Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[Quantum11]

Oh, and still awaiting an explanation rather than excuses lacking reason for the following..

What the sun looks like from space:

What the sun looked like in Apollo photos..

I guess the suns spokes decided to go out for lunch.

Uh oh, watch out....The sun is getting bigger...It might be going supernova! Run for your lives Apollonots!

OMG, for the love of Apollo! Run little astronaut...the Sun has almost landed on the moon! Oh the humanity!

 

[Quantum11]

Anyone recognize this photo?

AS17-141-21608HR

Let's zoom in a little shall we?

Starting to see the problem yet?

No?

Perhaps we should just zoom in a bit more...

"Holy Apollo Fraud batman, that astronaut forgot his backpack? Quick, to the batrocket. We have to get to the moon and warn him before he runs out of oxygen, or dies of heat stroke!

Good idea boy wonder. Perhaps we should remind him to stand straight towards his subject too, since the hasselblad is supposed to be mounted on his chest!"

"Hey batman, what does the AS stand for at the beginning of all Apollo photos..."

"It stands for Apollo Simulation boy wonder! And stop wondering so much. NASA doesn't like that!"

 

[MeteorWayne]

For those who are getting upset by these recent posts...anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see clearly the posters have no understanding of the science they are alleging shows , and the moon landings to be a hoax, despite all the ranting, hand waving, and near ad homenim insults. Despite refusing to support their assertions with real conversation, they continually post the same tired old "moon Hoax"links again and again. And again and again, and again, and again, and again.......

Take the advice of Chuckles the Clown, and me:

"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants."

and

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

 

[Quantum11]

For those who are getting upset by these recent posts...anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see clearly the posters have no understanding of the science they are alleging shows , and the moon landings to be a hoax, despite all the ranting, hand waving, and near ad homenim insults. Despite refusing to support their assertions with real conversation, they continually post the same tired old "moon Hoax"links again and again. And again and again, and again, and again, and again.......

Take the advice of Chuckles the Clown, and me:

"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants."

and

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Funny, as you continue with your own hand waving, and ad homenim insults......

Please explain the SCIENCE that allows the SUN TO CHANGE SIZES to such extremes on an atmosphere-free rock orbiting the EARTH? PLease use SCIENCE to explain how an astronaut survives in a vacuum, in extreme heat, without his PLSS?

All you apollo fanboys have provided, that I can see, is the same tired excuses, completely free of any SCIENTIFIC explanations, instead relying on handwaving, and attacks on the messenger. With no addressing the message!

So, you gonna man up and address the issue, or continue avoiding directly addresing the points made?

Don't Feed the Waynes!

 

[Quantum11]

Oh yeah....and here is a perfect example of what happens when an apollo fanboy troll gets owned in a debate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpx2qykQRk

 

[Smersh]

... The amount of sheer stupidity contained in one website is mind boggling...

Yeah.

I think it might have been written by 10 million chimpanzees, sitting in front of 10 million typewriters and given an infinite amount of time. :shock:

Another example of apollo fanboys making inane comments free of anything resembling intelligence!

Congrats, you are what you blame others of being!

Amongst a whole bunch of other ignorant nonsense, the author of that site believes that the Apollo landers landed on the moon with wings, similar to the way a space shuttle lands. Surely that's ignorant isn't it, because just a tiny amount of research would find that wasn't the case? (Although, since you don't believe we went to the moon in the first place, I suppose what I'm saying here is irrelevant to you in any case.)

Anyway I have now had a rethink on that article and no longer believe it would have taken 10 million chimpanzees to write it. Just a single chimp with one typewriter could probably have written it in about 20 minutes!

 

[Quantum11]

So, like Wayne, smersh continues ignoring the growing sun, backpackless apollonot, vibration-free voices of men claiming to be aboard a Saturn V during launch, as well as the Major Solar Flares NASA and it's mouthpieces lied, and continue to lie about.

I guess you have to stick with what you know smersh....Avoiding the issues, and posting comments emanating from the vacuum between your ears. :lol:

 

[Smersh]

You accuse people here of posting ad-hominems, but then post a few yourself.

As for the questions I haven't addressed about the radiation etc, I'm not an expert on that subject and I'll leave it to others here who are more capable than me of answering those points (even though they've all been answered countless times before, both here and elsewhere.)

You haven't answered the points either I raised in earlier posts, about all the hundreds of thousands of people who would have had to keep quiet all this time and the problems with having to fake technical failures in components, to make it realistic if Apollo was a hoax, have you.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Oh, and still awaiting an explanation rather than excuses lacking reason for the following..

