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

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry, posting endless links you can't explain, and apparently do not understand and youtubes is not acceptable.

Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[CommonMan]

You posted the radiation chart. I would also like YOU to provide information on which way the solar flares was going. Were they hitting the Moon or anywhere the Apollo 14 mission was at the time?

And what does this mean in your post to Yuri_Armstrong

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!

Is this a threat? I am sure that many posters here would cover his back. And I am like Buzz Aldrin.
I await your reply. Yes I could look it up, but you stated it, you finish it.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

"Their dosage data is fake!!!!"

I can also claim that your solar flare data is fake and provide nothing to support that claim. It would be exactly what you are doing.

Now, let's hear you explain the radiation dosages recieved by the astronauts. AFAIK the Apollo CSM had good enough shielding to protect the astronauts for 8 or 9 day missions. It's not like they were flying around with nothing to protect them. If you say that the 2.85 rem dosage the astronauts received on Apollo 14 is wrong, then provide something to substantiate that.

Also none of your videos are working for me. Let's hear this from YOU instead of links and youtube videos that you can't explain.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

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!
{link to vid removed to save space}
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!

Spokes ? You're kidding riiiiiight ? Alas you joke and don't even realize it. Those "spokes" are what we who know a tiny bit about photography call a starbust effect. You can get it with any bright light if you use the right aperture and have the right lens. Here's a link explaining why it happens (not that you'll bother to read it) ...

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001uPA

And here's a picture of a starburst effect with city lights ...

from the link on how to create a starburst effect right here on Earth.

http://www.betterparisphotos.com/paris- ... r-by-night

So tell me again how a starburst effect proves anything ?

As to the different sizes of the Sun ... show me what "zoom" was used, what crop and enlargement was done before I shoot you down. It's obvious that the Sun or anything else appears larger when a "longer" lens is used. I could post a really big picture of the Sun, taken through a telescope, but the sarcasm would be lost on you. With the level of critical thinking you've shown re: this point I'm surprised you didn't claim the photo you posted shows the landings were impossible because the "tall" astronaut couldn't have fit in the "small" LEM.

BTW why did the vid in your link not show the Sun ? It wasn't there at 1:13 nor at 1:15 but it seemed to flash partially into view at 1:14. Did the Sun not have enough "spokes" for you ? :lol:

 

[origin]

Ok, OK I thought so... Quantum 11 is just messing with us. It is hard to believe anyone one actually believes this hoax stuff but he was so adamant I actually thought he was serious (kinda frightning), until he wrote this -

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.

The higher number is a more significant flare not lower. I mean for god sakes the explanation is right on the site:

From: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... README.CFI

Five measures of flare importance are added to obtain the cfi. They are:

1) Importance of ionizing radiation as indicated by time-associated Short
Wave Fade or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance -- Scale 0 - 3.

2) Importance of H-alpha flare -- Scale 0 - 3.

3) Magnitude of 10.7 cm solar radio flux -- characteristic of the log of
flux in units of 10 exp(-22) W/m sq/Hz.

4) Dynamic spectrum -- Type II = 1, Continuum = 2, Type IV with duration
> 10 minutes = 3.

5) Magnitude of ~200 MHz flux -- characteristic of log of flux in same units
as 3).

"Major" solar flares are any which satisfy one or more of the following
criteria:

Short wave fade (or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) value >= 3.
H-alpha flare of importance >= 3.
10.7 cm flux >= 500 units.
Type II radio burst.
Type IV radio emission of duration > 10 minutes.

Nobody that is a space radiation expert or even someone who casually looks at this stuff would be stupid enough to make that mistake, so it is clear he is just messing around or seeing if we are paying attention.

I mean come on look at the data if lower is more significant then almost every one of the hundreds and hundreds of major flares that have occured in the past 50 years is more significant than the 1972 X-class flare.

Very funny quantum - caught you - looks like you aren't insane, just a comedian.

 

[origin]

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001uPA

And here's a picture of a starburst effect with city lights ...

Sorry that is clearly a fake photograph - NO STARS!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Ok, OK I thought so... Quantum 11 is just messing with us. It is hard to believe anyone one actually believes this hoax stuff but he was so adamant I actually thought he was serious (kinda frightning), until he wrote this -

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.

The higher number is a more significant flare not lower. I mean for god sakes the explanation is right on the site:

From: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/ ... README.CFI

Five measures of flare importance are added to obtain the cfi. They are:

1) Importance of ionizing radiation as indicated by time-associated Short
Wave Fade or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance -- Scale 0 - 3.

2) Importance of H-alpha flare -- Scale 0 - 3.

3) Magnitude of 10.7 cm solar radio flux -- characteristic of the log of
flux in units of 10 exp(-22) W/m sq/Hz.

