[iHahaha Caught Red Handed Actornaughts using Wires and Harness's.this video [url=https://youtu.be/pKPKDabZcucExposes Their Fakery[/url These Freemasonic actors should be locked up. And you NASA apologists have the cheek to call me gullible.. [/i [iIf you dismiss this footage well the Goverment has done a fine job on you[/i.

[iWay Hay more ad hominem.. Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards.

To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment here on Earth in your kitchen (you can see the results online without risking damage to your home equipment) by placing a CD or DVD in the microwave oven and turning that on for a few seconds. The same thing that happened to that disk in the oven will occur much more violently in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Simply put, if the circuit boards get fried and radio signals torn to shreds by the radiological fields then how can man, probe or anything get through? Of course the NASA moles are made up mostly of sun's energy deniers that think the belts are just a minor inconvenience with negligible effects on man, radio signals and electronic circuitry because that it the fastest means to line their pockets with public treasure. Now observe the desperation of the moles as they twist this post and it's meaning every which way they can. It's worth a good laugh observing them at work foaming at the mouth denying elementary physics[/i.

[iSo. While i'm on a roll. Lets carry on exposing more NASA Bull. For those readers unfamiliar with my claims from other threads here i will expose more of the way the deep space hoax works:

First I believe they never launched a rocket from the surface of the earth into low orbit or anywhere beyond with people on board. The only real part is the glorified firework lifting off the pad. Empty capsules everytime. How do they do that you may ask justifiably? Well, they film the crews going into the capsule in a studio and broadcast this as if it were live. Then they launch the rocket firework and when we see the minute viewing of it's telemetry curving out of sight it simply falls back to earth in the deserted ocean somewhere all frizzled out. whilst the missions are faked in studio's and with pre-recorded audio tracks people are made to believe originate from deep space.

Now, when the time comes for re-entry the hoaxsters load the Masonic Actoronauts in a capsule on earth, load that onto a Starlifter-type high altitude cargo plane and they drop that out of the back of the aircraft to simulate re-entry. This is a good reason why all the night time re-entries were shifted over to the Pacific ocean from the Atlantic ocean. The hoaxsters needed to have a firm control over the potential witnesses to this forgery. If they had planned the night time re-entry over the United States for a splashdown in the Atlantic the gig would have been outed instantly. By placing the night time e-entry hoax in the middle of the Pacific they could control the potential for masses of eyewitnesses to the deception.

What about that so-called radio silence upon re-entry? We are told this is the effect of ionization caused by the friction of the capsules re-entering the atmosphere. I don't buy it. When did they ever show the public a spectrum analysis of the ionic trail left in the wake of those capsules or any other object burning up in the atmosphere? I estimate the radio silence is caused by the fear the hoaxsters have that the public would hear the rumble of the high altitude aircraft engines in the background. No doubt Ferociouse Aardvaark or his sidekick TheButcher will bellow their usual cranial ramblings. Reading their abuse filled rhetoric babble is equivalent to listening to a hamster gnawing at the metal nib of its cage or water bottle all night long.[/i