What the sun looks like from space:

Quatum,

Being a climber and hiker, I do a lot of outdoor photography. In my sets of photos, I have photos that look like the sun in all the pictures you have posted, and I didn't fake any of mine. I even have a few where the Sun looks bigger than any of the ones you posted. Most of the artifacts in a picture of the Sun don't represent how the Sun really looks, but how it overexposed the photo.

Also, with higher quality equipment in more recent missions it's no wonder the photos look more crisp.

EDIT: Kinda think of it, in the little bit of astrophotography I've done, I have managed to take pictures of Jupiter that look like the Sun from space. Yeah, I suck at astrophotography :lol:

 

[origin]

I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the ____ they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... I55_80.TXT

Now how about you guys do some explaining?

The problem is that the term major solar flare is not specific enough. There were no huge flares which could have made the astronauts sick. There were flares and the astronauts certainly did get a higher radiation dose than someone on earth would but, there was certainly nothing life threatening.

This article on solar flares and radiation might help you to understand a bit more about the dangers of solar radiation.

I know that you will ignore or discount this, just as you have ignored literally 1000's of pieces of information that prove the moon landing occured.

I find it a bit ironic that you claim we are ignoring the evidence...

 

[Quantum11]

You accuse people here of posting ad-hominems, but then post a few yourself.

As for the questions I haven't addressed about the radiation etc, I'm not an expert on that subject and I'll leave it to others here who are more capable than me of answering those points (even though they've all been answered countless times before, both here and elsewhere.)

You haven't answered the points either I raised in earlier posts, about all the hundreds of thousands of people who would have had to keep quiet all this time and the problems with having to fake technical failures in components, to make it realistic if Apollo was a hoax, have you.

Yes, I have served back what has been dished my way from time to time. That is completely true. but I have also offered links, pictures, etc. for consideration.

You can look at a picture and tell if something looks out of place can't you? The complete refusal to do so, makes taking you seriously a very difficult thing.

BTW, I have already offered the fact that NASA and it's contractors were very compartmentalized. So the reasoning you have offered is not only faulty, but the same red herring offered time and again!

Have you seen the testimony of a quality control inspector for NAA yet. The proof for what I say was offered by him during the actual Apollo days.

Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
Lack of communication between almost everyone.
The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
People are lax when it comes to safety.
People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
People do not get an official tie-in time period.
We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.

Source:
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

If you'll take a good look at nearly all of my sources, you'll notice that most of them are NASA sites, or sites that are somehow connected with NASA. The truth is found by finding the contradictions. Try it sometime!

And feed that red herring to your cat. It wont' be digested here!

 

[Woggles]

Hey, we had to have landed on the moon. Because this guy said we did.

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/apollo ... fos-moon-0

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

No...It's mindboggling to intellectual individuals with the ability to use reason and logic. And by your very own logic here, you have proven Apollo Fraud KNOWERS point. They can't even get to the moon now, and Obama has cancelled it because he was probably briefed on the radiation shielding problem we still face to this very day. If we had the technology to get to the moon in 69, then we would have it today. And a trip to the moon would be a piece of cake forty years later. Or perhaps you believe technology goes backward? Is that what you believe?

I will pose my question yet again, and wait for an honest answer.

The search for truth about Apollo, begins and ends in space. Deadly, radioactive, truth awaits the open-minded.

I invite any solar/astro physicist or space radiation expert, to explain the relative excellent health the Apollo astronauts enjoy/ed after journying into what Van Allen called a sea of deadly radiation.

I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the ____ they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... I55_80.TXT

Now how about you guys do some explaining?

And can you explain why NASA would lie about this simple MAJOR SOLAR FLARE FACT in their:
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


Here, let me answer for you. If NASA admitted that major solar flares occured during Apollo missions, then they would have major explaining to do, as the solar physicists, have already explained that a major solar flare would have KILLED THEM!

I know, it's just too much logic in one post for you apollo fanboys to handle!

I'm still waiting for the answers and "trouncing" you promised. What size or class of flares were present during the missions ? What numerical value of X ray flux was there ? What were the energy levels ? How well or badly would the Apollo CSM shield the astronauts ? Were any of the flares accompanied by release(s) of energetic particles ? What density (flux) and energy levels were any such releases ? If you're making the claim that such things occurred and were sufficiently intense to be deadly then you must already have these numbers ... otherwise all you're doing is vigorous handwaving. All the numbers are publically available ... and on the WWW too ! So back up your claims with some numbers, if you can. Or can all you do is parrot and link to some moronic U-tube vids ? And hide behind the word "major" (why is that in quotes in the CFI ?).

