Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Mojo]

You're not supposed to admit that. Challenge it! What does zooterkin know? He's an admin, yes, but is he really intelligent enough to go against The Narrative? Question him! Search the internet for other points of views! Do your own research!

No, it's OK to be wrong about that as the correct answer fits the persecution complex.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Ah. My mistake.

In your defense, it got moved pretty fast. I didn't even see the thread myself until it was already in CT. Some patterns are just that predictable, though.

 

[The Common Potato]

Important news: Kerbal is £8.24, from Steam.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Important news: Kerbal is £8.24, from Steam.

You can use the savings to get therapy for what they did to Kerbal 2.

 

[junkshop]

Which one, the one you misread, or the 'similar' one?

Hello @Vixen, still waiting for an answer to this question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is simply point-scoring as
the argument was never 'being radioactive' but rather that being heavily exposed to radioactive matter is indeed highly hazardous to health. Your response highlights how a debater will often make a false claim about what the other party actually argued. (As a matter of fact people undergoing radiotherapy are often told to avoid being in close contact with pregnant women, so I'll let you look up why that particular advice is given, albeit was not one argued in that specific debate.)

This highlights a strong refusal to face factual evidence but instead to respond with an almost knee jerk reflex in an attempt to pretend the other party said something ridiculous.

You wrote the following:

OK, so the frogmen sprayed the capsule with 'chemicals' to 'kill the Moon germs'. Then they sloshed the astronauts inside with same. They got them to change clothes in case of 'Moon germs'. Are you serious?! Not a single mention of the extremely dangerous possibility of radiation..?

An older sibling and a friend as part of their (British) degrees, spent a year at Grenoble Uni in which they spent time with radioactive materials (Chemistry course). After EVERY session they had to undergo intensive decontamination and scrub downs. I can't remember the exact details now. This would have been a similar era - early to mid-70's - so you can't argue the dangers of radiation weren't known then. The thing is, the friend subsequently died young of bone cancer, still in 30's or 40's with small children, so it was incredibly sad. A child of my sibling was born with a birth defect, possibly congenital, and thankfully, easily rectified by surgery. Now, of course, we don't know it was because of the time spent at Grenoble but for NASA to believe 'germs' are the main problem makes me realise it's not serious. Spraying with chemicals indeed.

Well, that's one debating point.

Then you wrote, in regard to the recovery operations:

The Artemis II crew aren't stripped and redressed. As for radiation, I would have thought that was as big - if not more - a health concern for the individuals involved. Remember, two of the astronauts had been prancing about on the Moon.

Then, regarding a question about what you thought was suspicious about, again, the Apollo post-splashdown recovery operations:

Run a Geiger counter over it and them at the very least. Perhaps see if they light up green in the dark...

So you're lying again, just as surely as you lied about having casually snapped photos of the stars with a film camera. You were clearly stating your belief that exposure to radiation would have made the Apollo crews and their Command Modules a radiation hazard to the recovery crews. Who has the strong refusal to face factual evidence?

 

[Steve]

You wrote the following:

Then you wrote, in regard to the recovery operations:

Then, regarding a question about what you thought was suspicious about, again, the Apollo post-splashdown recovery operations:


So you're lying again, just as surely as you lied about having casually snapped photos of the stars with a film camera. You were clearly stating your belief that exposure to radiation would have made the Apollo crews and their Command Modules a radiation hazard to the recovery crews. Who has the strong refusal to face factual evidence?

Those posts you quoted are as obvious example of as we are ever likely to see here.

 

[zooterkin]

This is simply point-scoring as the argument was never 'being radioactive' but rather that being heavily exposed to radioactive matter is indeed highly hazardous to health. Your response highlights how a debater will often make a false claim about what the other party actually argued. (As a matter of fact people undergoing radiotherapy are often told to avoid being in close contact with pregnant women, so I'll let you look up why that particular advice is given, albeit was not one argued in that specific debate.)

< snip>

That last sentence is totally irrelevant. The reason why people undergoing radiotherapy (depending on the type) are advised to avoid other people is because they actually ingest radioactive substances (e.g. radioactive Iodine in the case of thyroid cancer), and so they are, for a short while, actually radioactive, and potentially a small risk to other people. That is completely different from the situation for the astronauts, who may have been exposed to radiation, not radioactive substances - there is nothing to be decontaminated.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That last sentence is totally irrelevant. The reason why people undergoing radiotherapy (depending on the type) are advised to avoid other people is because they actually ingest radioactive substances (e.g. radioactive Iodine in the case of thyroid cancer), and so they are, for a short while, actually radioactive, and potentially a small risk to other people. That is completely different from the situation for the astronauts, who may have been exposed to radiation, not radioactive substances - there is nothing to be decontaminated.

