THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ

[Len Colby]

Well that was just the same old lame type of 'rebuttals' you all always post ..... First you attack the messenger ...AGAIN ... and then you are all to dumb to realize that it was a joke about the Jones', Nathan and Neville, being brothers

This from the guy who is constantly whining about personal attacks, there was no way for any of us to “suss out” you were joking you seem pretty humorless.

Then one of you attacks his religious beliefs ... AGAIN .

No one attacked his religious beliefs, no religion that I know of backs geocentrism, like Neville Jones. You say you don’t know if Nathan is a creationist but his comments about radio dating make it sound like he might be. There are many religious scientists since Galileo most have be able to reconcile their beliefs with what can be established scientifically. If he isn’t a creationist his assertion that radiometric dating is unreliable is harder to comprehend. Perhaps there are problems with radiometric dating but unless he offers evidence this is so merely claiming so proves nothing. The burden of proof is on him.

Then it gets even worse, as one of you keep repeating this statement .." No evidence offered."

That’s because he repeatedly offered no evidence to back his claims. A claim not backed by evidence is nothing more than an assertion. If he doesn’t back his assertions with evidence there is no need to debunk them

And then the rest of this lamness is copied right from Bad Astronomy ... AGAIN .

Ad homonym AGAIN

Evan posted ... "Completely wrong. If you have a look at this image. " ... Didn't you mean .. have a look at this FAKED STUDIO IMAGE ? ..... You offer a studio photograph of a LM hanging by a cable wire , as proof that the engine was turned off ??? ...TOO FUNNY !

- Circular logic

- As I understood it Jones was claiming that according to NASA the engine was on

Oh and Evan , where is the proof that Neil is standing in the LM that landed on the moon and not in a LM simulator ? ... You didn't just take nasa's word for that , did you ?

Where is the evidence the hatch was too small?

Where is the evidence the hatch sizes were different in the simulator and the real LM.

So from what I just read , not one of can really rebutt this evidence , just as I expected

.

You didn’t present evidence only assertions with no evidence to back them up.

PS – How do we know that Nathan Jones the scientist is the person making these claims?

[Duane Daman]

I doubt you would be able to "suss out" much of anything under any circumstances , humor or not .

"How do we know that Nathan Jones the scientist is the person making these claims?" .. Perhaps because his name is on the article and it orginated from an astronomy site ? ... and I thought that conspiracy theorists were the one's who suppossed to be paranoid .

I don't think who wrote the article is really the point though ... but rather that his evidence has not been refuted ...

Not even by the bad boy bullies from Bad Astronomy .

[Ron Ecker]

how do we know they were really picked up on the moon and not somewhere on Earth like the Antarctic ?

Because the oldest known rock still existing on Earth is less than 4 billion years old. (3.8 as I recall.) Any rock that has been dated by proven radiometric methods at 4.5 billion years (the age of the Earth itself) did not come from Earth. And that's all I know.

[Dave Greer]

Well that was just the same old lame type of 'rebuttals' you all always post ..... First you attack the messenger ...AGAIN ... and then you are all to dumb to realize that it was a joke about the Jones', Nathan and Neville, being brothers ... Then one of you attacks his religious beliefs ... AGAIN .

Then it gets even worse, as one of you keep repeating this statement .." No evidence offered."

And then the rest of this lamness is copied right from Bad Astronomy ... AGAIN .

Duane

Read my post properly please. I'll repost the relevant section for you.

Note: wherever I state "No evidence offered", that section contains no evidence of fakery, so can be disregarded. If you disagree, let me know which section contains evidence that aspects of Apollo were faked (rather than discussions on how they might have been faked).

For example - take section 4.

Subject: (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea say the Apollo fanatics.

Many of the NASA "believers" (aka debunkers some of them) that swallow the NASA story hook line and sinker usually end up making remarks of this kind or worse. It has been said that up to 20% of the American public believes we did not go to the Moon and that there is no idea so dumb that they will not buy it. Or something of that sort. This is a non-argument. It is neither supportive of nor detremental of any scientific analysis of the Apollo record. It is merely an attempt at ridicule and should be ignored.

