Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

How many per square metre per day?

I know you asked @Vixen, but we all know she doesn't know and wouldn't know how to find out or interpret the results.

For the larger submillimeter particles (i.e., dust) the flux is around 10^-6 m^-2⋅s^-1. Since Vixen isn't that kind of numbers person, that means if you stood in one place on the lunar surface for a year, the chances of being hit by one exceed 50%.

This represents the vast bulk of the 3,000 or so kilograms of material that land on the lunar surface every day. Most of it is on the micrometer scale and does not possess kinetic energy significant to a spacecraft or a spacesuited astronaut. Space suits provide excellent protection from dust-scale micrometeoroids owing to their layered outer garment. The record of Apollo development is chock full of information on how the micrometeoroid environment was measured and accounted for in designs.

The Artemis II crew observed impact flashes from larger objects. The flux for these objects is measured in impacts per square meter per year and is on the order of 10^-10. Yes, the bombardment is constant—but at a very small constant flux. The astronauts were able to see impact flashes so often because at the distances these flashes can be observed, they're looking at practically an entire lunar hemisphere at once.

The chances of a significant impact at an Apollo lunar landing site during a three-day sojourn are astronomically small (pun intended). This is different for a larger habitat or a longer mission, hence why future plans must face the risk differently. But this is how the hoax claimants lie by omission. They insinuate doom from above by telling you (correctly) that the lunar surface is "under constant bombardment by micrometeoroids." They let that true-but-incomplete statement hang there in Damocletian fashion so that it raises doubt for the gullible lay person. But they forget to tell you that an Apollo astronaut has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of being hit by one of these very rare non-dust objects. Constant, but rare.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am afraid the level of radiation and radioactivity involved in going to the Moon is a real health hazard.

Based on your unjustified assumptions which rest upon a foundation of demonstrable ignorance. Your assumptions regarding the ionizing radiation environment encountered during the Apollo missions are no more learned than your assumptions about photography. You thought that exposure to radiation would make the astronauts radioactive. And remember, you thought this was a real photograph supporting your assertion about stars and photography.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

People say all kinds of stupid things

Sometimes repeatedly.

 

[JayUtah]

The Moon is under a constant barrage of micrometeorites.

Since you don't know the answer to that part either, try again with the radiation.

Yes, it is true that the more violent examples of solar activity can pose a health risk to astronauts in space. It is also true that no such activity occurred during any of the Apollo missions. Do you see how Weaver is debunked by pointing out his lie of omission?

You have been given the expected doses for nominal lunar surface exposure from all sources of radiation, primary and secondary. They are not injurious. You have neither disputed that nor provided any competing figures. Instead you dishonestly straw-man the debunking by trying to say your critics don't consider radiation a hazard. That is not correct. Your critics correctly understand how much and what kinds of radiation are involved. And from this superior grasp of the facts they can say that the dose the astronauts would be expected to receive does not pose a danger to their health because it is too little and of the wrong kind.

 

[JayUtah]

Is said outrage as faux as this image?

To be fair, I think she posted that particular travesty knowing how much outrage it would generate, and for that purpose only.

 

[ferd burfle]

The Moon is under a constant barrage of micrometeorites.

Ooh, that one should be good for another five or ten pages!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I met Patrick Moore once.

He'd come to do a talk to Sheffield geology department on non-terrestrial geology, invited by one our lecturers who was an expert on planetary geology and had samples of lunar rocks.

Moore chatted with a number of us after over a few pints of Septimus Henry's finest nutty ale (aka the late, much lamented Ward's Best Bitter) in the Red House.

Definitely an, errrr, interesting character; someone used the word "irascible" earlier...

Anyway, back to the nonsense...

"Body language" "experts", oh my aching sides...

There are reasons why those of us who actually interviewed folk to gain information for a living don't take it very seriously. Yes, that would include all the clinical psychologists I ever worked with too.

 

[threadworm]

I know you asked @Vixen, but we all know she doesn't know and wouldn't know how to find out or interpret the results.

For the larger submillimeter particles (i.e., dust) the flux is around 10^-6 m^-2⋅s^-1. Since Vixen isn't that kind of numbers person, that means if you stood in one place on the lunar surface for a year, the chances of being hit by one exceed 50%.

This represents the vast bulk of the 3,000 or so kilograms of material that land on the lunar surface every day. Most of it is on the micrometer scale and does not possess kinetic energy significant to a spacecraft or a spacesuited astronaut. Space suits provide excellent protection from dust-scale micrometeoroids owing to their layered outer garment. The record of Apollo development is chock full of information on how the micrometeoroid environment was measured and accounted for in designs.

