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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 12
377
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Huh?



And I have also presented information that we do not, but more importantly DID NOT know, where the radiation is located on the moon in 1968.

That is deadly radiation.



"radiation is located on the moon"?

on the Moon? Like, ON the surface? What, an old nuclear reactor accident? H-bomb factory?

By all means, alert NASA!! Perhaps they will reward you handsomely...


Oh, these "Moon Hoax" ideas just keep getting better and better....


(Has Bill Kaysing, or Ralph Rene' come back from the dead?)


[edit on 1 May 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Huh?



And I have also presented information that we do not, but more importantly DID NOT know, where the radiation is located on the moon in 1968.

That is deadly radiation.



"radiation is located on the moon"?

on the Moon? Like, ON the surface? What, an old nuclear reactor accident? H-bomb factory?

By all means, alert NASA!! Perhaps they will reward you handsomely...


Oh, these "Moon Hoax" ideas just keep getting better and better....


(Has Bill Kaysing, or Ralph Rene' come back from the dead?)


[edit on 1 May 2010 by weedwhacker]


Argument ad hominem.
(you did a good job at hiding it by attaching it to a non-sequitur, but it is soooooo obvious to the educated reader)

I posed a very specific question, and if you were to read the thread, then you you would understand exactly what I am referencing.

If you want to answer my question rather than rely on the same tired techniques that people use to discredit others on ATS, then I would love to hear the answer.

But I highly doubt it considering that the sage of the supposed debunkers, Phage, already spoke and agreed with me.

The question can not be answered.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Roost
 



I have even read somewhere that the moon has somewhat of an atmosphere, and that one can walk around without a suit.


:face/palm:

That would be one of the baloney tales put out by John Lear. He likes to spin the yarns.

It is in the same category as a Human-like civilization Venus ( complete with cities, forests, and green oceans (!)
Yeah, right... )

Almost anything, no matter how crazy or "out there" that is put up on the Internet, and some people will come along and swallow it whole, lately.

I fear for the Human race sometimes....



Don't fear for me, friend. I've got my head on straight and I DON'T believe everything that I read (especially on the internet), but how the f*** do we know? I haven't been there, I don't think you've been there, and the only evidence we have of anything is what we're taught, told and shown. Personally I'd like to just build a rocket and go find out



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Btw...

I googled this "is the surface of the moon radioactive"

Here are the answers.

So, do you still want to debate if the surface of the moon is radioactive or not?

I would suggest that you READ the links.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I did nothing of the kind:


Argument ad hominem.


You made an amazing declaration, with no backing to it.


(you did a good job at hiding it by attaching it to a non-sequitur, but it is soooooo obvious to the educated reader)


You seem to see things, and attribute them, to people (me) when they aren't there. But, thanks for the (back-handed) compliment, anyways. Even though I didn't consciously do anything as you suggested.....

Now:


I posed a very specific question, and if you were to read the thread, then you you would understand exactly what I am referencing.


Dude, we're on PAGE 12! This nonsense is an homage (apparently) to some anonymous crackpot 'kid' from YouTube who happens to be rather glib, but totally incorrect and scientifically challenged in many ways.

DID this bloke from Down Under specifically address the ...ahem, what was it? "radiation on the Moon"?

Indulge us --

WHAT is this new "radiation" danger that has been previously undetected?

WHERE is it located? (Oh, you said "they don't know where it is"? Is that correct?)

WHO "reported" it?

WHY isn't it then, IF true, a major news story?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

EDIT....just finished typing this missive, and then saw your post immediately above. Stay tuned.....

[edit on 1 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I will still stand by and say the moon landing was a hoax.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Yeah. Not new "news".

Anyone who knows anything about manned space exploration is aware of the challenges posed by the radiation, the NORMAL radiation that exists in the cosmos.

Note, though....this is getting some RECENT press, because they (the press) are prone to report stuff, when it is announced, and sometimes tend toward the over-dramatic, especially in the headlines.

