Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution. Kimo sabe?

Which doctors?
What type of radiotherapy? It's not just one thing.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution.
Kimo sabe?

More evidence, as if it were needed, that Vixen's main aim is to annoy people.

 

[JayUtah]

The surface of the Moon is not radioactive.

I feel that this statement always needs to be qualified depending on intent and context.

Something is strictly radioactive when it spontaneously emits radiation. Lunar surface material is not this. Your radium clock dial is. The dirt near where I live is, because it contains uranium ore. These kinds of substances are generally characterized by being composed of unstable atoms—uranium, for example. You can hold a moon rock safely in your hand for as long as you want. It does not emit radiation. It does not significantly contain unstable atoms. It is not radioactive in the strict sense.

As I've belabored, many substances including moon dust, earth dust, and a lot of metals emit radiation in response to being bombarded by an outside radiation source. When we blast beryllium with high-energy electrons, the beryllium reacts by emitting x-rays. This is the mechanism that lets the blokes at the airport see inside your luggage. Lunar dust and rocks do this. The materials that do this can nevertheless be made from reliably stable atoms.

I insist on the qualification because there are contexts in which this behavior is noteworthy. If you're planning to be in an environment were secondary radiation is significant, you must prepare for and protect against it just as if it were primary radiation. In the end it doesn't matter whether the x-rays come from the sun or from the lunar surface as a secondary emission. An x-ray is an x-ray, and you need to consider it as such when estimating biological effect—energy, flux, etc.—of being there.

You will find sources that say things like, "The lunar surface is highly radioactive." These statements are generally aimed at lay readers who aren't interested in full detail. But when you're talking about the authenticity of visits to that environment, you really do have to pay attention to the detail. You need to ask, "What do you mean by 'surface?'" and "What exactly do you mean by 'radioactive?'" These important distinctions apply to rebuttals of hoax claims, although not necessarily to non-technical summaries intended for casual readers.

 

[JayUtah]

Instead of focusing on random words, try taking in the idea instead, and then you won't get stuck at the first fence.

The correct idea is that Hill in Hill Sphere means exactly and only its discoverer, astronomer George Hill. You seem to be "colloquially" expressing a different idea when you refer to "achieving the 'hill'" in the context of an orbit. As much as you want to distance yourself from words, it is rather impossible to express ideas without them. Hence you're being asked what idea you mean by the words, "achieve the 'hill.'" This question is especially important in a discussion that includes the word Hill meaning a certain specific other thing that doesn't seem to match your colloquial usage.

 

[JayUtah]

It was in quotation marks because it was a shorthand colloquialism.

...for what precise idea?

Colloquialisms work because they still have a shared meaning. If you say, "codswollop," even as an American I know what you mean because I'm familiar with the word and its vernacular usage among English speakers who use it. I can express the same idea in more universal terms such as "nonsense" or "a foolish statement."

On the other hand, you try to retcon your errors as "colloquialisms" when it's clear you're just making up words for concepts you've just been introduced to and don't know the actual word for. They have no pre-existing shared meaning. You forget that we have years of history of you bluffing your way through topics. Your choice of "hill" as a colloquialism in a discussion that prominently features the Hill Sphere was objectively unwise. If you didn't mean to refer to the Hill Sphere, then you are on the hook to disambiguate it. Belitting your critics for being understandably confused or whining that you're being picked on when your "colloquial" usage falls flat is childish and trollish.

Describe in plain English or standard physics terms what you mean by "achieve the 'hill.'"

 

[JayUtah]

Which has what to do with whether stars should be seen in the photos taken on the Moon with the known equipment and settings?

The hoax claim is that NASA excuses the absence of stars in the photos by claiming (correctly) that the film used does not allow for exposing stars and sunlit terrain simultaneously. The claimants' response is that since it's "well known" that stars should appear, this must be some kind of magical film that doesn't show stars. They can only make that claim if they claim further that neither NASA nor Kodak will make that film available for inspection. David Percy repeats this when he says that Apollo used "bespoke" film that hoax claimants cannot obtain and test and thereby supposedly expose NASA's purported lies about it.