The Artemis II crew observed impact flashes from larger objects. The flux for these objects is measured in impacts per square meter per year and is on the order of 10^-10. Yes, the bombardment is constant—but at a very small constant flux. The astronauts were able to see impact flashes so often because at the distances these flashes can be observed, they're looking at practically an entire lunar hemisphere at once.

The chances of a significant impact at an Apollo lunar landing site during a three-day sojourn are astronomically small (pun intended). This is different for a larger habitat or a longer mission, hence why future plans must face the risk differently. But this is how the hoax claimants lie by omission. They insinuate doom from above by telling you (correctly) that the lunar surface is "under constant bombardment by micrometeoroids." They let that true-but-incomplete statement hang there in Damocletian fashion so that it raises doubt for the gullible lay person. But they forget to tell you that an Apollo astronaut has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of being hit by one of these very rare non-dust objects. Constant, but rare.

An analogy I thought of on my way home was that it rains on Earth all the time, but I haven't been hit by a raindrop in some time. Likewise a rain forecast of 50% is pretty much "might rain, might not".

I think the line she's attempting to go down there is indeed the "WHY DON'T THEY CARE THEY MIGHT DIE AT ANY MINUTE IN THEIR PAPER THIN SUITS" one.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Body language" "experts", oh my aching sides...

There are reasons why those of us who actually interviewed folk to gain information for a living don't take it very seriously. Yes, that would include all the clinical psychologists I ever worked with too.

The fundamental problem with things like body language analysis and polygraphs is that they sometimes work, particularly with the "right" sort of subject (the same is true of hypnotism). But the techniques are far, far too unreliable to have any empirical usefulness: way too many false positives and false negatives.

Anyhooo, back to our smartest-person-in-the-roomworld showing us how much smarter than us (s)he is, this time over the authenticity of men on the Moon. Can't wait for more!

 

[catsmate]

No, it is a scientific fact that for most people

No it's not, it's pseudo-scientific drivel propounded by charlatans and believed by idios. Read the links I provided and educate yourself for once.

 

[LondonJohn]

When caught fibbing, you tend to sweat more and the increase in moisture registers on the ECG.

How does an onset/increase/decrease in epidermal perspiration cause changes to an electrocardiogram trace?

 

[catsmate]

Please stop with the boring tu quoque logical fallacy. <YAWN>

Please educate yourself as to what 'tu quoque' actually means before spouting your usual drivel.

 

[catsmate]

Look, I am really sorry you are feeling outraged. But I have no control over your emotions.

Strawman.

 

[catsmate]

You are blindly quoting the standard party line.

Strawman.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Time and location. So, were the Apollo 11 sequences filmed in, say, Area 51, a secure US military base in a desert region, then the aspects of the planets would be in a different angle to each other as of the time of the 'live' tv broadcast later, of which timing could vary considerably and in unexpected ways.

They weren't filmed in any desert region on earth. The entire planed has been mapped in great detail, there's no place on earth that couldn't be matched to the Apollo images, especially the later missions which have mountains in the background. And please explain how they were able to shoot film and video, on location in an earthbound desert, in broad daylight, and have the sky look totally black.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please educate yourself as to what 'tu quoque' actually means before spouting your usual drivel.

Vixen appears to believe that the identifying and calling out of "logical fallacies" is somehow an indicator of intellect and superiority. Which is why she tries it so often - mostly (as here) incorrectly and ignorantly (and thus deliciously ironically).

 

[catsmate]

If you click the arrow back, it was to do with someone claiming the astronauts were not downbeat at the press conference. You don't have to listen to the body language guy, you can just watch it for yourself. They look like they lost a shilling and found a sixpence. They clearly know this video will be used years, decades, centuries down the line so they have to be really guarded in what they say. Thus they are very careful to not confirm they were on the Moon and Collins very quickly tells Armstrong 'We did not see any [stars]'.

Why would we listen to a charlatan spouting nonsense about pseudo-scientific nonsense? We're smarter than that.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The Moon is under a constant barrage of micrometeorites.

That's why the astronauts brought their Kapton umbrellas on their EVAs.

 

[catsmate]

He's a psychologist, so if he studied behavioural and experimental psychology as a science, as I did, then it is all based on observable and measurable data. Obviously, he is only observing, not taking ECG's or measuring anything physiologically. Your psychological reactions are largely biologically based. So, if someone has just got back from being the First Man on the Moon with international coverage, you'd expect them to be more like someone who's just won an Olympic Gold Medal than someone fidgeting and wishing he was elsewhere.

Rubbish. "Body language analysis" is pseudo-scientific drivel.

 

[catsmate]

Thus they are very careful to not confirm they were on the Moon and Collins very quickly tells Armstrong 'We did not see any [stars]'.

You're lying again.