(Remember the "NASA To Bomb The Moon" nonsense a while back? Sadly, even the normally well-respected Scientific American was responsible for that one...but, as they say, "Sex Sells". Or, in this case, 'sensationalism'.)


As noted, the LCROSS and LRO missions included different instrumentation to measure more precisely what wasn't accomplished previously.

BUT, here's the "BIG" story:


Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.


Notice the words "originally expected"?

All this new information is saying is that the dosages are going to be higher THAN EXPECTED.

These are not, BTW, the kinds of radiation exposures that cause instant death, or some linger, horrible type a few weeks later, such as from nuclear bombs, or reactor accidents.

Dig a little deeper, and you will find (I don't have the exact comparisons at my fingertips) they will mention the dosages as the equivalent of so many chest X-rays, and some such.

Since you "Googled" the moon radiation articles, do yourself a favor and follow up and study more about radiation. Solar radiation, cosmic radiation, etc.

WE are exposed to that, every day, but benefit from the protection of the Earth's magnetic field, and atmosphere. Or else, we probably wouldn't have evolved here, in the first place (or would be vastly different).

Anyway, all the "dangers" of radiation tend to pale once you start thinking about WHERE any permanent bases on the Moon might be established. The poles are the mostly likely places --- no temperature extremes, just stays cold. Plenty of shelter from the Sun (although the background cosmic rays come from all directions, strongest near the center of the Galaxy).

Also, best potential for water ice is at the poles. Facilities would likely be dug in, under the Lunar surface, or in lava tubes that already exist, if found to be sufficiently stable to be safe.


THEN, there is the next hurdle, in manned space flight exploration aspirations....MARS! Lots has been said, and some dreamers wish for it, but there are STILL a lot of these same concerns.

A short jaunt of about two weeks, to the Moon, and the materials of the spacecraft are mostly sufficient to protect from the radiation in space.

Sure, the dosage is slightly higher than one would normally encounter over one's lifetime. But, that's a risk inherent in discovery and explorations, sometimes.

For any manned Mars mission, there will need to be technology developed, both for the trip trans-earth-mars, and also for the time on the surface, should a landing be planned.

We are talking anywhere from several months, to two years total. Depends on many factors....

It's a shame that people react to news stories about science in such ways, and over-state (or read into incorrectly) what is covered. Usually due to a pre-conceived (and or false) notion to begin with.

Which, since we're supposed to be on about this kid in Australia, back to him, and his ilk.

Woefully ignorant, they are, of science. It shows, because they embarrass themselves publicly, with their dreck. Kinda sad, really.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
god sake i will have only 1 go at this they are tapes faking it and 2 we actually did and are RIGHT NOW ON THE MOON IF YOU HERE ARE THIS BAD AT UNDERSTANDING THE SIMPLE DIALECTIC THEY ARE LOOSING THERE IS NO ONE MABIE 1 IN 40000 THAT WILL UNDERSTAND WORLDWIDE



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

But I highly doubt it considering that the sage of the supposed debunkers, Phage, already spoke and agreed with me.

The question can not be answered.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]


No.

I did not agree with you. Don't say I did.

The question was answered. During the Apollo missions radiation levels were below expected levels and acceptable for short term exposure. That does not mean that there is not more to be learned about how long term exposure may affect future astronauts.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I will not respond to the repeated attacks on the press.

The press that was issued by NASA.

You have obviously seen something that does not compute, and it is highly entertaining to watch you try and cover it with as many words as possible.

That's right.
Cover as many angles as possible in order to overwhelm the reader with information.

But you still did not answer my question.

We currently do not know where the high neutron radiation is located on the moon.
Deadly high neutron radiation.

We did not even start mapping it until 1998-99.

But yet the astronauts did not encounter any radiation except in the Van Allen Belts in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Your efforts are a failure as have been EVERY SINGLE person's efforts to adequately answer my question.

I have mad respect for Phage, at least he was man enough to admit that I have an argument and we do not know the answer.

Cheers.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Josephus23

But I highly doubt it considering that the sage of the supposed debunkers, Phage, already spoke and agreed with me.

