• 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

It wasn't a joke. At least not one you intended to make. You seemed pretty serious when you were sharing illustrative accounts of someone dying young of bone cancer, and someone else having a child born with a birth defect that you suggested could have been a result of exposure to radioactive samples. Or are you in the habit of including such anecdotes in your jokes?
Here's the 'joke' in question:
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.
ETA: Incidentally, Vixen, do you have any examples of non-congenital birth defects?
 
Last edited:
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.
How about some numbers to quantify both "large doses" and "long-term lower doses"?
 
Grenoble University has a Department of Nuclear Engineering. Clearly some students will be doing lab work in this environment otherwise they wouldn't need to decontaminate afterwards.
I didn't say they weren't doing lab work, I said they're very unlikely to have been working with anything radioactive enough to cause any health risks. The decontamination is a precaution, because there's a huge difference between spending a couple hours near a sample of a radiation source for educational purposes, and getting a speck of it in your lung, where it's likely never coming out.

The Apollo astronauts were not exposed to radioactive materials, they were exposed to radiation. Radiation exposure requires no decontamination, and indeed you can't be decontaminated from radiation exposure.

You're still just trying to do a back flip onto the balance beam after falling out the window and into the dumpster.
 
Those were Earth protons, not Moon protons.
Moon in the rock, rock in the moon
There's a moon in my throat
You might think I'm wasting time
You might laugh, but not for long
Hey! I'm working it out (work it out)
 
@Vixen, I am lead to believe that you are not a stupid person, and have a good memory*.

Why, then, do you persist in making posts wherein you adopt the persona of a stupid person that doesn't understand how anything works and cannot remember anything that was written more than five seconds ago?

Help out an average-brained normie here, and explain how presenting as an arrogant, ignorant, ill-informed, paranoid and fact-averse fool is in any way advantageous in promoting your purported position, please.

*by your several posts claiming exceptional cleverness and recall.
 
Last edited:
@Vixen, I am lead to believe that you are not a stupid person, and have a good memory*.
I am also lead to believe that Vixen is a person of high debating standards; does not act improperly; is an author, scientist and psychologist; has at least a dozen letters after her name proving her academic and intellectual prowess; can speak several languages fluently; never posts anything that isn't properly cited and referenced unless she qualifies otherwise; is very much a numbers person; can square the circle.....

I've been lead to believe a lot of things about Vixen, I've forgotten some. There may be things in the above list that are not true about Vixen.
 
I think if one is planning a once-in-a-lifetime visit to another planet, then you would want film that is optimal for the condtions, not film that would look good in a glossy magazine. But then, maybe....just maybe...the glossy mags were the aim after all.
Ok, 17 pages behind and won't post this until I've read some more. But if you want to look good in a glossy magazine, you couldn't have done better than Kodachrome. Paul Simon's "nice bright colors" and all that. But it was slow. ASA 25 (for the best pictures) or 64 (slightly less so.) Optimized for the conditions, you want something faster, like Ektachrome, ASA 160.
Wow, still 10 pages behind. I'll post and hope to get somewhat caught up tomorrow.
 

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