• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

It seems to me, they are trying to make it look as close to the Apollo recoveries as possible.

NB: Please note, this is a proposition for debating purposes.
Well it's certainly not a proposition based on you knowing the first thing about how to actually properly plan a water recovery like that. But do tell, how might you think a procedure like that could vary? Maybe have trained dolphins involved?
 
I can imagine the whole population of earth would have been mightily reassured if, in 1969, you had been the spokesperson NASA put forth to explain why they had decided not to bother with any quarantine for the first humans to return from visiting another celestial body.
The thinking at the time was that there was a very low probability of bioactive organisms or substances on the Moon, but that if there were any we would have no natural protection against them. This is debatable. For risk analysis purposes, it falls into the category of the failure effect dominating the thinking over and above the failure mode. Once a study of lunar surface material proved the Moon to be sterile, the failure mode probability dropped effectively to zero.
 
That's exactly why very early lunar morning was chosen. Any other time would have seen extremes of temperature in which their blood would have boiled or, conversely, frozen solid. But the direction of light isn't affected by heat. So the angle of sunlight on the Moon is exactly the same as on the Earth; i.e., 15° on the Earth is 15° on the Moon, or on Mars or on Planet X. (Assuming a perfect globe, ceteris paribus.)
You obviously have some serious misconceptions about thermodynamics in an atmosphere vs. a vacuum. And you still either don't understand the differences an atmosphere makes as far as sunlight is concerned, especially early or late in the day, or you're just too obstinate to admit you are wrong.

If your goal is genuinely to display to people who have been learning about space flight, and in some cases teaching the relevant science for decades how thoroughly learned you are regarding a subject you've only just begun to even think about, you're failing miserably. You're too ignorant to even understand how fundamentally wrong you are with statements like the above quote.

On the other hand, if you're goal is simply to make yourself the center of attention through simple, stubborn contrarianism, then...
george-bush-mission-accomplished-2007.jpg-copy.jpg
 
Last edited:
They went through up to 20,000 miles of extreme radiation aka the Van Allen belts in a thin-walled aluminium spacecraft, and also stepped on a highly irradiated Moon surface. It is a wonder they lived to a ripe old age, with Aldrin still going strong in his 90's.
There's more radiation at the stack of bananas at the supermarket. Still waiting for the produce guy to die of radiation poisoning. Same with the Bananeros of Central America who pick them. Where are those deaths from radiation? Or is it possible you don't understand radiation at any level...by choice as it has been explained to you at least nine times in this thread.
 
There's more radiation at the stack of bananas at the supermarket. Still waiting for the produce guy to die of radiation poisoning. Same with the Bananeros of Central America who pick them. Where are those deaths from radiation? Or is it possible you don't understand radiation at any level...by choice as it has been explained to you at least nine times in this thread.
On earth we take a certain level of background radiation for granite.
 
On earth we take a certain level of background radiation for granite.
In 8th grade science we got to play with a Geiger counter, and the only thing more fun than checking the variations in background radiation was later freaking out our slower friends with our new-found information.

edited to add: That was the class where we made model rockets, and launched them. I got extra credit for sending away for an application to the space shuttle program. Also, one of the kids built the Estes Space Shuttle kit, and launched it successfully. The orbiter detached and glided back to the ground just as it was designed to do. Then a year later NASA launched the real thing, and it was kind of anti-climatic.

Science works, kids.
 
Last edited:
In 8th grade science we got to play with a Geiger counter, and the only thing more fun than checking the variations in background radiation was later freaking out our slower friends with our new-found information.
"OMG! The carrots and sunflower seeds in your lunchbox are HOT! Your parents are trying to kill you! RUN! CPS!!"
 
They went through up to 20,000 miles of extreme radiation aka the Van Allen belts in a thin-walled aluminium spacecraft, and also stepped on a highly irradiated Moon surface. It is a wonder they lived to a ripe old age, with Aldrin still going strong in his 90's.
Continuing to repeat the above doesn't make it any less ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. It doesn't hide your ignorance of the subject.
 
And "blood boiling" isn't really a problem associated with the sun, as far as space flight is concerned.
By the time of the first lunar landing, humans had already conducted a number of spacewalks in full sunlight. The danger to bodily fluids arises from exposure to hard vacuum, which would have the same effects regardless of whether the sun is visible.
 
By the time of the first lunar landing, humans had already conducted a number of spacewalks in full sunlight. The danger to bodily fluids arises from exposure to hard vacuum, which would have the same effects regardless of whether the sun is visible.
Back when I was doing planetarium presentations, my favorite part was the question and answer sessions. With younger school groups, I'd often get the question (usually from a boy) about people exploding in a vacuum. There would be mild disappointment when I'd say "no, that doesn't happen", but they'd all snap alert when I'd go on with, "it's so much worse than that!". It provided a good opportunity to explain some science regarding pressure and boiling point - about how the boiling temperature goes down as atmospheric pressure goes down, and asking them to think about what would happen to fluids at 98.6°F if the pressure suddenly dropped to zero. It sure got their attention. Science can be fun. And when you're an adolescent boy, especially, gruesome is fun.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom