It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 37
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
The chart was made for the moon it's self on how would they be exposed
to radiation and not for a sloar storm posibly coming their way.
(simple argument the moon is brighter in gama rays than the sun wich indicates a hi level of radiation)
And i am not the only one saing it
24.73.239.154:8081...

some quotes from the site.
Maximum radiation dosage levels established in advance of Apollo were as follows: 980 rem for feet, 700 rem for the skin, 200 rem for blood forming organs, and 200 rem .



Your poor grasp of English appears to be letting you down, it says:


The health and safety risks posed by cosmic rays were deemed acceptable well in advance of the Apollo 8 mission to the moon in 1968. Maximum radiation dosage levels established in advance of Apollo were as follows: 980 rem for feet, 700 rem for the skin, 200 rem for blood forming organs, and 200 rem for the eyes.


They are stating what the maximum acceptable level would be of exposure.
Take this from several people who actually have English as their first language.


The booklet points out that within the Van Allen Belts, the most intense radiation levels are high enough to kill astronauts, "within a few days". The Apollo lunar transit through the Van Allen belts was a matter of minutes, not days. The hoaxers are therefore way off in their claims about Van Allen Belt radiation. Corliss concludes that the Apollo astronaut’s time within the belts was "far too short to cause important biological damage".


The above quote speaks for itself...


The crucial fact pointed out by Corliss as far as the Apollo hoax claims are concerned follows: "The succession of storms in July 1959 (apparently the largest ever recorded) would have given an astronaut within an Apollo spacecraft a skin dose of about 150 rads and a dose of about 15 rads to the blood-forming tissues. These are rather large doses, but they are neither lethal nor even immediately incapacitating. The radiation hazard from a large solar flare, it appears, can be made far less severe than the other hazards of a voyage to the moon....Space radiation, in short, presents hazards no more dangerous than dental x-rays, providing the astronaut travels during the right season and does not loiter in the Van Allen belts".



All from your own link. Maybe you should grasp the basic skill of reading before attempting anything complicated like discussing what you have (not) read.




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay you didint read my post
The moon is the problem and has nothing to do with the sun

Here
The Moon surface is baldly exposed to cosmic radiation, some of that type of radiation is very hard to block with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


why?

AND READ THIS
More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.

So the sun does not have to spray gamma rays
There are more gamma rays that come from the moon

The problem is that this explains that this is a problem and a solar storm does not even have to ocur hi level of radiation is pressent on the moon
it is just as bad has a solar storm.
Do you see the link now or do i have to explain word by word?
They new it
And they pulled of the gratest hoax.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]


Your choice of sources appears to be nonsensical as the few reputable ones do against your own claims! Please READ them before you allude to them, as all you are doing is handing out ammunition for people to shoot your claims down. You have stated rems instead of mrems, quoted incorrectly, refused to acknowledge that some of your sources were talking through their nether regions and failed to understand an awful lot of stuff. But at least you seem to have conceded the point about the August 1972 solar event! Joy! Please learn from this experience and move on.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I also have been "researching the moon" and found it to be made of cheese, mature chedder to be exact.

Source: www.easypeasycheesymoon.com...

Now these are the maximum thresholds of cheese exposure before ill effects (from NASA's own website):

Eyes: 200g
Feet: 350g
Torso: 1Kg

Now it's well documented that the astronauts exposure to cheese (and remember that mature chedder is the most dangerous type of cheese) on the moon would have been around 1500mg, even without a "cheese flare"! Now can anyone explain how they survived?!? Heh, thought not.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I also have been "researching the moon" and found it to be made of cheese, mature chedder to be exact.

Source: www.easypeasycheesymoon.com...

Now these are the maximum thresholds of cheese exposure before ill effects (from NASA's own website):

Eyes: 200g
Feet: 350g
Torso: 1Kg

Now it's well documented that the astronauts exposure to cheese (and remember that mature chedder is the most dangerous type of cheese) on the moon would have been around 1500mg, even without a "cheese flare"! Now can anyone explain how they survived?!? Heh, thought not.



Don't forget the dangers of Brie - that can be a very unstable, sticky surface to moonwalk on! And who knows what's emitted by that blue veiny stuff. Oh and then there's goats cheese as well - we were once given a lump that had to be approached with gas masks. You'd need a spacesuit then, with a filtered air supply.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
It was just brough to my attention that I made an error in my math. Instead of going back to correct my dozen or so posts in which I made it, i'll just point it out here.