The question can not be answered.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]


No.

I did not agree with you. Don't say I did.

The question was answered. During the Apollo missions radiation levels were below expected levels and acceptable for short term exposure. That does not mean that there is not more to be learned about how long term exposure may affect future astronauts.


Phage shame on you.

You cannot use the "Apollo moon landings" to prove your point.

The moon landings must be real because the information gathered during the landings tells me that it is real.

That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

You stated that we do not know where the mapped neutron radiation on the moon is and that it could be a problem for future missions.

How can you say anything about long or short term exposure when we do not know where the types of radiation are located on the moon.

Using the moon landings to prove your point is circular reasoning.

I expect more from you.

Unless, that is, you have an agenda.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Once again, for the third time. Radiation was encountered during the entire mission, not only in the Van Allen belts.

While outside the radiation belts, the radiation encountered was predominantly in the form of galactic cosmic rays. Dose rates experienced during the translunar and transearth phases of the missions ranged from 1 to 3 millirad/hr. In lunar orbit and on the surface, where the bulk of the Moon provides about 30 percent and 50 percent shielding, respectively, dose rates ranged from 1 to 2 millirad per hour.

www.workingonthemoon.com...

You have no argument. Radiation levels are acceptable for short term exposure.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


How can you say any of that Phage?

You are using the very thing that I am calling fake to prove your point.

I have lost faith in you and your debate chops.

Here is a link to circular reasoning.

Know it. Live it. Learn it.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



You have obviously seen something that does not compute...


Only certain contributions to this thread, and in the OP


...and it is highly entertaining to watch you try and cover it with as many words as possible.


Try to "cover" what, exactly?


I explain, and (hopefully) educate. Using words because, well...that's kinda sorta how we do it, on the Internet Machine.



That's right.
Cover as many angles as possible in order to overwhelm the reader with information.


Having trouble following along? Is that it?



But you still did not answer my question.


I scroll up, and I see a Google link to a Google search about radiation, and I read those first four links.

Was there a question in there somewhere?


We currently do not know where the high neutron radiation is located on the moon.
Deadly high neutron radiation.

We did not even start mapping it until 1998-99.



Oh...NOW you get specific.

OK..."Deadly high neutron radiation".


Setting that aside, for the moment, because really, it's irrelevant.

According to you, NASA wasn't even aware (since they didn't start "mapping it until 1998-99").

Well then, we were darned lucky. IF any of those twelve Apollo Astronauts had landed in areas that were so "deadly", then it would have made all the papers, by now. BUT, since it appears that the worst possible locations are near the poles, and Apollo didn't go there....

BUT, your logical fallacy, and claim, is....NASA couldn't possibly have flown the Apollo missions to land on the Moon, because of the "deadly neutron radiation" that they didn't even know about, back in the 1960s?

Does that about sum up your contention?


I can only shake my head, and the continued attempts at denial being displayed, and not only by the bloke in the OP.

Mountains of evidence to contrary, including now some very good photos, thanks to LRO. Yet, this nonsense continues?








[edit on 1 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   



Can you please expand a bit on this give some examples post pictures or links AND please dont make it that OLD google earth BS that hoax believers always mention because 99.9% dont know how google gets its images.

So show the great earth shots with info on equipment used and the same with the Moon ones your not happy about.

So we compare apples with apples or should that be pixels with pixels.


-edited because I was not being nice...

Shall we both look for pictures and articles about the technology that they used that time?

I found something that said they used to old vacuumtube ( tv ) method in older missions so that would mean pretty poor quality be today's standard...

But what do you think? shall we both look for this information? maybe it will bring up some interesting questions?


[edit on 1-5-2010 by AquaTim84]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You can not use the moon landings to justify your point.

That is circular reasoning.

Saying this...



Well then, we were darned lucky. IF any of those twelve Apollo Astronauts had landed in areas that were so "deadly", then it would have made all the papers, by now. BUT, since it appears that the worst possible locations are near the poles, and Apollo didn't go there....


That is circular reasoning.