Where in that statement does the author offer evidence that the moon landings must be faked? He doesn't - so I'm not wasting my time offering a rebuttal to something that doesn't warrant it. Instead of your usual attempt at setting up strawmen and avoiding the issue, why not try and defend some of the stuff you post for a change? I'll again invite you to choose one of the topics Dr Jones raised to discuss.

I don't know who you're accusing of copying from "Bad Astronomy", but using another site as a source of rebuttal is at least as valid as the source of your claims.

As for "us" being too dumb to realise you were joking about them being brothers - firstly, ad hom noted (you just can't help yourself). Secondly, how are "we" supposed to know which of your claims you believe and which you are making up? You claimed Nathan Jones was a doctor, though he himself doesn't make that claim in the stuff you posted - was that a joke or a mistake?

And who has just been attacking the messenger? I've invited you to discuss any one of the points Nathan Jones raised - you've so far declined. Evan questioned Jones credentials - you said he was a doctor without offering evidence to back up that claim - so Evan has every right to do this. This is not "attacking the messenger". He then went on to discuss the points raised by Jones. Ron did little more than cast doubt on Jones credibility as an objective party. If he does hold creationist views (to which he is entitled), that flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of the worldwide scientific community - so why trust his scientific opinion over others?

Edited February 6, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

Evan posted ... "Completely wrong. If you have a look at this image. " ... Didn't you mean .. have a look at this FAKED STUDIO IMAGE ? ..... You offer a studio photograph of a LM hanging by a cable wire , as proof that the engine was turned off ??? ...TOO FUNNY !

Even the FAQ mentions the lunar contact probes - are you saying it is wrong?

Even so...

From the Apollo 11 transcript:

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe.]

[Aldrin - "We asked that they take it off."]

[Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek notes that Apollo 11 photo S69-32396, taken on 4 April 1969, shows Eagle with a probe attached to the plus-Z footpad. This indicates that the probe was removed after that date. The probe attachment is highlighted in a detail.]

[Apollo 11 photograph AS11-40-5921 shows the area under the Descent Stage. A gouge mark made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) footpad is directly under the engine bell, a graphic demonstration that the spacecraft was drifitng left during the final seconds.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn't precisely determine (the moment of) touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I called contact light."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I'm sure you did, but I didn't hear it, nor did I see it."]

102:45:43 Armstrong (on-board): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

From the Apollo 12 transcript:

110:32:28 Carr: 30 seconds (of fuel remaining).

110:32:29 Bean: 18 feet, coming down at 2. He's got it made! Come on in there. 24 feet.

110:32:35 Bean: Contact Light.

110:32:36 Carr: Roger. Copy Contact.

[Jones - "I gather from the tech debrief that you actually dropped the last two or three feet."]

[Conrad - "You're supposed to."]

[Jones - "And the theory on that was?"]

[Conrad - "Lunar contact light came on and the probes were six feet below the gear. We were supposed to shut the engine off right then because they did worry about the bell mouth too close to the ground."]

[bean - "Or hitting a rock and denting the bell mouth."]

[Conrad - "And I said, always, 'I'll never do that; who wants to shut off a good engine when you're still in the air?' But we had to train to shut it off. Neil landed with his (engine still) on. And, so, I was going to do the same thing. And, whoever said 'lunar contact light', I went 'bamm' and shut it down. (Laugh) Somewhere in there, I think there's an 'Oh xxxx'. Or there almost was. But about that time we were on (the Moon), and I didn't have to get it (the 'oh xxxx') the rest of the way out. I remember that."]

From the Apollo 14 transcript:

08:15:11 Mitchell: Contact, Al.

[Note that the time indicated here - 108:15:11 - is the time since launch and agrees with the time given in the Apollo 14 Mission Report.]

108:15:12 Shepard: (Garbled), Stop. Great, Pro, Auto, Auto.

108:15:18 Mitchell: We're on the surface.

From Apollo 15 transcript:

104:42:29 Irwin: Contact. (Pause) Bam!