BTW got any proof that Van Allen was wrong when he later said the VAB's wouldn't have killed the astronauts ? Do you think he knew more later (after Apollo was designed) than he did in 1958-59 ? Or he yet another person "gotten too" ?

http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-3885.html

BTW what route did JvA suggest to mitigate the VAB radiation ? What route did Apollo take ?

 

[Quantum11]

Oh, and still awaiting an explanation rather than excuses lacking reason for the following..

What the sun looks like from space:

Quatum,

Being a climber and hiker, I do a lot of outdoor photography. In my sets of photos, I have photos that look like the sun in all the pictures you have posted, and I didn't fake any of mine. I even have a few where the Sun looks bigger than any of the ones you posted. Most of the artifacts in a picture of the Sun don't represent how the Sun really looks, but how it overexposed the photo.

Also, with higher quality equipment in more recent missions it's no wonder the photos look more crisp.

EDIT: Kinda think of it, in the little bit of astrophotography I've done, I have managed to take pictures of Jupiter that look like the Sun from space. Yeah, I suck at astrophotography :lol:

Great, how about posting those photos here to prove your point. And may I remind you that the EARTH is blessed with an atmosphere which makes such photos possible due to the effects it affords. Then take into account the fact that the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE! Also you may want to tell us all what kind of filters you used to take such photos. Meahwhile pay attention to how the sun looks in so many science video programs. ALWAYS has the SPOKES, unless a filter is used, or very low in the sky.

Oh the Apollo photos are quite CRISP. That's not the qualities that are in question. The qualities of the SUN and what it looks like when filmed that is off. The SUN looks one way. A huge spotlight, or simulated sun, have yet another look. And it's quite obvious from the video and photos from Apollo, that the sun was nowhere around.
Just a very powerful spotlight!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBMAMO11e8[/youtube]

play pause 1:13 and 1:15. Those of you who think that is the sun, millions of miles away in space, need serious help!


Any comment on the huge change in size of the SUN?

Anyways, you should post your pics regardless! OR link to them!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I love listening to people who think they're experts on something because they've watched a few videos. Quantum, it is obvious that you have absolutely no idea about the effects of space radiation and cosmic rays other than radiation=BAD!!!!!

 

[Quantum11]

No...It's mindboggling to intellectual individuals with the ability to use reason and logic. And by your very own logic here, you have proven Apollo Fraud KNOWERS point. They can't even get to the moon now, and Obama has cancelled it because he was probably briefed on the radiation shielding problem we still face to this very day. If we had the technology to get to the moon in 69, then we would have it today. And a trip to the moon would be a piece of cake forty years later. Or perhaps you believe technology goes backward? Is that what you believe?

I will pose my question yet again, and wait for an honest answer.

The search for truth about Apollo, begins and ends in space. Deadly, radioactive, truth awaits the open-minded.

I invite any solar/astro physicist or space radiation expert, to explain the relative excellent health the Apollo astronauts enjoy/ed after journying into what Van Allen called a sea of deadly radiation.

I also invite you to look at the data for major solar flares, and tell me why NASA, and it's 'space experts' keep saying Apollo astronauts were lucky not to have encountered any major solar flares, otherwise they'd be dead. Because there the ____ they are. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... I55_80.TXT

Now how about you guys do some explaining?

And can you explain why NASA would lie about this simple MAJOR SOLAR FLARE FACT in their:
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


Here, let me answer for you. If NASA admitted that major solar flares occured during Apollo missions, then they would have major explaining to do, as the solar physicists, have already explained that a major solar flare would have KILLED THEM!

I know, it's just too much logic in one post for you apollo fanboys to handle!

I'm still waiting for the answers and "trouncing" you promised. What size or class of flares were present during the missions ? What numerical value of X ray flux was there ? What were the energy levels ? How well or badly would the Apollo CSM shield the astronauts ? Were any of the flares accompanied by release(s) of energetic particles ? What density (flux) and energy levels were any such releases ? If you're making the claim that such things occurred and were sufficiently intense to be deadly then you must already have these numbers ... otherwise all you're doing is vigorous handwaving. All the numbers are publically available ... and on the WWW too ! So back up your claims with some numbers, if you can. Or can all you do is parrot and link to some moronic U-tube vids ? And hide behind the word "major" (why is that in quotes in the CFI ?).

BTW got any proof that Van Allen was wrong when he later said the VAB's wouldn't have killed the astronauts ? Do you think he knew more later (after Apollo was designed) than he did in 1958-59 ? Or he yet another person "gotten too" ?

http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-3885.html

BTW what route did JvA suggest to mitigate the VAB radiation ? What route did Apollo take ?