There you go again with your 'facts' and knowledge', just because something's factually correct and truthful doesn't mean it's right you know!

 

[threadworm]

And thanks to the dosimeters they wore, and the regular and documented readings taken from them, they knew exactl;y what level of contamination they had received inside the protective confines of their suits and/or spacecraft. They did not know with absolute certainty what other contamination they might have been exposed to, hence the quarantine.

While we're trying to persuade Vixen to return to the conversation she has apparently abandoned, here's a lovely picture of stars taken from the lunar surface. It's from Surveyor 7. Granted it is not a Hasselblad and film combination, but the 15 minute exposure of the solar corona just after sunset shows the impact Earthshine has on the image - that's what's illuminating the landscape bottom left, and how little of the celestial majesty people often assume would be so obvious is actually able to be recorded by the camera. On the lunar nearside you there is never a time when a very bright object is not illuminating the scene, and that is always going to interfere with what is a) visible and b) recordable.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here are two pictures, taken from earth, of the lunar eclipse on 3 March 2026. (When setting the time and date on my point-and-shoot camera, I must have specified PM instead of AM.) They have been cropped to show approximately the same area of the sky.

The exposures are similar: 1/13 second at f/5.0 at the start of the eclipse (reddish tinge at upper left of moon) and 1/8 second at f/6.3 approaching totality.

The first image is badly overexposed because 1/13s at f/5.0 is way too much exposure for an object that's in direct sunlight. It does, however, provide enough exposure to show moonshine illuminating that night's haze.

A similar exposure is about right for the second image because the moon is in earth's shadow, with most of the sunlight blocked by the earth and what little got through attenuated by the earth's atmosphere. There's no earthshine to speak of, because the dark side of the earth is facing the moon.

These images are cropped and reduced. In the uncropped, full-size images, Mars is visible in both and looks the same in both. No stars can be seen in either full-size image.

With the 15-minute exposure of the Surveyor 7 image posted by @threadworm, you can see stars as well as the planet Mercury. With a fraction of a second, as appropriate for objects on the moon's surface in full sunlight, you can't see stars.

 

[JayUtah]

That is completely different from the situation for the astronauts, who may have been exposed to radiation, not radioactive substances - there is nothing to be decontaminated.

The Van Allen belts are not a radioactive substance. They are simply radiation. Passing through them irradiates the visitor. It does not contaminate the visitor. Encountering something that has been irradiated requires no special handling, except maybe pick up the microwave popcorn bag by the edges as instructed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And thanks to the dosimeters they wore, and the regular and documented readings taken from them, they knew exactl;y what level of contamination they had received inside the protective confines of their suits and/or spacecraft. They did not know with absolute certainty what other contamination they might have been exposed to, hence the quarantine.

While we're trying to persuade Vixen to return to the conversation she has apparently abandoned, here's a lovely picture of stars taken from the lunar surface. It's from Surveyor 7. Granted it is not a Hasselblad and film combination, but the 15 minute exposure of the solar corona just after sunset shows the impact Earthshine has on the image - that's what's illuminating the landscape bottom left, and how little of the celestial majesty people often assume would be so obvious is actually able to be recorded by the camera. On the lunar nearside you there is never a time when a very bright object is not illuminating the scene, and that is always going to interfere with what is a) visible and b) recordable.

Other images taken of the lunar horizon ≈7 to ≈8 hours earlier, or when the sun's position was 3.5° - 4° earlier, show another cool phenomenon: electrostatic hopping of dust particles, seen here illuminated by sunlight from behind the horizon.

 

[Vixen]

The Van Allen belts are not a radioactive substance. They are simply radiation. Passing through them irradiates the visitor. It does not contaminate the visitor. Encountering something that has been irradiated requires no special handling, except maybe pick up the microwave popcorn bag by the edges as instructed.