[irwin - "We did hit harder than any of the other flights! And I was startled, obviously, when I said, 'Bam!' (Laughing) And I think Dave didn't particularly appreciate my comment, that he made a hard landing on the Moon!"]

[i have been able to find estimates of the vertical speed at touchdown on five of the six landings. Neil Armstrong's was the lowest at 1.7 feet/second because he didn't get the engine shutdown until after the footpads were on the surface. On Apollo 12, 14, and 17, the landing speeds were all between 3.0 and 3.5 feet/second. Dave's was by far the highest at 6.8 fps, most likely because he was the fastest to hit the engine stop button and, therefore, fell the farthest. See the extended discussion below.]

104:42:36 Scott: Okay, Houston. The Falcon is on the Plain at Hadley.

>

>

>

[scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "When Jim called a Contact Light, I pushed the Stop button, which had been in the plan. Knowing that the extension on the engine bell was of some concern relative to ground contact (the bell was ten inches longer than those on previous LM's to give improved engine performance and allow them to carry more equipment), it had been my plan to shut the engine down as soon as possible after Jim called the contact and to attempt to be at some very low descent rate, which we felt we were at that time."]

From Apollo 16 transcript:

104:29:36 Duke: Contact! Stop. (Pause while they drop to the surface) Boom. (Static)

[Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "When we got the Contact light, I counted the 'one-potato' and shut the engine down. The thing fell out of the sky the last 3 feet. I know it did. I don't know how much we were coming down, maybe a foot a second."]

[Duke, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "I don't remember exactly, but about 1.8 (fps) - I think I saw - right before touchdown."]

[Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "I wouldn't (want to) stroke that gear (by shutting down the engine earlier), man. I'll tell you, that would really jar your teeth."]

From the Apollo 17 transcript:

113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact. (Pause)

Oh and Evan , where is the proof that Neil is standing in the LM that landed on the moon and not in a LM simulator ? ... You didn't just take nasa's word for that , did you ?

That image IS of the simulator, but it gives you an idea of the available room in the cabin - it wasn't much, but it was enough. Looking at available images, I figure that three feet above the ascent stage engine cover may have been about right.

So how about we look at the film that the FAQ refers to, and make our own assessments?

How about a link to the Apollo 13 video sequence that the FAQ refers to, Duane? Let everyone have a look at it, discuss it, and make up their own minds?

[Len Colby]

I doubt you would be able to "suss out" much of anything under any circumstances , humor or not .

Your continue you to be the most charming member of this forum.

"How do we know that Nathan Jones the scientist is the person making these claims?" .. Perhaps because his name is on the article and it orginated from an astronomy site ? ... and I thought that conspiracy theorists were the one's who suppossed to be paranoid .

Obviously there is more than one Nathan Jones in the world. You in fact found two one was a senior (forth and final year) physics student probably specializing in astronomy at Michigan Technical University (which US News and World Report classifies as “third tier”) in 2002 the other was a chemistry professor at University of Western Ontario in 2006 who one a research award. We have no indication that the Nathan Jones who posted the FAQ in 2003 was either of those men or even that it wasn’t a pseudonym. The notion that just because he posted the FAQ on a few forums for people interested in science he is a probably a scientist is risible. Since he has a UK e-mail address ( physic...@top.notch.uni.uk ) he is unlikely to be either scientist. I imagine if he had any scientific credentials he would have mentioned them and if he had a PhD would have called himself ‘DR. Nathan Jones’.

I don't think who wrote the article is really the point though

True but if he had scientific credentials that would bolster your case. Also your position continues to be contradictory when you think you’ve found some one with credentials you tout them, when they are cast into doubt you say they are irrelevant.

... but rather that his evidence has not been refuted ...

There is nothing really to refute the FAQ was nothing more that a cobbling together of various HB (Hoax Believer) claims he fails to provide any documentation for most of them and most of them even if true are evidence the landings were faked. And contrary to what you’ve several of his claims have been debunked. Others are simply ludicrous such as his claim that the lack of astronaut comments about the stars is an indication the missions were a hoax.