I've already told you to do the same as I did and go to the NGDC and ask the professionals what those numbers are. Meanwhile let me simplify it for you since you seem to be having trouble understanding shall I?

See the numbers on the far right that I conveniently circled for you? Let me back up for you.

The NGDC list MAJOR SOLAR FLARES in two ways.

By date, and by significance.

Look carefully at the number of significance given to the flares on the date of the SEAHORSE flare. The same flare that solar physicists agree would have killed the Apollo astronauts had they been in space at the time.

Now take a look at the number given to the MAJOR SOLAR FLARES DURING APOLLO 14.

Are you getting the picture yet. I would get technical for you with the rest of the numbers, but it would be too confusing to the layman observing this thread. although 1 to 20, with the lowest number being the most significant, is rather easy to convey to the average Joe.

Now, if you still want the rest of the information translated for you, I suggest you get off of your lazy butt and email some people at the NGDC.

Try this guy: Edwin.H.Erwin@NOAA.gov IF he is not too busy, he may just answer your query!

If you and many of those here had been more respectful, I would have taken the time to get technical. But, you, and your apollo fanboy buddies chose the other path! If you contact Mr. Edwin, I would suggest you ask him what the meaning of is is...I mean what MAJOR SOLAR FLARE implies in the CFI! Don't expect much help if you are going to mention you found major solar flares during Apollo. The guy does need a job you know!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

So there were "major" solar flares during Apollo 14. So what? All you have is a chart with a bunch of numbers that I don't think you even understand that are supposed to tell us that there were major solar flares during Apollo 14. That still doesn't explain the harmful effects of these flares, the direction in which they were travelling, the shielding of the Apollo craft, the dosage of radiation received due to these solar flares, etc.

As I said before it is obvious you have no clue about space radiation, solar flares and the like.

 

[Quantum11]

I love listening to people who think they're experts on something because they've watched a few videos. Quantum, it is obvious that you have absolutely no idea about the effects of space radiation and cosmic rays other than radiation=BAD!!!!!

Another guy making a completely false statement based on lack of information! I've spent over eight years of my life studying space radiation and shielding technology. So, here you go, ready?

I'll put it in my own words so you know I understand, but will provide some links for you, so that you can begin your education! Unless of course you prefer ignorance.

Get back to me and let me know.

Remember, ignorance is BLISS!

Careful what you wish for bub. And also take care what statements you make about total strangers. IRL someone might beat the crap out of you for the same thing!!! I am not a Buzz Aldrin punching people because they nailed him to the wall as the milli vanilli astronaut he most certainly was!

 

[Quantum11]

So there were "major" solar flares during Apollo 14. So what? All you have is a chart with a bunch of numbers that I don't think you even understand that are supposed to tell us that there were major solar flares during Apollo 14. That still doesn't explain the harmful effects of these flares, the direction in which they were travelling, the shielding of the Apollo craft, the dosage of radiation received due to these solar flares, etc.

As I said before it is obvious you have no clue about space radiation, solar flares and the like.

Before I begin...If you decide you don't prefer ignorance!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124a.html

Another exclamation of the deadliness of the SEAHORSE FLARE. Now do the comparison! Get back to me when you are tired of attempting to discredit me. I may actually finally answer your disrespectful {Profanity Removed}

BTW, WOW, you finally admitted MAJOR SOLAR FLARES occured during Apollo missions. Now go tell that to Jay Windley, and tell him to fix his lies on his website. And alert NASA to the lies in the BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by J. Vernon Bailey Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

If you could resist the need to try and discredit someone you don't even know, there may be hopes for an intelligent discourse between us yet? Until then I remain wary and disappointed!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Get back to me when you are tired of attempting to discredit me. I may actually finally answer your disrespectful ass!

Wow. Calm down dude. If you were really such an expert in space radiation, then surely you would know that the 2.85 rem dose received by the Apollo astronauts was nowhere near close enough to kill them, but not enough to cause any immediate health effects. It's not as though they were out there for months. 9 days in space with adequate shielding is not going to kill you. You may get an unpleasant cancer later on in life but that's about it.

 

[Quantum11]

BTW got any proof that Van Allen was wrong when he later said the VAB's wouldn't have killed the astronauts ? Do you think he knew more later (after Apollo was designed) than he did in 1958-59 ? Or he yet another person "gotten too" ?

You find me one scientist who changed their minds about their findings, without doing additional research, and reporting the new findings...FIND ME ONE!