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iWay Hay more ad hominem.'" You really should look up what "ad hominem" means. You propund many claims and theories which are delusional. Maybe in every other respect of your functioning you are not delusional - I wouldn't know - but I am only commenting on what you say. You propound delusions. In that respect, you are delusional. That much is just stating the same thing in a different way. It is hardly "ad hominem". It is simply calling a delusion a delusion. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards. '" Actually, to have an understanding of the Van Allen belts, you do firstly need a very deep understanding of the science involved, and the theory, and secondly you are much helped by actual craft, unmanned and manned, then travelling through said belts, and actual readings being taken. One of the problems with you coming up with such a delusional and frankly childish summary is because you aren't actually interested in the facts, you want to pick some superficial "it's obvious innit" madcap point which you can then pin to your head and claim it supercedes all intelligent discussion. But it doesn't. I have read much about the Van Allen belts issue, and that includes claims and science, from both sides. You, on the other hand, haven't. I have considered both the claims made by madcap theorists and hoax proponents, which in the light of the science, all unravel almost immediately, but that is because I have read about the subject and learned enough to be able to say that your theory is asinine rubbish. You will not consider ANYTHING unless it fits your preconceptions, and that is the only reason you could cut'n'paste such childish drivel. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment...'" No, you absolutely can't, you only claim to THINK you can. The scientific analysis is detailed, thorough, exacting and precise. As such, those far better qualified than me to carry out the science and to explain it in words we can understand, have thankfully and painstakingly done this already. You COULD have considered this sort of cold hard factual evidence, but you never do, as you don't want to know. But for anyone who wants to understand the actual facts, here is a rather long and rather detailed inch by inch fact by fact exposition of the actual truth of the matter. I know Stan has no interest in it and will dismiss it without looking as just another reptilian sheeple or something, but he cannot argue against it so that will do for me. Knock yourself out, Stan, and when you are qualified to explain to us where Mr. Braeunig is in error, please do feel free to publish your corrections www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iWay Hay more ad hominem.'" You really should look up what "ad hominem" means. You propund many claims and theories which are delusional. Maybe in every other respect of your functioning you are not delusional - I wouldn't know - but I am only commenting on what you say. You propound delusions. In that respect, you are delusional. That much is just stating the same thing in a different way. It is hardly "ad hominem". It is simply calling a delusion a delusion. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards. '" Actually, to have an understanding of the Van Allen belts, you do firstly need a very deep understanding of the science involved, and the theory, and secondly you are much helped by actual craft, unmanned and manned, then travelling through said belts, and actual readings being taken. One of the problems with you coming up with such a delusional and frankly childish summary is because you aren't actually interested in the facts, you want to pick some superficial "it's obvious innit" madcap point which you can then pin to your head and claim it supercedes all intelligent discussion. But it doesn't. I have read much about the Van Allen belts issue, and that includes claims and science, from both sides. You, on the other hand, haven't. I have considered both the claims made by madcap theorists and hoax proponents, which in the light of the science, all unravel almost immediately, but that is because I have read about the subject and learned enough to be able to say that your theory is asinine rubbish. You will not consider ANYTHING unless it fits your preconceptions, and that is the only reason you could cut'n'paste such childish drivel. Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment...'" No, you absolutely can't, you only claim to THINK you can. The scientific analysis is detailed, thorough, exacting and precise. As such, those far better qualified than me to carry out the science and to explain it in words we can understand, have thankfully and painstakingly done this already. You COULD have considered this sort of cold hard factual evidence, but you never do, as you don't want to know. But for anyone who wants to understand the actual facts, here is a rather long and rather detailed inch by inch fact by fact exposition of the actual truth of the matter. I know Stan has no interest in it and will dismiss it without looking as just another reptilian sheeple or something, but he cannot argue against it so that will do for me. Knock yourself out, Stan, and when you are qualified to explain to us where Mr. Braeunig is in error, please do feel free to publish your corrections www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

PS, given that you now strenuously advance the existence of the Van Allen belts - how come, if we aren't on a globe, it has belts?
Just sayin' ...

Not a bit, Stan, that's comedy platinum perfectly good enough to stand on its own three alien feet, I couldn't make it funnier if I tried

[iThe Van Allen Belts exist on any model. Durrh[/i

The Van Allen layer/s using your flat Earth ....

So Twelve actornauts whilst on the Moon’s surface took =#800000[i[ua TOTAL of 5771 exposures. [/u[/iHere is an astonishing actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:
[i
Apollo 11…......121 Apollo 12…..... 504 Apollo 14….....374 Apollo 15….....1021 Apollo 16….....1765 Apollo 17….......1986[/i
[i
That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the actornauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:[/i
[i
Apollo 11…...1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes…...(151 minutes) Apollo 12…...2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes…...(470 minutes) Apollo 14....2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes…...(565 minutes) Apollo 15…...3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16.....3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17….....3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)[/i

=#BF0000[i[uTotal minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos[/u[/i.

[iHmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:[/i
[i
Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.[/i

[iApollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.[/i
[i
Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.
[/i
[iApollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to [/i

[iApollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)[/i
[i
Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to [/i
[i[u
Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:
[/u[/i
[iApollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos[/i
=#BF0000[i
So do the math:[/i
[i
Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes….....3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes….....2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes….....0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes….....1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …....2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …....2.35 photos per minute[/i

=#800000[i[uOr, to put it more simply:[/u[/i

[iApollo 11….....one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12….....one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14….....one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15….....one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16….....one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17….....one photo every 26 seconds
[/i
[iSo you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?[/i
[i
Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible…made even more so by all the documented activities of the actoronauts. Imagine…1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon - that’s one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Nobody went to the Moon. It's truly One of the greatest hoaxes ever?[/i

Stanley, ive debunked every silly conspiracy theory you have come up with. I make it 3-0 to me. Ready for round 4? Ding ding.

You are talking about shadows on the moon. I would have thought that an educated man such as yourself would know primary school science and that light behaves differently within the earths atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere so relfection would be different. I know, I know, we shouldnt believe what we are taught as its all lies. What about the rocks that were brought back, rocks that every single scientist who has examined them has agreed, are non terrestrial in origin? Are they all in on it? Dont say they are from meteorites, the first one wasnt dicovered until about 30 years later.