[Duane Daman]

"Your continue you to be the most charming member of this forum."

Sorry but you're even wrong about that too , as I do believe that title would have to go to you and lamson .

Regardless of Nathan Jones' scientific credentials , the fact still remains that no one can refute his claims about Apollo being a hoax ...

The only one here who at least tried to do that is Evan , but unfortunately quoting from the ALSJ is not a rebuttal of any kind .... It is only quoting from the source of the misinformation .... One would need outside corroboration of nasa's technical claims of landing six manned missions on the moon ... but so far I haven't been able to find that anywhere ... and from the looks of it , neither have any of you .

I agree with all of Jones' claims and opinions about Apollo and that is why I posted his FAQ article here .... So in what way would you like me to "defend" his statements ?

At least Evan is honest about this statement also ... "That image IS of the simulator" .... Yes , it is... Just like the ENTIRE APOLLO PROGRAM WAS SIMULATED .... It was a combination of fact and fiction ... Truth and lies .... Some real photos ( LEO and unmanned missions ) and a whole lot of faked ones ( the one's showing astronots on the moon ) .... It was misinformation and disinformation all rolled up in one massive conspiracy to fool the world into believing that manned space travel through and past the Van Allen Radiation belts and then landing on the radioactive moon , is possible ... It was also done so it would appear that the Americans beat the evil Russians to the moon , helping to put and end to the cold war .

[Evan Burton]

Duane,

You are continuing to make bold statements without any supporting evidence, or claim that rebuttals are invalid without showing why they are invalid. If I were to follow in your methods, I would simply claim that anything from a pro-"Apollo Hoax" site is obviously disinformation and therefore wrong.... and without showing any evidence as to why they are wrong!

That doesn't make the grade. You have to show the reasons for something being wrong, and allow that evidence to be subjected to testing & review.

...but unfortunately quoting from the ALSJ is not a rebuttal of any kind .... It is only quoting from the source of the misinformation ....

If you want to claim it is "misinformation", you have to show how it is "misinformation". For instance, you'd have to find a document that shows the construction of the LM and that the lunar contact probes were removed (remembering, of course, that the FAQ specifically mentions these probes. You'd have to present NASA diagrammes of the LM control panels which do not show the 'Lunar Contact' light on the panels. You'd have to present verified / accurate transcripts of the voice transmissions which omit any reference to the contact light and the shutting down of the descent stage engine. You'd have to present a checklist for the specified missions showing that the engine was not to be shut down until AFTER touchdown.

So far, all you do is say "You're wrong" without supporting that statement in any way.

One would need outside corroboration of nasa's technical claims of landing six manned missions on the moon ... but so far I haven't been able to find that anywhere ... and from the looks of it , neither have any of you .

I have twice offered you the challenge to select a technically qualified independent source, and have the Apollo hardware within their field reviewed by them. For whatever reasons, you have chosen not to accept this challenge - so your statement is invalid.

I agree with all of Jones' claims and opinions about Apollo and that is why I posted his FAQ article here .... So in what way would you like me to "defend" his statements ?

By offering supporting evidence. Let's say I posted a quote from someone who said that the Earth was a large cube supported on the back of a enormous tortoise, and then said I agreed with them. You then said that it was wrong, and that the Earth was an oblate spheroid in space (which it is). You then show experiments that prove the curvature of the Earth, link to images showing the Earth from space, etc.

If that was my opinion (that the quoted post is correct about the Earth being a cube), wouldn't you expect me to support that with some type of evidence?

[Duane Daman]

Evan ... I understand what you are saying about the need to provide empiricle evidence when making the claim that the Apollo missions were faked ... But if you expect me or anyone else to provide the hard proof that the LM couldn't fly , land or relaunch from the moon , then I doubt that could be done .

But evidence can be provided that the LM could never be properly tested because to really test it would mean flying it , landing it , and relaunching it from the moon BEFORE the first manned mission to the moon ... and of course that could not be done ... So in essence, that means that if the Apollo 11 mission was a real event, then it would have to qualify as a test ... and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the American government , via nasa , would have allowed the high possibility of having American astronauts crash and then die on the lunar surface , or burn up in the Van Allen radiation belts with the whole world watching it on TV .