4) Dynamic spectrum -- Type II = 1, Continuum = 2, Type IV with duration
> 10 minutes = 3.

5) Magnitude of ~200 MHz flux -- characteristic of log of flux in same units
as 3).

"Major" solar flares are any which satisfy one or more of the following
criteria:

Short wave fade (or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) value >= 3.
H-alpha flare of importance >= 3.
10.7 cm flux >= 500 units.
Type II radio burst.
Type IV radio emission of duration > 10 minutes.

Nobody that is a space radiation expert or even someone who casually looks at this stuff would be stupid enough to make that mistake, so it is clear he is just messing around or seeing if we are paying attention.

I mean come on look at the data if lower is more significant then almost every one of the hundreds and hundreds of major flares that have occured in the past 50 years is more significant than the 1972 X-class flare.

Very funny quantum - caught you - looks like you aren't insane, just a comedian.

Well he did claim to have 8 years in space radiation education... but I get the feeling that this education consisted of watching youtube videos and the documentaries of Bart Sibrel.

And before you accuse me of ad hominem keep in mind that it is quite obvious that you are mistaken in your interpretation of the data. And you have failed to explain the radiation dosages on the astronauts.

I'd be interested to know your credentials on space radiation that you claim to have. I'd be more willing to listen to someone if they had a degree in the field they are talking about.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Five measures of flare importance are added to obtain the cfi. They are:

1) Importance of ionizing radiation as indicated by time-associated Short
Wave Fade or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance -- Scale 0 - 3.

2) Importance of H-alpha flare -- Scale 0 - 3.

3) Magnitude of 10.7 cm solar radio flux -- characteristic of the log of
flux in units of 10 exp(-22) W/m sq/Hz.

4) Dynamic spectrum -- Type II = 1, Continuum = 2, Type IV with duration
> 10 minutes = 3.

5) Magnitude of ~200 MHz flux -- characteristic of log of flux in same units
as 3).

"Major" solar flares are any which satisfy one or more of the following
criteria:

Short wave fade (or Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance) value >= 3.
H-alpha flare of importance >= 3.
10.7 cm flux >= 500 units.
Type II radio burst.
Type IV radio emission of duration > 10 minutes.

Nobody that is a space radiation expert or even someone who casually looks at this stuff would be stupid enough to make that mistake, so it is clear he is just messing around or seeing if we are paying attention.

I mean come on look at the data if lower is more significant then almost every one of the hundreds and hundreds of major flares that have occured in the past 50 years is more significant than the 1972 X-class flare.

Very funny quantum - caught you - looks like you aren't insane, just a comedian.

The problem is he's using the wrong database. Only the 1'st portion of the CFI above directly pertains to ionizing radiation. The CFI doesn't list flares according to their emissions in the ionizing wavelengths and is biased towards listing those flares with high radio wave emissions as being more "important" ... which is of course not directly related to their health impact on any space traveller. There is a better database which lists flares by a more proper (in this context) index but let's see if Q11 can Google it up. And even then it doesn't prove anything since it's not the EM emissions which are the primary concern. It the energetic particles which are the problem. Let's see if he dig up any data on those. While he's at it let's see if Q11 can dig up an engineering study on how well NASA thinks the CSM was shielded against ... welll ... anything. Perhaps he'll realize the thermal shielding and inner structure also functioned to protect the crew against radiation (and secondary emission) ... but I doubt it.

 

[origin]

The problem is he's using the wrong database.

That and he doesn't understand the database he is using. The ionizing radiation is the problem, so the EM radiation is a problem but the energetic protons seem to be the greatest concern. Interestingly the actual CME proper is traveling so slowly that it should not much of a radiation hazard, unless you are naked outside of the space craft in which case I wouldn't sweat the radiation hazards anyway...

But like I say I think he is pulling our collective leg anyway.

 

[frodo1008]

Tell you what people, let us go the whole route here and make the assumption that Quantum11 and his "Moon Hoax" buddies are totally correct about the radiation problem in outer space (anything further out than LEO, which is at least somewhat protected by the Earth's atmosphere).

Then mankind is never going to be able to get off this rock!

So, we all sit around using up the eventually very limited resources of this planet while waiting for the inevitable "Doomsday Asteroid" to destroy us all, just as the dinosaurs did!

And, like the dinosaurs we can possibly eventually become the energy source for the mutated cockroaches that then take over the Earth.

Or, instead of such a bleak future, we just take the route of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin. or Mao and all the other mass murderers of human history, only instead of just targeting a single group or small groups of humanity we target ALL of humanity!

WOW, what a great future and legacy to leave our decedents!

All this instead of believing the simple truth, that the Apollo astronauts did go to the moon, and therefore mankind can follow in their footsteps to a far more positive future.

