Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

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.

She doesn't care, she won't take any notice of your post, or any other.
It's like Donald repeating the same stuff in every speech and interview. Nothing ever changes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She doesn't care, she won't take any notice of your post, or any other.
It's like Donald repeating the same stuff in every speech and interview. Nothing ever changes.

The moon is a communist. And it hasn't stopped any wars.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

That's the post I just quoted above. Do you not know how to link to a post?

That's the post where you talk about people you know having to have gone through decontamination after exposure to radioactive materials to justify your incredulity that they didn't take such precautions during the recovery operations. It was then explained to you that you're anecdotal examples involved people taking precautions against the possibility of a physical part of said radioactive materials, no matter how small, being carried out with them, because if it remains on them it will continue emitting particles and will burn them, and it will be even worse if it becomes ingested or inhaled into their bodies, and that exposure to just the radiation carries no such risk. The Apollo crews and their spacecraft were exposed to radiation, but not radioactive materials that they could have brought back with them.

So what is your point in referring us to that post?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Yeah duh sure they glow green in the dark _

 

[Vixen]

That's the post I just quoted above. Do you not know how to link to a post?

That's the post where you talk about people you know having to have gone through decontamination after exposure to radioactive materials to justify your incredulity that they didn't take such precautions during the recovery operations. It was then explained to you that you're anecdotal examples involved people taking precautions against the possibility of a physical part of said radioactive materials, no matter how small, being carried out with them, because if it remains on them it will continue emitting particles and will burn them, and it will be even worse if it becomes ingested or inhaled into their bodies, and that exposure to just the radiation carries no such risk. The Apollo crews and their spacecraft were exposed to radiation, but not radioactive materials that they could have brought back with them.

So what is your point in referring us to that post?

I was refuting your claim that I had a belief that coming into contact with radiation makes you radioactive.

As I said it creates a potential health hazard.

Please acknowledge the following:

Science
Space
The Moon's Surface Is Heavily Radioactive
By Mike Wehner Sept. 25, 2020 10:10 pm EST

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

Compared to Earth, astronauts who travel to the Moon would have to endure up to 1,000 times as much radiation as we experience on Earth. That's extremely significant, even for short-term stays, and it's a factor that hasn't been well accounted for. The radiation comes as a combination of radiation from space in the form of cosmic rays and solar radiation as well as the interaction of that radiation with the surface of the Moon.

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

As is well-documented, populations who live in areas with large amounts of underlying granite - such as Devon or Cornwall or Finland - have higher levels of cancer than those that do not and this has been attributed to the granite's inherent radioactivity, albeit relatively low level.

Simply dousing the Apollo 11 crew with antiseptic and then supposedly putting them in quarantine for three weeks is surely a dereliction of a duty of care? Unless of course...

 

[JayUtah]

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

You were specifically comparing it to contamination protocols. That is appropriate only to contamination. There was no contamination on the Apollo spacecraft. You don’t understand the difference between contamination and irradiation.

 

[Vixen]

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.
View attachment 72997

I am looking at these pics with great interest.

Please can you now acknowledge that when in shadow on the Moon, it is pitch black? For the avoidance of doubt, 'pitch black' meaning there are no gradations of grey or grey scale, as we see on Earth due to our atmosphere. Please provide a simple 'yes' or 'no' with no 'it depends' or other qualifiers.

Yes or no?


(Take a deep breath, be brave...you can do it!)

 

[JayUtah]

As I said it creates a potential health hazard.

From the effects of irradiation, not from contamination.

Simply dousing the Apollo 11 crew with antiseptic and then supposedly putting them in quarantine for three weeks is surely a dereliction of a duty of care?

Are you now a doctor as well as a health physicist?

You specifically drew the parallel between what you thought should have been done to the Apollo spacecraft and the decontamination protocols your friends needed for contact with radioactive materials.

 

[JayUtah]

I am looking at these pics with great interest.

Was Marcus Allen’s expectation of seeing stars in Apollo photos reasonable according to the facts?

Yes or no.

 

[zooterkin]

I was refuting your claim that I had a belief that coming into contact with radiation makes you radioactive.

As I said it creates a potential health hazard.