From a recent Chinese research paper 2024:

Space radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health (1–3) as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may have late health effects such as induction of cataract (4), cancer (5–7), or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system (8) or other organ systems (9, 10). Moreover, exposure to large solar particle events (SPEs) in a situation with insufficient shielding may cause severe acute effects (11). The exposure to GCR is inevitable but generally contributes a low dose rate compared to the sporadic, unpredictable, but sometimes very intense SPEs in which solar energetic particles are accelerated close to the Sun by solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The nucleonic component of GCR consists mainly of protons (~87%), helium (~12%), and heavier nuclei (~1%) (12). These nuclei have very high energy and are therefore highly penetrating. Because of their single charge, protons are only weakly ionizing, and helium nuclei are four times more ionizing per nucleus. The remaining 1% of nuclei are high (H) atomic number (Z) and energy (E) elements (HZE) that contribute to radiation damage disproportionally according to the square of their nuclear charge, Z, resulting in very dense ionization along their tracks. Because of nuclear fragmentation and other complex interactions with matter, their exact effects on humans are uncertain but may be considerable (13, 14). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1334

From magazine article:

Researchers have determined that the surface of the Moon is highly radioactive due to a combination of factors.
The surface of the Moon is approximately two to three times as radioactive as the International Space Station, and up to 1,000 times as radioactive as the surface of Earth.
The data was gathered by the Chinese mission that landed on the far side of the Moon.
NASA and other space agencies around the world are planning on sending humans to the Moon sooner rather than later, but safety, as always, has to be a high priority. We already know that radiation in space is a serious concern, but new data reveals just how radioactive the surface of the Moon is.

As researchers report in a new paper in the journal Science Advances, the level of radiation on the lunar surface is up to three times that of the International Space Station, which is already an elevated level compared to the surface of Earth.

Read More: https://www.bgr.com/science/moon-radiation-exploration-levels/ https://www.bgr.com/science/moon-radiation-exploration-levels/

Please also refer to my post in which I made it clear what type of radiation hazard I was referring to:

• Post #2,284
• Jun 19, 2026

Jun 19, 2026

 

[Vixen]

BTW my reference to a Geiger Counter was a quip. But then you knew that.

 

[zooterkin]

The Van Allen belts are not a radioactive substance. They are simply radiation. Passing through them irradiates the visitor. It does not contaminate the visitor. Encountering something that has been irradiated requires no special handling, except maybe pick up the microwave popcorn bag by the edges as instructed.

I think you're agreeing with what I said.

 

[Steve]

"The cat came back,
the very next day.
The cat came back,
we thought it was a goner.
But the cat came back,
the very next daaaay."

 

[threadworm]

From a recent Chinese research paper 2024:



From magazine article:




Please also refer to my post in which I made it clear what type of radiation hazard I was referring to:

• Post #2,284
• Jun 19, 2026

Jun 19, 2026

No-one who knows what they're talking about is claiming radiation in space isn't a hazard.

No-one who knows what they're talking about is claiming this makes astronauts themselves a hazard.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... From magazine article:




Please also refer to my post in which I made it clear what type of radiation hazard I was referring to:

• Post #2,284
• Jun 19, 2026

Jun 19, 2026

Did you just glance at the magazine article or did you read the paper it refers to?

The magazine says the surface of the moon is "highly radioactive". The paper it refers to does not say that.

Do you see that the magazine's writer has made the same mistake you did in post #2,284, of conflating radiation with radioactive materials? The paper talks about cosmic rays and solar particles irradiating objects or people on the surface of the moon. The magazine writer imagines that's the same thing as the moon itself being radioactive - i.e. radiation coming from the moon itself, raising a hazard of radioactive moondust contamination. That is not what the paper says.

Did you notice this error? Was all of this just another quip? I can't tell.

 

[Foster Zygote]

BTW my reference to a Geiger Counter was a quip. But then you knew that.

A "quip" based on your obvious belief that exposure to radiation would have made the Apollo crews themselves a radiation hazard to others upon their return to earth. That was the basis of your whole argument. You were derisive of the idea of taking biological decontamination measures without taking radiation protection measures.

Was this a quip as well?

"OK, so the frogmen sprayed the capsule with 'chemicals' to 'kill the Moon germs'. Then they sloshed the astronauts inside with same. They got them to change clothes in case of 'Moon germs'. Are you serious?! Not a single mention of the extremely dangerous possibility of radiation..?"

You're just doing what you've done many times in the past - get something fundamental to the subject completely wrong in an attempt to sound knowledgeable, then get corrected, then lie about having meant what you actually said.