500 mrem is equal to .5 rem.

Thanks for catching me on that!



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Nonsence?
Facts.
1 The moon is brighter in gamma rays than the sun indicateting hi level of radiation .
2 The particles hit the moon creating nuclear reactions this hapens constant, this is a second wave of radiation besides the cosmic rays
that can hit the astronauts from above.
3 The particles travel near the speed of light creating not lame but violent
reactions on the surface of the moon thats why the moon looks purple
on the scope it indicates hi gamma activity.

If you wish to ignore the facts go ahead denny it but this are facts and i welcome you to chalenge them any way besides sayng "nonsence"
Please try to do better.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Is the softdrink on global ignore?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
It seems Pepsi that you have a problem with the difference between cumulative and sudden exposure. Also you seem to misunderstand NASA estimates of maximum allowable and actual measured. The numbers you post are the estimate of the exposure that are cumulative(increasing or enlarging by successive addition; acquired by or resulting from accumulation.)
Even if we accept your numbers, which I don’t, they are not sudden exposure values they are total exposure and there is time for the body to repair itself.

If you could show that;
a. The sun, moon, or any other celestial body in the solar system would emit constant 200+ rems radiation
b. The cumulative effects would have the same effect as sudden exposure or,
c. That there was some event that would have increased the rems received during any mission.

Then I’ll say that we never went to the moon, and I’ll eat my hat.


[edit on 11-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 11-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   


It seems Pepsi that you have a problem with the difference between cumulative and sudden exposure. Also you seem to misunderstand NASA estimates of maximum allowable and actual measured

If you belive the chart of radiation was made for maximum exposure or
a estimative exposure you can chose what you want.
I tend to find out what is the result in radiation how hi it is when galactic cosmic rays hit the matter on the moon(little nuclear reactions).
And then i will compare it to nasa's report.
Remember just like in a x-ray machine only the ones in the x-ray machine
do not travel and hit near the speed of light so the exposure is small but the ones that hit the moon do.
another idication that thei are hi it is because of the spectrum.
If the moon is generating gama rays that are brighter than the sun what would you asume about the chart?



Even if we accept your numbers, which I don’t, they are not sudden exposure values they are total exposure and there is time for the body to repair itself.

Dose 200 to 300 rem: Nausea and vomiting" FIRST DAY OF EXPOSURE" then up to a two-week latent period followed by appetite loss, general malaise, sore throat, pallor, diarrhea, and moderate emaciation. Recovery in about three months unless complicated by infection or injury.

It would of incapacitated the astronautes.
So yes it is cumulative and not right away.
One day will do it.

Dose 300 to 600 rem: Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea "IN FIRST FEW HOURS"; then up to a one-week latent period followed by loss of appetite, fever, and general malaise in the second week, followed by bleeding, inflammation of mouth and throat, diarrhea, and emaciation. Some deaths in two to six weeks. Eventual death for 50% if exposure is above 450 rem; others recover in about six months.
Not right away but in a few hours so it is cumulative.

Or you just mean 5+5+5+5 rems + and so on it will cumulate in to 500
at the end of the trip?
That would be imposible with the gamma burst on the moon.





[edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
pepsi78, no one can read your posts. You are on what's called Global Ignore. Please check your U2U's and reply to myself or one of the other moderators who have messaged you repeated to be taken off this status. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
500 mrem is equal to .5 rem.

Thanks for catching me on that!


So what you are saying is that the Apollo astronauts recived 1/2 a REM during thier mission. More than tolerable even by sources cited above.

Here is another interesting site Radiation Exposure exposure and sources of it.

Its an interesting read The natural background exposure in las Vegas is 89 mrems a year and if you cook with natural gas that adds 1 mrem a year as well.

In light of this evidence, its pretty clear that the radiation dangers are pretty much well within the tolerable limits for humans.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
kmanderkid it is just my opinion but okay i have made my point far too long.
When i see people dennyng facts i tend to get contradictive.
No one has answerd me the questions i provided they just go around my questions answering something else thei just answer about the oficial report and not on the matter it's self of the sience.
I only made my points cause it leads from science to the subject"the hoax"



1 The moon is brighter in gamma rays than the sun indicateting hi level of radiation .
2 The particles hit the moon creating nuclear reactions this hapens constant, this is a second wave of radiation besides the cosmic rays
that can hit the astronauts from above.
3 The particles travel near the speed of light creating not lame but violent
reactions on the surface of the moon thats why the moon looks purple
on the scope it indicates hi gamma activity.