Not only would this have been someting horrible to witness ... but the Americans would have completely lost , not only the space race, but possibly the cold war also if this had happened .... and this is something that the American military/industrial complex would NEVER have allowed to occur ... Remember the phrase " FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION " ? Well , they weren't kidding when they said that , and therefore they would have never sent men into deep space to land on the moon unless they knew for certain it could be accomplished .

The extraordinary claim of landing manned missions on the moon with 1969 technology has NEVER been proven ... and the fact that telemetry tapes and blueprints are missing and destroyed does not help nasa's case at all ... and only means that anyone who doubts the authencity of the Apollo missions will not be able to empirically prove that those missions never took place .

The photos , on the other hand , have been proven to be fake ... Even though there are those who still refuse to see this or admit to it .

Think of this as if it were a court trial .... There are different types of evidence which are used to find people guilty of certain crimes ... Eye witness ( the most unreliable ) ... hard evidence ( which is not always available ) and then CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ( which is usually what proves that a crime been committed )

So it is not necessarily the HARD EMPIRICAL evidence which is needed to prove that nasa never landed men on the moon , but rather the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence which proves they never went there .

And when it comes to circumstantial evidence , there is quite an abundance of it which proves that Apollo was a hoax .

[Evan Burton]

Evan ... I understand what you are saying about the need to provide empiricle evidence when making the claim that the Apollo missions were faked ... But if you expect me or anyone else to provide the hard proof that the LM couldn't fly , land or relaunch from the moon , then I doubt that could be done .

Why not? Aeronautical engineers do it all the time - especially with the computer modeling techniques available today, they could spot a 'fake' easily. This is made even easier because aerodynamics do not have to be considered; the LMs flew is space where there was no aerodynamic lifting, no airflow patterns to consider. A straight problem which thousands or aeronautical engineering companies could determine.

But evidence can be provided that the LM could never be properly tested because to really test it would mean flying it , landing it , and relaunching it from the moon BEFORE the first manned mission to the moon ... and of course that could not be done ... So in essence, that means that if the Apollo 11 mission was a real event, then it would have to qualify as a test ... and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the American government , via nasa , would have allowed the high possibility of having American astronauts crash and then die on the lunar surface , or burn up in the Van Allen radiation belts with the whole world watching it on TV .

But every aero-craft has to take a 'first flight'. Even so, Apollo was a graduated programme. Test of the CSM in Earth-orbit (both unmanned and manned), test of the LM in Earth-orbit (both unmanned and manned), test of the CSM in lunar orbit (manned), test of the LM in lunar orbit (manned), then first landing. The confidence in the performance of the LM was such that it was decided that if they were going to send one all the way to Moon (apart from Apollo 10 which was the lunar orbit test and did not have the safe capability to land) then you may as well have a crew aboard. The Moon had been surveyed with Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo craft (not to mention the Soviet achievements). Soft-landings had been achieved with Surveyor craft (not to mention the Soviet Luna probes).

Basically, there was sufficient knowledge available to be confident of a manned landing. Even so, there WAS a contingency plan in case the landing attempt had failed. When you combine a knowledge of aeronautical engineering and flight test practices along with a "need" to both beat the USSR and achieve JFK's timeline, there is nothing unusual about it.

Remember the phrase " FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION " ? Well, they weren't kidding when they said that , and therefore they would have never sent men into deep space to land on the moon unless they knew for certain it could be accomplished .

And they were very confident. Perhaps you are unaware of all of the GO / NO GO steps in the flight plan? The STAY / NO STAY steps? The assurances given to Armstrong "not to push a bad situation" and that the crew would be given an opportunity for the next flight if they had to abort?

The extraordinary claim of landing manned missions on the moon with 1969 technology has NEVER been proven ...

Your assertion, and you have no expertise in the related fields. Those who DO have the expertise disagree with you.

... and the fact that telemetry tapes and blueprints are missing and destroyed does not help nasa's case at all ...