Your choice people, which shall it be?????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[BurgerB75]

Tell you what booger....I'm gonna give you a chance.

Did you...did you just call me a booger? :lol:

I gotta give this guy props. He was obviously dropped on his head as a child (a few years ago?) and he can still figure out how to use a computer. Congrats!

As for showing my daughter, of course! Taking it a bit further, we had printed out a few of your "better" accusations and she brought them to her science teacher. While he didn't explain why your ravings are wrong in depth (really no need to tbh), he did point out quite a few flaws almost instantly and directed her to some excellent reading material on the subject. In fact, the family and I are planning a trip to DC next year and the first thing on her list to see is the National Air and Space Museum.

So, I guess I do owe you something. You have certainly steered my daughter's interest in the right direction and got her very interested in space and science.

You really ought to try a standup routine, you'd make a killing!

 

[origin]

Tell you what booger....I'm gonna give you a chance.

Did you...did you just call me a booger? :lol:

I gotta give this guy props. He was obviously dropped on his head as a child (a few years ago?) and he can still figure out how to use a computer. Congrats!

Not to mention that it is a violation of the rules of the board, and can get you banned. :shock:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

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.

Nothing supposed about the link or the JVA's response. That you cite some public reaction to a FOX TV show is just another testament to how far from reality you hoaxsters will travel to find some support for your whacked ideology. Besides what change of position are you talking about ? In May 1958 JVA was interviewed by TIME magazine (you remember that magazine don't you) and here's what they reported ...

"The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0yztrG7s7

As is the usual method the hoaxsters try to spin what he said here (also in TIME) as being it impossible to cross the VABs but read carefully the TIME article (emphasis added by me) ...

"Behind the Northern Lights. When Van Allen made his first open report on Explorer IV, he had to avoid all mention of Argus because of military security. But he had plenty to tell about the natural radiation. He could say with assurance that a human satellite crew exposed to maximum Van Allen radiation for a few days would surely die. It looked as if the fierce particles, which slam close to the earth in the auroral regions, were the explanation of the ancient mystery of the northern lights."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0z04P9CGD

So did Apollo stay in the maximum radiation region(s) of the VABs for a few days ? Nope, total time was about 4 hrs (out and back) and only a short time crossing a region of high particle flux.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Anyone recognize this photo?

AS17-141-21608HR
{snip}
"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!"

Holy Fraud indeed ! But not by NASA, just another in a long string of hoaxster fraudulent claims, believable only by those who lack the ability to think things through. I would complain that the cropped image has been smothed over with some degree of interpolation applied making it appear that there's more detail in the crop than there actually is ... but it would fall on deaf ears. So in keeping with the way hoaxsters like to "prove" things via U-tube here's the answer to the question asked above.

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

For those not caring to watch the <3 mins (it's worth it IMO !) it takes to debunk this bs, note that the PLSS seems to be visible in the shadow though not on the astronaut. How could that be ? Pretty simple it turns out ... his upper body is facing the camera so the PLSS, being on his back, can't be seen through his body ... though it does leave a shadow.

Hey Batman tell Boy Blunder to give things just a bit more thought next time.

 

[cosmored]

There's a partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16 of this thread. I't the 13th post from the top. Once people have seen the evidence, there's really nothing you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think they really went to the moon. The evidence is just too clear.

 

[bmk1245]

[...] Once people have seen the evidence, there's really nothing you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think they really went to the moon. The evidence is just too clear.

*sigh*

Picture tells more than words can express...

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

There's a partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16 of this thread. I't the 13th post from the top. Once people have seen the evidence, there's really nothing you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think they really went to the moon. The evidence is just too clear.

No, it's not. That "evidence" has already been ripped to shreds multiple times. Do you have anything new to bring to the table or are you just going to keep bragging about your sumary on page 16?

 

[Smersh]

... 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.

... 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!

But if you look back to where you first posted that some several pages ago now, you'll see that I already answered all those points. All those human failings you listed (at least some of which occur in all large organisations, including NASA and their suppliers) are among the many reasons why an attempted hoax on the scale of the one the moon landings would have to be would not work, because the hoax itself would be organised by human beings with human failings at the top, communicating with more human beings with human failings further down, and in turn them communicating with more inadequate humans still further down and so on.

As for everything being "compartmentalized" as you put it, I also pointed out that among the many reasons why that wouldn't be possible is because of the many technical failings on Apollo components that would have to be faked in order to create a realistic scenario, and the involvement of many NASA contractors and sub-contractors on NASA premises to solve the "technical failures" as they arise.

Amongst other things, how would you suggest technical failures could be solved by people not party to the hoax if they are faked, and don't really exist to start with?