But okay, if i cant post here no more i will just go on another topic .
Since i get it, only the oficial story belivers are alowed to post
Hei they replied to my posts the same way as many times as i have but i dont see points droping from them.
From a 100 what i got -50?

[edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Pepsi no one is saying you cannot continue to post in this thread. However, you need to read your u2u as requested by CKK, myself and few other moderators.

If you look at the upper 1/3 of the right side of your screen you will see white text that says new U2U's please click on it and read the messages you have recived.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Here's a brief 'article' on the basics regarding radiation past the Van Allen belts.. The article is aimed at young teenagers, but I think it's still pretty appropiate....




The Question
(Submitted January 19, 1998)

I am curious to know what the effects of solar radiation have on space craft after they leave the protection of the Van Allen belt. How much protection do they need and how long could an astronaut survive in and out of his craft.


The Answer
Solar radiation and cosmic radiation are both things to worry about in space.
The ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun (without our protective ozone layer and atmosphere to protect us) would be enough to rapidly give you sunburn, melanoma, etc. However, unless your spacesuit or spacecraft windows are specifically designed to let UV pass through, enough will be blocked that you don't have to worry about it too much. (If you are in space without a spacesuit or spacecraft, then you've got bigger problems than radiation.)

When the sun flares, it produces x-rays, gamma-rays, and energetic particles. The energetic particles are the worst, but they are delayed compared to the X-rays and gamma-rays, so you have some warning that they are coming. This gives you time to get into a 'storm shelter', a well-shielded area that you can live in for a few days until the particles die down. A good place for a storm shelter would be in the center of the ship, surrounded by the water tanks. If you don't have a storm shelter (e.g. if you are out moonwalking in just your suit) a bad solar flare can kill you by radiation sickness.

The hard radiation (particles and x/gamma rays) from the non-flaring sun is small compared to the galactic cosmic ray exposure. These particles come from deep space more or less continuously. Small amounts of shielding can cut out the majority of this, but the remainder will give you a somewhat increased risk of cancer. Using very conservative rules of thumb, a week in space's cosmic ray environment will shorten your life expectancy by about a day (statistically--it is very unlikely to give you cancer, but if it does, it will shorten your life by more than a day). Since space is inherently dangerous at the present state of the art, cancer due to cosmic rays is relatively small additional risk.

David Palmer
for Ask an Astrophysicist

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Some more articles here:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

A fairly good write up on the discovery of the Van ALlen belts:


Other spacecraft soon made further discoveries. Explorer 4, which flew in July 1958, carried radiation shielding. This screened out some of the radiation, to keep its Geiger counter from being swamped. Van Allen studied its data, and concluded that the peak radiation intensity would kill an astronaut following exposure of only a few days. Then in December, the space probe Pioneer 3 soared to an altitude of 63,000 miles (191,389 kilometres) and showed that there was a second radiation belt, some 10,000 miles (16,093 kilometres) above the Earth's surface. The inner belt was at 2,000 miles (3,219 kilometres) from the Earth. Fortunately, it was high enough to allow astronauts to fly safely in orbit while remaining well below the dangerous altitudes.
www.century-of-flight.freeola.com...


Note in the article above - days - NOT minutes or hours.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   


Or you just mean 5+5+5+5 rems + and so on it will cumulate in to 500
at the end of the trip?
That would be imposible with the gamma burst on the moon.


yes that is what I mean.
I do not see how it is impossible due to gamma bursts, it took me two seconds to find this.

imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Gamma-ray bursts can release more energy in 10 seconds than the Sun will emit in its entire 10 billion-year lifetime! So far, it appears that all of the bursts we have observed have come from outside the Milky Way Galaxy. Scientists believe that a gamma-ray burst will occur once every few million years here in the Milky Way, and in fact may occur once every several hundred million years within a few thousand light-years of Earth.


So I don't think there were any bursts, and least of all from the moon.

your numbers are just wrong. I'd like to see where you got them... because I cannot find much on the estimated dosages exept that the maximum dose would have come from the Van allen belts.

