• 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

Foster Zygote said:
How much higher is their cancer risk? You never quantize anything when you need to. You trot out "RADIATION" in scare quotes as though the mere mention of the word means certain death.
Click to expand...
We've come to call this the Radiation Boogey-Man Argument.

Foster Zygote said:
And now you're back to arguing what you just said you weren't arguing. Explain, specifically, what their duty should have been upon recovery of the crews regarding radiation.
Click to expand...
Correct: the focus was indeed initially on what the recovery swimmers were supposed to have been doing at the time to deal with the supposed risk of radiation. The explicit comparison to a laboratory decontamination procedure illustrates the obvious confusion.

Trying to convert it to concern over the astronauts' health following the mission simply falls flat. None of that has anything to do with what the rescue swimmers were doing. Concerns for the astronauts' health with regards to actual exposure were addressed with two different kinds of dosimeters. And the astronauts were quarantined along with a doctor to help assess and address any acute affects from any medical condition including radiation exposure.
 
Foster Zygote said:
You did a poor job of the refutation, because the post you reference, along with other posts you made, make it clear that you thought that the Navy recovery crews should have been worried about radiation exposure from the Apollo spacecraft and crews.

You inadvertently exposed your ignorance of physics, and now you're trying to weasel out of what you said, because you can never be wrong about anything.

To the astronauts exposed to the cislunar environment. But you were clearly of the belief that the astronauts themselves would have posed a radiation hazard to the Navy personnel after their return to earth. You thought your anecdote about decontamination after exposure to radioactive materials was proof that the recovery crews should have been exercising the same precautions.

Who is Mike Wehner? Is he a physicist? All we know is that he wrote an article for an online magazine based on a journal publication, and that his sensationalist headline is already problematic because it refers to the moon as "radioactive", not to mention the vague yet dramatic use of the word "heavily". If you were actually knowledgeable about science, you would have skipped the magazine interpretation of the article and gone straight to the source, which never says that the moon is "heavily radioactive".

So please acknowledge the fact that the source that your writer cites never said what his headline implied.

This is where your complete ignorance of scientific methodology comes to the fore.

How much higher is their cancer risk? You never quantize anything when you need to. You trot out "RADIATION" in scare quotes as though the mere mention of the word means certain death.

And now you're back to arguing what you just said you weren't arguing. Explain, specifically, what their duty should have been upon recovery of the crews regarding radiation.
Click to expand...

The quip about a Geiger counter being more useful than the equivalent of Dettol was clearly facetious. If the rescue medics really felt it was important to spray the capsule with antiseptic as well as over the astronauts - supposedly making them strip inside the capsule and changing into wetsuits (as that is how they appear on camera, i.e., wearing wetsuits coming out of the capsule and onto the raft, albeit impossible to identify they are the Apollo 11 crew, and supposedly to explain why they are not in their spacesuits) - then why not exercise proper caution and take the capsule into dock in a protective environment?
 
Foster Zygote said:
And the moon is?
Click to expand...
The Moon, as you know is >250,000 miles away and passes into the VA Belt about 1,000 miles out, for another 29,000 miles: or, at 25,000mph (IIRC - check this), for between two to four hours to even pass through it, and all they were in was a thin-walled aluminium rocket then of course radiation is a major health concern. Then back again.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
No! You're just so confidently wrong about everything, and so ignorant about photography that you can't get past the idea that a photographic image shows what you would see with your naked eye were you there.

The Surveyor 7 images show long exposures of the horizon with the sun still behind it. You're looking at images of an extremely faint phenomenon captured by taking long exposures. This has nothing to do with your nonsensical belief that shadows on the moon are "totally dark".
Click to expand...
But it is factual that they are.
 
Vixen said:
As soon as Foster Zygote answers my question we will come to that.
Click to expand...
Oh you little tease ;)! You have never actually come to a point in your entire history on this forum. All you ever do is misrepresent the straightforward statements of others.

(Hey, if we are going to be accused of misogyny might as well throw throw some in to make her day.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Moon, as you know is >250,000 miles away and passes into the VA Belt about 1,000 miles out, for another 29,000 miles: or, at 25,000mph (IIRC - check this), for between two to four hours to even pass through it, and all they were in was a thin-walled aluminium rocket then of course radiation is a major health concern. Then back again.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered twice previously.
 
Vixen said:
The Moon, as you know is >250,000 miles away and passes into the VA Belt about 1,000 miles out, for another 29,000 miles: or, at 25,000mph (IIRC - check this), for between two to four hours to even pass through it, and all they were in was a thin-walled aluminium rocket then of course radiation is a major health concern. Then back again.
Click to expand...
How thick was the Command Module pressure hull? What was it made from?
Don't worry, I will tell you

The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet.
The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches at the base to about 0.25 inches at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment
The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed-honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation.
 
Vixen said:
The quip about a Geiger counter being more useful than the equivalent of Dettol was clearly facetious. If the rescue medics really felt it was important to spray the capsule with antiseptic as well as over the astronauts - supposedly making them strip inside the capsule and changing into wetsuits (as that is how they appear on camera, i.e., wearing wetsuits coming out of the capsule and onto the raft, albeit impossible to identify they are the Apollo 11 crew, and supposedly to explain why they are not in their spacesuits) - then why not exercise proper caution and take the capsule into dock in a protective environment?
Click to expand...
Already answered. But you don't absorb information from others, apparently.

The recovery crews were following orders, not acting out of a belief in biological hazards. Such measures were employed early on to assuage the fears of the general public. After all, The Andromeda Strain had been published just a couple of months earlier. After it was clearly demonstrated that there was no danger, the procedure was abandoned.

But the Geiger counter comment was clearly not an offhand "quip", or you wouldn't have commented about the lack of procedures for radioactive decontamination and supported the observation with an anecdote about people having to do so after exposure to radioactive materials.
 
Vixen said:
The Moon, as you know is >250,000 miles away and passes into the VA Belt about 1,000 miles out, for another 29,000 miles: or, at 25,000mph (IIRC - check this), for between two to four hours to even pass through it, and all they were in was a thin-walled aluminium rocket then of course radiation is a major health concern. Then back again.
Click to expand...
The moon is only beyond 250,000 miles at ~apogee. For most of its orbit it is within that distance, coming as close as about 221,500 miles at perigee. It's not really relevant, but I just want to impress upon you that you aren't fooling anyone by saying "as you know" and then writing a statistic you just looked up dressed up with a mathematical notation.

The article you cited deals with the lunar surface, not the VARB. The VARB has nothing to do with this. You objecting that the ISS is within the typical confines of inner belt is irrelevant, because the moon is also outside the VARB.

And again, you keep dramatically characterizing the radiation flux in the VARB without actually quantifying it. It was a concern for the mission plans, but was definitely not a major concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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