Do you know how many people were involved in the moon landings? About half a million people. If they were fake, how would you keep that many people quiet. All the idiots claiming they were faked, were not involved in the project (and please dont link to some kid on youtube who claims he has a "source" at nasa, no he doesnt)

Stanley is on the ropes, think I will deliver the knock out blow......the moon landing was at the height of the cold war, if it was faked, why did the russians not dispute it. Goodnight

Regards

King James

As though the astronauts where taking a photo every minute and interfering with other tasks ... bullcrap.
First there was two of them, secondly they took them in bursts and thirdly all the hard work on camera settings had been done on Earth.
Next!

You'd have be moaning like fook If they'd have taken too few.

Besides instead of cutting and pasting every single hoax claim to do with the moon landings, why don't you just type 'moon landing hoax claims debunked' into your browser and leave us alone Stan?
You know like cutting out the middlemen.

He wasn't saying they were taking photos every minuet they were on the moon, quite the opposite he was actually saying it is impossible to take a photo every minuet they were there, given the amount of photo's per mission and the total time they were there, which they would have to have done if they really went to the moon. Proved by the cold hard math he has just posted, they never went to the moon.
As stated any professional photographer would tell you given the space suits and gloves they were wearing and the other activity's and travel time upto 30 miles in some instances was IMPOSSIBLE

Go and stand in the corner with a coned hat on.
Are you telling me that pressing shutters while wearing a spacesuit was overlooked in training?
And it wasn't impossible was it, because they did it despite your dodgy maths.

'Any professional photographer would tell you' ...PMSL

Look I will spell it out for you ... they divide the total time by the number of photos to get an average time per photo.
A minute, say, disregarding two astronauts, now this totally disregards how the photos would have been taken in practice ...in bursts leaving time for other things.
Do I have to do that for you too?
By IMPLYING by statistics that on average they are involved in taking a photo every minute GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT there is no time for anything else ... but that is nonsense.

Forget setting scenes, apertures and the like. It was point and shoot photography, quick and simple.

I know it is an average......
But give over you say they were taking bursts of photos? Maybe they were but not bursts of 20 or 30 in a second i mean what would be the point? 30 images of the same thing......

But, but, but, they were wearing the wrong shoes God damn it.

Game, set and match.

You are not quite getting the idea of this ... substitute the word batches for bursts and imagine the
astronauts moving a bit like you would taking photos in real life.
Imagine them taking a load in a five /ten minute period and then doing something else for half an hour.
Then imagine two of them doing this to get twice as many photos.
You can't imagine that?
Because some lamebrain tells you it is not possible?
I bet you wouldn't put money on it in a real life scenario?

AND, I know I keep ploughing this furrow .... IF it was a hoax, do you really think they would leg themselves up by producing too many photos?
Really?

Sadly for the deluded, and the increasingly desperate ramblings, all the photographs are exhaustively catalogued, indexed and timed. For example, have a look at the Apollo 11 image library https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html What a bummer when your "BIG" point about the images turns out to be such utter, utter nonsense. Demonstrable, incontrovertibly nonsensical fallacy. This has got easier than I imagine shooting fish in a barrel would be.

Sadly for the deluded, and the increasingly desperate ramblings, all the photographs are exhaustively catalogued, indexed and timed. For example, have a look at the Apollo 11 image library https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html What a bummer when your "BIG" point about the images turns out to be such utter, utter nonsense. Demonstrable, incontrovertibly nonsensical fallacy. This has got easier than I imagine shooting fish in a barrel would be.

So to précis, the hoaxers are saying that the Apollo fakers were both cunningly clever and devious (smart cookies) and fooking thick as pig at the same time to overlook these glaring 'discrepancies'.
Cake and eat it?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Sadly for the deluded, and the increasingly desperate ramblings, all the photographs are exhaustively catalogued, indexed and timed. For example, have a look at the Apollo 11 image library https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html What a bummer when your "BIG" point about the images turns out to be such utter, utter nonsense. Demonstrable, incontrovertibly nonsensical fallacy. This has got easier than I imagine shooting fish in a barrel would be.'" They were all faked. That's all you will get ...along of course with some hahahahahahahas! Some of those pictures are wonderful. I'm surprised nobody has commented to the effect that how could that bacofoil thing fly? Why it's not even aerodynamic!

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Sadly for the deluded, and the increasingly desperate ramblings, all the photographs are exhaustively catalogued, indexed and timed. For example, have a look at the Apollo 11 image library https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html What a bummer when your "BIG" point about the images turns out to be such utter, utter nonsense. Demonstrable, incontrovertibly nonsensical fallacy. This has got easier than I imagine shooting fish in a barrel would be.'" They were all faked. That's all you will get ...along of course with some hahahahahahahas! Some of those pictures are wonderful. I'm surprised nobody has commented to the effect that how could that bacofoil thing fly? Why it's not even aerodynamic!