The fact is that if a Rem number is given as 'total' doseage, then it is the total recived ie 5+5+5... and so on. not 500 constantly and continuaously.

Lets say your out at a bar, and you down 50 shots of rum in 1/2 hour.
Your probably going to be dead pretty soon.
If you take thouse 50 shots over a period of say 100 hours 1 shot every 2 hours, then you'll be ok because your body has time to filter the alcohol.

Now you could say '50 shots that enough to kill someone!!'
and you'd be right unless you take into account the time it took to drink that much. Your saying '200 rems thats enough to make the astronaugts vomit ect.!' well that's true if the 200 rem was being exposed in say 1/2 hour, but streched over 8+ or more days then it is not.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Remember just like in a x-ray machine only the ones in the x-ray machine
do not travel and hit near the speed of light so the exposure is small but the ones that hit the moon do.


Eh? You understand radiation... right?..... (rhetorical question).

Pepsi's right! we're done for, they imaged the Earth too and that gives off Gamma Rays too! We're all dead...



spaceflightnow.com...


Seriously though - Pepsi, where did you get the figures for the actual amount of gamma radiation being emitted from the Moon? I apologise for my ignorance and it's probably right under my nose but I can't find any official figures. And the pretty picture doesn't have any sort of reference stating what the levels are.

Obviously you must have the figures, because no-one would consider a picture without any reference to scale as evidence of anything LOL


[edit on 12-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Agentsmith
That is around the planet and it is not compared to the moon.
Here compare that to this.
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And second earth has a atmosere that blocs galactic cosmic rays, they bombard the atmosfere some times causing small nuclear reactions hi above thats why when you travel by plane u'r exposed
Cosmic rays are the cause of gamma sprays
the only reason earth is protected from the cosmic rays is cause of the atmosere and magetic field.
-----------------------------------------

And for halfofone


So I don't think there were any bursts, and least of all from the moon.

You havent lisend to what hapens on the moon
Here
science.nasa.gov...
Galactic cosmyc rays crashing in to the moon surface causing little nuclear reactions
not to mention neutron paricles and gamma radiation spray


5 rem what a joke









[edit on 12-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I am well aware of all of that, but as I said before - have you got any figures for the actual emissions?

I'm sorry but a pretty picture with no scale of reference does not constitute as evidence of anything.

And that radiation on those pictures of Earth will affect anyone in orbit, so it is relevant. Last time I checked the Space shuttle did not have several feet of lead shielding.


Originally posted by pepsi78
You havent lisend to what hapens on the moon
Here
science.nasa.gov...
Galactic cosmyc rays crashing in to the moon surface causing little nuclear reactions
not to mention neutron paricles and gamma radiation spray



I have a small check source in front of me consisting of a small amount of Uranium, it to is experiencing a 'little nuclear reaction' - but it is also relatively harmless. I also live in an area affected by Radon.. I am, apparantly, also still alive and healthy.
You can visit Chernobyl and the surround ghost towns with no real harm (Obivously not the area contained in the sarcophagus), but if you tried to live there then you would more than likely die.
Ionisation based smoke detectors use a radioactive source in their sensor, in antique watches the dials were made from Radium, the old green/yellow glass - vaseline glass I think it's called - contains Uranium which gives it it's colour. All these are nuclear reactions, you talk like you think all the 'little nuclear reactions' are equivilant to a nuclear bomb going off - they are not - (This is just a stab in the dark but the keyword 'little' in the description might be the smoking gun in that sentence).

'Little Nuclear reactions' are happening around us all the time, thats why we can measure background radiation and that's what's behind those 'average radiation dose' figures for people in different areas.
Show us some recorded figures that exceed the maximum tolerable dose and I might prick up my ears... But so far all I hear is pathetic whining...


[edit on 12-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
If you wish to ignore the facts that the moon is glowing in radiation like a deth star that is u'r choise.
Have you even compared the 2 of them.
You dont got nuclear reactions on the soil of earth do you?
What a happy coincidence since the atmosfere will not alow gamma rays
and will burn most of the particles.

If you wish to accept the facts that is u'r choise

[edit on 12-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
If you wish to ignore the facts that the moon is glowing in radiation like a deth star that is u'r choise.


He's not ignoring anything, he's asking you to provide some hard evidence (read numbers) proving what you're saying. What's wrong with that?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join