That statement was attributed to Van Allen after the airing of the FOX program, which educated the general public to the deadly nature of the belts. NASA had to get a retraction, or minimilization from him to pull their asses out of the hot water they were in. Write and ask NASA about the influx of letter from angry, confused, and disillusioned Americans after that program aired! Maybe you'll finally understand what I'm saying instead of pasting links to the 'supposed' quote from Van Allen.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

That statement was attributed to Van Allen after the airing of the FOX program, which educated the general public to the deadly nature of the belts. NASA had to get a retraction, or minimilization from him to pull their asses out of the hot water they were in. Write and ask NASA about the influx of letter from angry, confused, and disillusioned Americans after that program aired! Maybe you'll finally understand what I'm saying instead of pasting links to the 'supposed' quote from Van Allen.

I don't know about this whole business on what Van Allen did or didn't say. But all those angry and confused Americans you are talking about were people ignorant of the details of the Apollo missions and therefore easily fooled by that FOX program which aired simply for ratings.

Is there radiation in space? Yes. Is it hazardous? Yes. Was there enough to kill the Apollo astronauts? Nope.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I've already told you to do the same as I did and go to the NGDC and ask the professionals what those numbers are. Meanwhile let me simplify it for you since you seem to be having trouble understanding shall I?

See the numbers on the far right that I conveniently circled for you? Let me back up for you.

The NGDC list MAJOR SOLAR FLARES in two ways.

By date, and by significance.

Look carefully at the number of significance given to the flares on the date of the SEAHORSE flare. The same flare that solar physicists agree would have killed the Apollo astronauts had they been in space at the time.

No, again. YOU are the one who has made the claim that the flares would have been deadly. It is YOUR responsibility to provide support for such claims. Youtube videos, or link after link that don;t support your claim do not count

Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[Quantum11]

Get back to me when you are tired of attempting to discredit me. I may actually finally answer your disrespectful ass!

Wow. Calm down dude. If you were really such an expert in space radiation, then surely you would know that the 2.85 rem dose received by the Apollo astronauts was nowhere near close enough to kill them, but not enough to cause any immediate health effects. It's not as though they were out there for months. 9 days in space with adequate shielding is not going to kill you. You may get an unpleasant cancer later on in life but that's about it.

OMG, the cognitive dissonance is absolutely blowing my mind.

You ready for logic.

If Apollo missions were faked, then so were the numbers they listed in their faked Apollo reports! Do you get it?

It would be like a child explaining that of course Santa could deliver all those presents in one night...It says so right in her childrens book. Something that those of us old enough, understand is complete fiction.

And please explain the ADEQUATE SHIELDING that Apollonots were surrounded please!

I guess there is no need to develop shielding technology like this for a return to the moon. I mean, it's only a few days, and aluminum is just so great for shielding from harmful radiation. Right?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aWUa5l_WNs[/youtube]


Wrong!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdX_S6RT_SA[/youtube]

The entire presentation is interesting if you are TRULY into learning about this stuff...But for the portion where she explains how ineffective, and even more dangerous aluminum is for shielding, skip to.... 54:00 and listen to radiation biologist Eleanor Blakely explain fragmentation, and why aluminum is not ADEQUATE SHIELDING!

I can post a ton of links that say the exact same thing about not only the fact that aluminum isn't proper shielding, but also clarifies the additional danger caused by fragmentation. But basically what it does is create slower particles that can stick in the bodies of people. Floods the capsule with them so-to-speak.

 

[Quantum11]

I've already told you to do the same as I did and go to the NGDC and ask the professionals what those numbers are. Meanwhile let me simplify it for you since you seem to be having trouble understanding shall I?

See the numbers on the far right that I conveniently circled for you? Let me back up for you.

The NGDC list MAJOR SOLAR FLARES in two ways.

By date, and by significance.

Look carefully at the number of significance given to the flares on the date of the SEAHORSE flare. The same flare that solar physicists agree would have killed the Apollo astronauts had they been in space at the time.

No, again. YOU are the one who has made the claim that the flares would have been deadly. It is YOUR responsibility to provide support for such claims. Youtube videos, or link after link that don;t support your claim do not count

Moderator Meteor Wayne

Wrong Meteor Wayne...I clearly left links to articles, etc...where the PROFESSIONALS agreed that the seahorse flare would have killed the apollonots had they been in space at the time. Then I provided the numbers from the NGDC which shows there were even MORE SIGNIFICANT MAJOR SOLAR FLARES during Apollo 14. So, even a moron at this point should be able to recognize the contradiction, and do the reasoning necessary to realize Apollo was a fraud. Your inability to seperate fact from fiction is the reason you still hold to Apollo as a child holds to Santa!