Of course this is just more Percy doublespeak. As I said, he routinely espouses contradictions when it suits him. Elsewhere in the book he relies upon Ektachrome's known narrow exposure latitude to question how the astronauts could have taken such well-exposed pictures. So the film is utterly unique when Percy needs it to be, and utterly normal and well-known when he needs it to be.

It's arguably unfair to expect @Vixen to answer questions like this because it's obvious she doesn't actually understand the hoax arguments she's repeating. She can't restate them in her own words. She's just deploying them cargo-cult fashion. She simply doesn't have the brains to grasp any of the relevant concepts even if they're just the concept behind the hoax claim.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... In her haste to claim, "I never said that!" she is disavowing things she provably did say and which are ironically at least partially correct.

That so perfectly illustrated a continuing failure to grasp what everyone keeps explaining that I cannot now decide whether Vixen is genuinely immune to learning or if she is now just pretending still to be unaware of the distinction between irradiation and radioactive contamination.

Maybe I should just ask.

Vixen, do you understand the difference between receiving a dose of radiation and becoming contaminated with radioactive material? Thanks in anticipation.

 

[ferd burfle]

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution. Kimo sabe?

And there’s the tell

I accidentally hit the like button

 

[Matthew Best]

To reiterate, @Vixen doesn't believe that. She has never said she did. I have never said she did. In her desperation to paint her critics as mean-spirited, she tried to accuse me of putting that irrational argument in her mouth.

To be clear, I know that. I'm laughing at the IDEA of Vixen believing it, not the FACT.

It's still making me laugh, because it's completely plausible that she would believe it.

 

[JayUtah]

We can see it's quality by the results.
Being popular with professional photographers is an indicator of quality.

Of course that's true, but it's not an argument I have heretofore made and not one that I need to make in order to refute @Vixen's point. This is noteworthy only inasmuch as Vixen is desperately trying to sidestep the rebuttal by claiming we're just making irrelevant statements that don't address the point. She has to put these irrelevancies in our mouths in order to press that point. Therefore it doesn't help when we let her do that.

The notion that Ektachrome is a good film is not the same as saying it's a well-known—yea, even iconic—film stock. Vegemite is iconic too, but I wouldn't call it good.

What's important is that Ektachrome film was well known before Apollo. It was well known after Apollo. It's still well known. So when someone says that Apollo used "bespoke" film that no one else can obtain or use, that familiarity is all we need. When Vixen frantically claims that its quality isn't relevant to the discussion, we owe it to the facts not to let her desperation direct the discussion away from the operative portion of the rebuttal. I don't have to claim that Vegemite is good in order to note that someone who claims they just invented it is obviously wrong.

 

[bknight]

Of course others explained that distinction to her, but only after she insisted that exposure to the space radiation environment would require precautions akin to those for radiopharmaceuticals. In her haste to claim, "I never said that!" she is disavowing things she provably did say and which are ironically at least partially correct.

Page after page of discussion, almost none of it having to do with Apollo or even Apollo conspiracy theorists. Just @Vixen aggressively rage-baiting and trying to keep attention focused on her instead of the topic.

Absolutley.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I feel that this statement always needs to be qualified depending on intent and context.

Something is strictly radioactive when it spontaneously emits radiation. Lunar surface material is not this. Your radium clock dial is. The dirt near where I live is, because it contains uranium ore. These kinds of substances are generally characterized by being composed of unstable atoms—uranium, for example. You can hold a moon rock safely in your hand for as long as you want. It does not emit radiation. It does not significantly contain unstable atoms. It is not radioactive in the strict sense.

As I've belabored, many substances including moon dust, earth dust, and a lot of metals emit radiation in response to being bombarded by an outside radiation source. When we blast beryllium with high-energy electrons, the beryllium reacts by emitting x-rays. This is the mechanism that lets the blokes at the airport see inside your luggage. Lunar dust and rocks do this. The materials that do this can nevertheless be made from reliably stable atoms.

