND BOILS
 Some of my mates made fun on me for being “snow-white” or gullible. They accused me for that!, them!,
believers of any kind of trash flowing through the www!
 Then I decided not to refuse to my human essence. My rational substance is what I am. I am not a woman if
I decline to use my reason. This was the first lesson I learnt in Philosophy. Without Aristotle or Descartes we
would never have reached a civilization like the one we have, internet included. Without our logical
thinking we would be still living in caves.
 The discussion about the flag, the footprints or the shadows was never ending, so I stopped arguing
technical details and I tried to develop just a rational way of thinking:
- The astronauts have been interviewed hundreds of times and some of them wrote books to leave us their
testimonies. Are them a group of mad liars?
- The exhibitions that we all have visited, with photographs, lunar rocks and materials used were a hoax?
- About 40,000 people worked in NASA to make possible the journeys to the moon, are them a huge group
of mad liars?
- By the way, some of them followed the NASA missions in a station placed only a few amount of
kilometers from Madrid, in Robledo de Chavela, why don’t ask them about the journeys? It is wortwhile
to go there and listen to their explanations. I did.

6. RECONCILIATION
 Many of my classmates were highly surprised when I pronounced these questions. Most of them had never heard
about Robledo de Chavela space station and they claimed the teacher to go there as soon as possible.
 A few of them didn’t quit. They talked about some big fakes spread by media that were absolutely accepted by
population. They reminded the Iwo Jima portrait and the oiled cormorant used during the Gulf War.
 I couldn’t help saying that they were right. I had heard about both affairs. Seemingly, the cormorant was
photographed in Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez disaster, and the Iwo Jima portrait was not made in the right
moment of the hill overcome. But, there were actually many birds contaminated in Irak and Iwo Jima hill was
conquered and a flag put in its top, so there was not a real fake but a misuse of some documents, provided that
people should have been warned about the actual content of both photos.
 We talked more quietly about all these aspects and all of we found new shapes of reality and media after our
conversation. It was an astonishingly helpful class.

7. HAPPY ENDING
 We all agreed to always use reason, to verify the information and to
go to the most reliable media, without paying attention to any
theory circulating on the www. Not, at least, without making it pass
through our critical filters.