 

[Archer17]

There's a partial summary of hoax evidence on page 16 of this thread. I't the 13th post from the top. Once people have seen the evidence, there's really nothing you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think they really went to the moon. The evidence is just too clear.

Heh, no it's not. It's just a typical cherry-picked collection of regurgitated garbage that you and others like you just dump into a post instead of posting for yourself. I'd be surprised if even you read all that linked crap. Link-a-thons never helped one's credibility as it shows you can't carry an independent thought, let alone post one. What cracks me up about those like yourself that pretend to know that the Apollo landing missions were faked is how you fail to see how obvious you are. Take your link-a-thon for example - you had to have come across and deliberately ignore the vast information available that addresses the various issues raised, information that doesn't necessarily come from NASA or others that might have an axe to grind on the issue, just to find the right HB link(s). If you really believe we never set foot on the moon you must have thought about it yourself, why cherry-pick the net and just parrot the lame arguments of others, arguments that are contradicted by available scientific information? You'll need a lot more conspiracies to get around that little hurdle cosmored.

Here's a starter-question you need to answer without links: Why didn't the USSR expose the Apollo 'lie' at the time or Russia expose it after the Cold War? Think carefully, wheat can only take you so far.

 

[Ishimura_]

If the landings 'were' :shock: faked... how do the 'conspiracy theorists' explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment...

 

[Archer17]

If the landings 'were' :shock: faked... how do the 'conspiracy theorists' explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment...

Some just claim robots set up the equipment. :lol:

 

[Ishimura_]

...But don't we have to go to the moon to do that

 

[Archer17]

...But don't we have to go to the moon to do that

They'll point to things like Luna 20. What they fail to appreciate is that while they claim a bevy of limitations on our manned space program they have NASA and the PTB conducting a very sophisticated disinformation program that not only fooled foreign governments, but fooled those in this country that had the means to monitor communications during the lunar landing missions. So like other conspiracies involving the PTB we have an agency(s) that is supposed to be inept enough at coverups that they can see through it but good enough to keep the lid on tight enough for the rest of us.

 

[Quantum11]

So there were "major" solar flares during Apollo 14. So what?

Every single Apollo mission coincided with MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, (except 16) and can be verified at the NGDC link I've left on this thread several times now.

As for the so what:

Jay Windley at Clavius:

"The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely. The impressively large number is all they're interested in."
Source: http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/envsun.html

It seems Yuri is in complete disagreement with liar Jay Windley. Or maybe Jay isn't a liar, but an apollo fanboy who doen't care to look that closely at the records for MAJOR SOLAR FLARES clearly listed in the comprehensive flare index at the NGDC!

"No major solar-particle events occurred during an Apollo mission. Although much effort has been expended in the field of solar-event forecasting, individual eruptions from the solar surface have proved impossible to forecast."
Source: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

BTW, for those of you who keep quoting Van Allen, I suggest you listen to him in his own words, back when he had made his original assessment of the belts, named after him!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ur7gB3ABo0[/youtube]
Skip to 8:11 to hear Van Allen himself. Watch the entire video, or series of videos to completely awaken from your Apollo Fairy Tales! If you cannot watch the video, I suggest you go back to work, and watch it unblocked from your home computer. If getting on the internet and posting nonsense is your job, ask your boss to unblock YouTube already!

Now for a personal message to those of who bent on trying to suggest I am joking, or what-have-you!

When I first looked into all this crap, I was trying desperately, like many of you, to find the proof that Apollo missions were real! And at every turn in the process I found inconsistencies, lies, deceptions, distortions and contradictions. But they didn't come from the hoax proponents. They came from the Apollo supporters. And they were nasty too. Instead of dealing with the message with facts that could be independantly verified, nine times out of ten, they just berated the messenger. So, when I played devils advocate, at first, to support what the hoax proponents were saying, they turned their vile comments towards me. The same has happened here, at a site of supposedly ardent SPACE FANS! While it hasn't gotten as vile as I've seen, it's is truly dispicable regardless.

Needless to say if you can look at this picture of our star in the atmosphere-free lunar sky:

and then have the audacity to try and convince anyone that picture is for real....Well, you should leave Space.com immediately, before you bring down the collective member IQ count along with your own!

Oh yeah....Big thanks to yuri for outing both the Apollo document linked here, as well as ,Jay Windley, Phil Plait, and any other person ignorant of the fact of MAJOR SOLAR FLARES having occurred during Apollo missions.

 

[Quantum11]

...But don't we have to go to the moon to do that

Unmanned missions. You know, the kind where people don't have to risk their lives in the deadly radiation in space!

And let's not forget that lasers were being bounced off the moon by the Russians in "62, and by us in "63. Well before Apollo 11!