As shown earlier in various threads, much of the documentation exists, and only some of the Apollo 11 original tapes are missing. The data from those telemetry tapes is available, and the original slow-scan tapes of the first moon-walk would merely give an improved video - not anything new.

The photos , on the other hand , have been proven to be fake ... Even though there are those who still refuse to see this or admit to it .

That is your opinion; photographic experts disagree with you.

[Evan Burton]

To further mention the testing of the Apollo spacecraft, which included the LM: there were a graduated series of missions, each designed to test a vital step in achieving a successful lunar landing.

These were:

A - Unmanned Command/Service Module (CSM) test in Earth orbit

B - Unmanned Lunar Module (LM) test in Earth orbit

C - Manned CSM in low Earth orbit

D - Manned CSM and LM in low Earth orbit

E - Manned CSM and LM in an elliptical Earth orbit with an apogee of 4600 mi (7400 km)

F - Manned CSM and LM in lunar orbit

G - First manned lunar landing

H - Extended lunar stay (two EVAs)

J - Extended lunar stay with LRV (three EVAs)

If there were concerns about a mission or mission objectives were not achieved, then a second mission of the series would be flown (e.g. a B-2 mission).

The A to C missions were flown as basically as planned (Apollo 4 to 7). Because the LM was not going to be ready for the D mission, an alternative plan was put forward - a modified E/F mission (minus LM). This was a bold step, put forward because intelligence had revealed that the Soviets were preparing for a lunar mission of their own. This was Apollo 8.

Once the LM was ready, the D mission was flown (Apollo 9).

Then a modified F mission was flown (because the CSM had flown successfully in lunar orbit). This was Apollo 10.

Then came crunch time - the G mission, Apollo 11. Once achieved, they moved onto the H missions (Apollos 12 and 14, plus the aborted 13).

Because of budgetary restrictions, Apollos 19 & 20 (and eventually 18) were canceled. This forced NASA to move ahead with the J missions (Apollos 15-17), where science was of the main concern.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

Evan .... Thanks once again for your lenghty explanations but I have read all of this information before and I was just as unimpressed with it the first time I read it ...

nasa can and does make extraordinary technical claims , and you can and do continue to post them here .... but as I have posted to you repeatedly now , without any OUTSIDE CORRORBORATION of these alleged technical claims and achievements , all we really have is nasa's word that they managed to sucessfully fly this technology to the moon six times without any serious or life threatening problems .

Oh , and Bad Astronomy and clavius don't qualify as outside sources , as both web sites are directly connected to nasa with a particular agenda ... and we all know what that agenda is , don't we ? ..

If you know of any outside sources , not connected with nasa in any respect , who are able to verify their Apollo technology and extraordinary claims of landing six manned missions on the moon , then please post it here .

[Kevin M. West]

Could you give an example of someone who, if they stepped forward and said that the apollo program was legit, you would believe?

[Kevin M. West]

Hypothetical is fine, not even a specific real person. What source would you believe, a space contractor, a foreign government, what?

[Duane Daman]

Kevin ... The question should be not only who would I believe but why would I believe them ?

I would believe someone with absolutely no ties to nasa , who highly doubted the authenticity of the Apollo Program , was qualified to investigate and completely understand the technology which was involved and used by nasa for the Apollo missions , and was given anything they asked for from nasa as proof that this equipment could actually fly , land and then re-launch from the lunar surface , including all of the original blueprints ... and were also shown proof that the thin aluminum skin of the Apollo LM's and CSM's could have provided adequit protection against the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts , deep space and the completely radioactive lunar surface .

I would also want proof provided to this person or persons that the Apollo spacesuits and PLSS packs would have not only worked exactly as nasa claimed they did, but would have been adequit protection against the harsh environment of the moon , including the extreme temperature changes from hot to cold , and lunar radiation .

Then , if all of this were satisfied , I would want it explained to this person or persons why the Apollo photographs allegedy taken on the moon show absolutely no sign of damage from radiation exposure .... And if that couldn't be properly addressed or answered correctly , then be told the real reason why the Apollo photographs were faked on moon sets .