I insist on the qualification because there are contexts in which this behavior is noteworthy. If you're planning to be in an environment were secondary radiation is significant, you must prepare for and protect against it just as if it were primary radiation. In the end it doesn't matter whether the x-rays come from the sun or from the lunar surface as a secondary emission. An x-ray is an x-ray, and you need to consider it as such when estimating biological effect—energy, flux, etc.—of being there.

You will find sources that say things like, "The lunar surface is highly radioactive." These statements are generally aimed at lay readers who aren't interested in full detail. But when you're talking about the authenticity of visits to that environment, you really do have to pay attention to the detail. You need to ask, "What do you mean by 'surface?'" and "What exactly do you mean by 'radioactive?'" These important distinctions apply to rebuttals of hoax claims, although not necessarily to non-technical summaries intended for casual readers.

An analogy I thought of, I don't know how good it is, to the moon's secondary radiation is that it's like debris flung from a brick wall that's being shot up by gunfire. The debris will continue to fly as long as the bullets do, but if you remove a brick from the wall and take it out of the combat zone, it doesn't keep spitting fragments at you afterward.

 

[JayUtah]

That so perfectly illustrated a continuing failure to grasp what everyone keeps explaining that I cannot now decide whether Vixen is genuinely immune to learning or if she is now just pretending still to be unaware of the distinction between irradiation and radioactive contamination.

My take is that most of what she posts is just knee-jerk rage bait. She appears to have no intent beyond prolonging the threads she contributes to by whatever means is necessary.

 

[JayUtah]

An analogy I thought of, I don't know how good it is, to the moon's secondary radiation is that it's like debris flung from a brick wall that's being shot up by gunfire. The debris will continue to fly as long as the bullets do, but if you remove a brick from the wall and take it out of the combat zone, it doesn't keep spitting fragments at you afterward.

It's a great analogy.

The key takeaways are that secondary radiation is still dangerous and that secondary radiation occurs only for as long as primary radiation persists. You can still be gravely injured by brick chips sent flying by bullet ricochets. It's no laughing matter. But bricks do not spontaneously emit high-velocity chips.

 

[JayUtah]

To be clear, I know that. I'm laughing at the IDEA of Vixen believing it, not the FACT.

It's still making me laugh, because it's completely plausible that she would believe it.

Okay, I see your point. I agree, it does seem like the kind of mistakenly literal interpretation she would apply even though we both agree that in this case she didn't. I hope you understand why I pressed the point. It's important for readers not to believe her straw men. She counts on people who aren't willing to keep up with a fast-moving thread to accept her lies about what others' arguments have been.

 

[Vixen]

My take is that most of what she posts is just knee-jerk rage bait. She appears to have no intent beyond prolonging the threads she contributes to by whatever means is necessary.

Not at all. I can only imagine some people feel rage about a perfectly ordinary debate because they see it as a great opportunity to give vent to whatever it is they are unhappy about. Alternatively, they might have all kinds of insecurities. If certain people feel angry about my intellectual interests, it really is nothing to do with me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you engaged in honest debate you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[Smock]

Not at all. I can only imagine some people feel rage about a perfectly ordinary debate because they see it as a great opportunity to give vent to whatever it is they are unhappy about. Alternatively, they might have all kinds of insecurities. If certain people feel angry about my intellectual interests, it really is nothing to do with me.

Very little of your contributions to this thread fall under the heading of "intellectual".

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I can only imagine

We noticed.

 

[JayUtah]

I can only imagine some people feel rage about a perfectly ordinary debate...

You're by no means engaged in a perfectly ordinary debate.

Alternatively, they might have all kinds of insecurities.

I'm one of the recognized experts in this field. I can't imagine what insecurities you think I have.

If certain people feel angry about my intellectual interests, it really is nothing to do with me.

Just because you're obviously trying to rage-bait doesn't mean people are actually becoming enraged. People are more or less laughing at you regardless of what you are trying to do.

Nothing you're doing here is remotely intellectual. You're parroting stupid arguments you barely understand from people who rely upon exactly your ignorance to make their living. You're sidestepping remarkable opportunities to be taught by actual experts in favor of repeatedly behaving like a naughty child. All this seems aimed at focusing attention on your personality rather than your knowledge of the subject—which is effectively nil.