Defending the Truth

I'll second that.

He still hasn't refuted the evidence I presented that exposed him as a Soviet impostor, by the way. Perhaps he suffers from cognitive dissonance.

Yep. All he is doing rambling on about us without wanting to engage us directly in a debate.

During July 1969, the time of the Apollo 11 flight, there were a total of 489 solar flare emissions. Dancing between the raindrops indeed.

This is a pretty meaningless statistic without information on the intensities involved. There are solar flares all the time, but not many are energetic enough to be a hazard.

In July 1969 there were 33 flares energetic enough to be measured in X-ray wavelengths (source). There were none energetic enough to be measured as a Solar Proton Event. Although I cannot find an authoritative source for the risk involved, it is possible to make an estimate of around 3% chance of exceeding 1 sievert (see accompanying page). Hardly "dancing between the raindrops."

The public is blissfully unaware of the risk factors and Russian roulette that must have gone on.

This is true. Solar flare hazard was one area NASA was unable to make adequate provision of backup options - they just had to hope they wouldn't get badly hit.

The evidence shows the moon missions were faked and you people are playing dumb.

Rules of Disinformation
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The fluttering flag closes the whole case.

One of the regular posters at Clavius and Bad Astronomy made this video to try to debunk it.

Read comment #75 by michaelstmark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Green', Bert's neat analysis has also inadvertently debunked the electrostatics attraction theory, by illustrating the flag moving very fractionally outwards in a bow wave effect just before the astronaut arrives - exactly as it does in the scaled-down atmosphere model demo' on AAM.

All credit to you again for spotting the anomalous flag move in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once people actually see the evidence, there's nothing you can do to make them think they really went to the moon.

What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1

Part 2

Was it Only a Paper Moon? (documentary)

This was on television.

Conspiracy theorist tactic; avoid debate, sense, and real evidence and continue reposting dubious internet videos.

It seems you attempt to fit the evidence around your conclusion, not the other way around, Scott. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Scott, speak about yourself on this boring game of yours.

I concur 100% with you, Kat. I don't know why he won't engage in a direct debate over this thread. He's had a few chances to do so, so like I said before, his posts means nothing.

Just because a flag moves in space doesn't make it fake, Scott!

The evidence?

You mean like the telescope in Britain that actually tracked Apollo 11's progress, right down to when it landed on the moon?