Know it. Read it. Learn it.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I stated that this alleged "Young Aussie Genius", is just a plagiarist. And all of the alleged "Young Aussie Genius" points in those videos had already been debunked.

So, unless you're this alleged "Young Aussie Genius". Why are you trying to address me, as if I were talking about you and your point?

Anyways...
I saw your question post, and frankly you are taking liberties with the "Force Field" article, and you are dishonestly using the "Radiation on the Moon" article.

In the "Force Field" article, the author who claimed that space is "awash with intense radiation" is just using hyperbole. And does not even hold a doctorate. The author is just some guy, and I'm linking your source so people can see for themselves.

A FORCE FIELD FOR ASTRONAUTS
science.nasa.gov...

The funny thing is, the editor of that article (who has a doctorate) has written an article about why we DID go to the Moon.

THE GREAT MOON HOAX
science.nasa.gov...

Now I'm not saying that space is radiation-free or anything like that, but I'm also not going to use obvious exaggeration to make my point either.

Second, your question about how NASA managed to not kill the astronauts. You wonder how the astronauts survived, even though NASA didn't know the precise amount of radiation on the Moons surface.

The answer is that, they obviously weren't exposed for a long enough period of time to absorb lethal levels of radiation.

I know you don't like that answer, but that's all there is to it. And the bit of reading I did on the responses to you, it seems this Phage person and others answered the question well enough.

Again, I know you don't like the answer. And you want to claim that no one has answered you, but they have, and you are just pretending otherwise. And accusing people of repeating memes.

Just because we didn't know how much radiation was up there, doesn't mean that it would automatically kill them.

I don't know how many Sharks are in the Pacific ocean, but that doesn't mean they automatically kill me if I swim there.

Your implication, that not knowing the amount of radiation means an automatic kill, is ridiculous...period. And your stance of pretending that no one is answering you satisfactorily, is also ridiculous. And more than a little bit childish.

You want links from everyone for everything, but your own sources actually defeat you. This is your "Radiation on the Moon" link. Which you used to "prove" that there is Neutron radiation on the Moon.

RADIATION ON THE MOON
www.universetoday.com...

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

So, YOUR source also proves that people can stay on the Moon for short period of time.

Gee, I wonder why you failed to mention that part of the article.




[edit on 1-5-2010 by Byteman]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Shame? Why? I have no need to meet your "expectations".

It is not circular reasoning. The Moon landings did occur. The fact does not depend on the radiation data returned, there are mountains of other data.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not state that we do not know where neutron radiation will occur.

The neutron radiation occurs over the entire surface of the Moon. Any place which is hit by cosmic rays will produce neutron radiation. This is known. Preliminary analysis of data from LEND has shown that high energy neutron radiation accounts for 10% of the total secondary radiation. I guess you missed that. Here it is again:

Where neutron and gamma are secondary radiation produced by Galactic cosmic Rays in Lunar subsurface. Major contribution is provided by protons and ions of GCR (~90%), minor contribution is provided by neutrons (~10%), gamma radiation contribute less than 0.5% of total dose.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Your argument is based on nothing. "We don't know for sure how much high energy neutron radiation was present at the Apollo landing sites but it must have been deadly so they could not have survived it."

False.



[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 





The answer is that, they obviously weren't exposed for a long enough period of time to absorb lethal levels of radiation.


That is circular reasoning.

Here is a link..... Again.

Until someone can come up with a better answer than more circular reasoning, then I will withhold comment.

My comments stand as being the most valid, and any reader who can read and comprehend will see past the obvious agenda of the many.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Where is the radiation.

Not preliminary observations, but where.

High neutron radiation kills.

The astronauts did not supposedly suffer from high neutron radiation.

That is a big chance to take with America's finest considering that we still do not know.

But yet we had a 100% survival rate.

And a 100% success rate regarding radiation exposure.

But for some strange reason nobody else has gone back to the moon, not even with our 1968 technology.

But hey, like I said, We are America, we kick as much *** now as we did back then.

I like watching you guys squirm and fidget for an answer that you cannot give to me.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join