• 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

Mojo said:
I wasn't asking about health and safety checks, I was asking why you brought up "people [you] know who worked with radioactive substances [and] went through decontamination procedures after every shift", and what point you were trying to make by bringing them up, in the context of this:


What point were you trying to make by bringing them up?
Click to expand...
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness. Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here. Buzz Aldrin at 95 is still going strong so it's good he never needed any screening. That's luck not prudence.
 
Vixen said:
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness. Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here. Buzz Aldrin at 95 is still going strong so it's good he never needed any screening. That's luck not prudence.
Click to expand...
What would a Geiger counter have shown?
 
Vixen said:
Finally, your other point: you saw how quickly the solar eclipse passed yesterday. This si due to both the Earth and the Moon being in constant orbit. That should give you a clue why you need logistics to ensure the 'live broadcast' - especially in 1969 from 250,000 miles away is geostationary. Vague guff about 'radio waves' doesn't cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Live TV broadcast in 1969 would have required a method of geopositioning so that the picture remained stationary.
Click to expand...

Ah! I've figured out what Vixen has been getting at. Apparently, broadcast television pictures must be aimed correctly and steadily at the receiving television sets, or else the picture will gradually (if not rapidly) drift off the TV screen like a planet drifting out of the field of view of a non-synchronized telescope, or the moon moving on past the sun after an eclipse. Only stationary or at least geostationary transmitters could be that steady over the duration of a broadcast, especially when the transmitter is far away.

(This is similar to why TV stations have to keep a database of what televisions you own, so they can format movies "to fit this screen" as they often do. Viewers would complain if the movie was too small or too large for their screen, or missed their TV completely due to being transmitted to the wrong room.)
 
Vixen said:
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness. Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here. Buzz Aldrin at 95 is still going strong so it's good he never needed any screening. That's luck not prudence.
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant.
 
Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, I quipped they'd be better off running a Geiger counter over the craft rather than spraying it with Dettol.
Click to expand...
And equally repetitiously, you went on to cite radiological decontamination procedures as an example of what they should have done instead. You repeated that claim today. It is those claims you are being asked about, not anything about Geiger counters that you're trying to retcon into a joke.

Vixen said:
A joke shouldn't need to be explained.
Click to expand...
When you keep repeating what you think they should have done, it's not a joke anymore.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It includes shutter speed and the time taken to auto roll on to the next frame.
Click to expand...
Shutter speed is whatever you set it to. Shutter reset speed is different and is constant for a given camera model. Advance time is the time it takes to reset the shutter and to advance the film to the next frame. The advance time on a Hasselblad 500/EL is about 1.5 seconds, not 50 seconds.
 
Vixen said:
Stating that Ektachrome has been around since 1959 adds nothing at all to the argument.
Click to expand...
If the argument is that it was new and bespoke in 1969, then pointing out that it was available and popular in 1959 refutes the argument. It becomes newly relevant when you simply repeat—as you do below—the false claim about "bespoke" film for Apollo.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness. Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here. Buzz Aldrin at 95 is still going strong so it's good he never needed any screening. That's luck not prudence.
Click to expand...
The vitally important aspect of a high radiation dose is how high.

You clearly have no idea so can add nothing of value.
 
Vixen said:
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness.
Click to expand...
True. However, those effects of irradiation cannot be mitigated by procedures designed to radiologically decontaminate a victim who has been contaminated. A victim may be irradiated without being contaminated. When you "joke" that they should have radiologically decontaminated the spacecraft, that tells us you don't know what you're talking about (as well as having an underdeveloped sense of humor).

Vixen said:
Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here.
Click to expand...
Applying radiological decontamination procedures also does absolutely nothing for someone who has only been irradiated.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Hello, six-foot high flashing lights: J. O. K. E. !!!
Click to expand...
In addition to your "joke" about running a Geiger counter over the ship, you cited to your friends' radiological decontamination process as an example of what you thought would have been better. You repeated that claim—quite seriously—just a few hours ago. To underscore your point, you listed ways in which astronauts could have become irradiated and postured that as an explanation for why decontamination would have been a good thing to do. You continue to make the same mistake over and over again, not as joke but as a legitimate expression of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
This is similar to why TV stations have to keep a database of what televisions you own, so they can format movies "to fit this screen" as they often do. Viewers would complain if the movie was too small or too large for their screen, or missed their TV completely due to being transmitted to the wrong room.)
Click to expand...
Ah, so that's why the U.K. had those fleets of roving television detectors.

(See, @Vixen, this is how a joke works.)
 
Last edited:
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