YES!! That's exactly what they think! That when deciding how many fake photos to fake, "THEY" never gave a moment's thought to HOW MANY! The reason is because THEY thought they were smart, but were nowhere near as smart as Stan and his peers, who are waaaaay smarter.

So for example they mad a movie set with "studio lighting" all round and it never occurred to them that, as they were pretending to be on the Moon, they should be reproducing the illumination on the Moon! Hah! Dumb, eh?

And they "forgot" to put in the stars! (They forgot to do that multiple times - it so happens they forgot to do it in EVERY dark sky moon surface image! Every one! Totally slipped their minds! ) And ... the spooks controllers ALSO never noticed when approving the final fakes for release! How dumb were they?

But wait ... IIRC Stan recently explained they left the stars out because their planetarium technology at the time wasn't up to the job, or something. So (depending which day you ask him) it may be they omitted the stars DELIBERATELY. They realised they couldn't accurately do it - and so presumably just hoped no-one would ever notice!

Duhh!

That's why I love this thread, there are real comedy gems every day, but the joke is how could anyone be so gullible as to swallow this stuff whole -especially as it has been so copiously and thoroughly debunked over decades. Plus, Stan is certainly trolling, at least part of the time, but his trolling is so bad, it's hilarious

"THEY" were - it turns out - exceedingly stupid - blithering idiots, even - because there was NO aspect of ANYTHING they did that doesn't scream "obvious fake" if you KNOW about these things

Certainly would put all my money on the fact we never went to the moon.
That would make me very very rich.
Maybe rich enough to be a 'MASON' myself


It is a hoax and they have 'legged themselves up' with loads of things not just photos there are discrepancy's in just about everything they have released to do with the moon landings of which a lot of it has been posted on this thread, and IF im not wrong and you carn't prove i am and man did go to the moon then these discrepancy's simply would not exist in the first place.

To me you just seem to be here to pick arguments and tell me i'm 'dumb' because i don't believe the same bull shyster you do.

DON'T FORGET you only believe man went to the moon because you have been told they have.
I on the other hand don't believe man went to the moon, as i DON'T believe EVERYTHING i get told.
I mean would the worlds governments and the super rich would not have an agenda against me at all? i mean i am 'DUMB' so they should be able to manipulate me any which way they want right?

[iHahaha i like your sense of humour. Very funny assumptions. Claiming victories when i've never debated such a monarchist. You deserve the parrot of the year award obviously Runner Up to Ferocious Aardvark. Nobody has debunked me on here[/i


The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

Stan - you wanted a real photo of a satellite, here ya go This addresses many of your wacky claims in a neat package 1. It's a photo of the ISS, taken through the main observation window 2. It shows a real astronaut in real space surviving in a real spacesuit 3. He and the ISS are orbiting the Earth, which is curved as it is a globe; the curved horizon is behind the astronaut, and any artificial curve produced by (eg) fisheye or very wide lens would distort the astronaut and make him appear curved. But he's not. 4. He is pictured working at the EXPOSE-E experiment. This contains Antarctic fungi collected from Antarctica’s McMurdo Dry Valleys. Of course, if Antarctica didn't exist, their presence would be difficult. The experiment tested their durability in space conditions and in Martian conditions and the fungi remarkably survived, You can read the article here: astronomy.com/news/2016/02/antar ... ons-on-iss So, in one shot, an astronaut in space, a working spacesuit, a globe, and Antarctic lifeforms. Will that suffice, or would you like more?

Stan - you wanted a real photo of a satellite, here ya go This addresses many of your wacky claims in a neat package 1. It's a photo of the ISS, taken through the main observation window 2. It shows a real astronaut in real space surviving in a real spacesuit 3. He and the ISS are orbiting the Earth, which is curved as it is a globe; the curved horizon is behind the astronaut, and any artificial curve produced by (eg) fisheye or very wide lens would distort the astronaut and make him appear curved. But he's not. 4. He is pictured working at the EXPOSE-E experiment. This contains Antarctic fungi collected from Antarctica’s McMurdo Dry Valleys. Of course, if Antarctica didn't exist, their presence would be difficult. The experiment tested their durability in space conditions and in Martian conditions and the fungi remarkably survived, You can read the article here: astronomy.com/news/2016/02/antar ... ons-on-iss So, in one shot, an astronaut in space, a working spacesuit, a globe, and Antarctic lifeforms. Will that suffice, or would you like more?