Please acknowledge the following:

Science
Space
The Moon's Surface Is Heavily Radioactive
By Mike Wehner Sept. 25, 2020 10:10 pm EST

As Jack by the Hedge has already pointed out, that headline is wrong. The paper the article is based on says no such thing.

 

[Vixen]

You were specifically comparing it to contamination protocols. That is appropriate only to contamination. There was no contamination on the Apollo spacecraft. You don’t understand the difference between contamination and irradiation.

The guys were frolicking about on the Moon whose surface is highly radioactive (cf recent Chinese study, as quoted, above). Given the fancy footprints, it indicates high quantities of this highly radioactive dust. Of course as a NASA health care specialist you would be concerned about all of this.

...unless of course you knew there wasn't any contamination...because...<cough>

 

[Vixen]

Was Marcus Allen’s expectation of seeing stars in Apollo photos reasonable according to the facts?

Yes or no.

As soon as Foster Zygote answers my question we will come to that.

 

[Steve]

The guys were frolicking about on the Moon whose surface is highly radioactive (cf recent Chinese study, as quoted, above). Given the fancy footprints, it indicates high quantities of this highly radioactive dust. Of course as a NASA health care specialist you would be concerned about all of this.

...unless of course you knew there wasn't any contamination...because...<cough>

 

[zooterkin]

The guys were frolicking about on the Moon whose surface is highly radioactive (cf recent Chinese study, as quoted, above). Given the fancy footprints, it indicates high quantities of this highly radioactive dust. Of course as a NASA health care specialist you would be concerned about all of this.

...unless of course you knew there wasn't any contamination...because...<cough>

Unless you made a basic error, the same as the journalist, and are unable to understand the difference between radioactivity and exposure to radiation.

Human exploration of the Moon is associated with substantial risks to astronauts from space radiation. On the surface of the Moon, this consists of the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays and sporadic solar particle events.

There is no mention of radioactivity in the paper.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1334

 

[zooterkin]

I am looking at these pics with great interest.

Please can you now acknowledge that when in shadow on the Moon, it is pitch black?

Is what pitch black?

If you're in daylight on the moon, then no, most shadows will not be 'pitch black' since there will be light scattered from all the surfaces around, as well as, potentially, earth light.

But what does the darkness of shadows have to do with whether stars will be visible in photos taken with the known settings used by the Apollo 11 astronauts?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Reading the journal article cited, the takeaway is that outside of severe solar events, the dosage in μGy/hour for a three day stay on the lunar day side is equivalent to a little over a week on the ISS. A typical stay aboard the ISS is ~6 months, with over fifty people having accumulated over a year in LEO.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am looking at these pics with great interest.

Please can you now acknowledge that when in shadow on the Moon, it is pitch black? For the avoidance of doubt, 'pitch black' meaning there are no gradations of grey or grey scale, as we see on Earth due to our atmosphere. Please provide a simple 'yes' or 'no' with no 'it depends' or other qualifiers.

Yes or no?


(Take a deep breath, be brave...you can do it!)

No.

In this thread we have been shown at least one example of a moon photograph showing a boulder with shadowed areas within which details can be seen.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

A question...

Is irradiated the same as radioactive?

Just asking for a friend...

 

[JayUtah]

The guys were frolicking about on the Moon whose surface is highly radioactive (cf recent Chinese study, as quoted, above).

No.

The lunar surface is not inherently radioactive. The lunar surface emits secondary radiation as the result of being bombarded by solar radiation and GCR.

Given the fancy footprints, it indicates high quantities of this highly radioactive dust.

No.

The dust isn't radioactive. The dust produces secondary radiation by being itself irradiated. Once you stop irradiating the dust (i.e., by bringing it inside the ship) it stops producing secondary radiation.

Of course as a NASA health care specialist you would be concerned about all of this.

Which is why they took precautions consistent with a proper understanding of the actual problem.

...unless of course you knew there wasn't any contamination...because...<cough>

Yes, we get it. You keep hinting that Apollo was faked without having the courage to just come right out and claim as much and take intellectual responsibility for the claim.

 

[JayUtah]

As soon as Foster Zygote answers my question we will come to that.

No.

I have asked you several times now you support your endorsement of Marcus Allen's claims despite your own admissions to the contrary.

Was it reasonable according to the facts for Marcus Allen to expect to see stars in Apollo 11 photos?

YES OR NO.