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: 13
377
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


All over. Where ever cosmic rays strike the surface.
Don't you understand that? The neutron radiation is the secondary result of cosmic radiation.
From your pet source:

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Of which the neutron radiation can be high or low.

High neutron radiation kills.

(funny that you type what you typed, because if it is solely caused by cosmic rays and is secondary and can be high or low, then even a mapped moon will not tell us where the HIGH neutron radiation is, because it is ever changing)

You just proved your own preliminary analysis argument wrong.

But even if your previous argument is wrong, then we do not know where the secondary high neutron radiation that is caused by the surface of the moon is located.

Because we did not start mapping it until 1998-99.

And you can not use the moon landings to substantiate the fact that we went to the moon.

That is classic circular reasoning.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

It is "located" everywhere on the Moon. Cosmic radiation strikes the Moon everywhere. Near side, far side, day side, night side. The secondary radiation is produced everywhere on the surface.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Excellent post, OP.

This is honestly one I've never spent too much time on, because I thought it was obvious what the truth was, but no other conspiracy had ever received SO much debunking effort & support (with all due respect to 9/11 - it's had an extra 30 years of debate, with far less resources).

Anyway, I've always found it strange that no one asks why we haven't returned to the moon in almost 40 years, when #1) the technology to get us there has come leaps and bounds from what it was in the 60s/70s, and #2) the benefits of space observation and civ1 development increase immensely.

Let's hope this kid becomes popular on Facebook, or something.





[edit on 5/1/2010 by SquirrelNutz]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And it can be high or low, that is the purpose of the LRO.

And we do not know where the high or low radiation is located.

We do not know.

High neutron radiation kills.

Once again...

Good points Phage, but all irrelevant.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Interestingly enough, the LM was hailed as one of the crowning achievements of the Apollo program, as it performed essentially flawlessly in every mission. It was an absolute tribute to Grumman's engineering abilities.


Are you kidding? It couldn't perform at all on Earth. It failed when Armstrong tested it and almost nearly killed him. Luckily, he ejected in time.

So how could it perform flawlessly on the moon, which might have been staged?


You are revealing your research skills there. Thanks for making my point.

HOW MANY TIMES DID THE SIMULATOR FLY? HOW MANY TIMES DID IT FAIL?

(Added)
And why did you say it was the actual LM? It could not possibly be the actual LM - do tell us, Wu, how could you test a vehicle designed for 1/6 gravity and a vacuum, on Earth? It's no wonder you are impressed by fancy videos with no science...

I note you have not responded in any way to my challenge. So, last chance - which is the best, most well-researched video, in your opinion? If you don't choose, I'll just deal with the first two that you posted.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


What?
First of all, it's not circular reasoning...period. You are wrong.

Second, why don't you address the rest of my post?

Why don't you address the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE, states that people can be on the Moon for a few days?

You seem fond of relinking so here's it back at ya.

YOUR LINK CONCERNING 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.

This is YOUR OWN SOURCE. So you must admit that Neutron radiation on the Lunar surface is not a problem unless you're there for more than a few days.

It's not circular reasoning, it's hindsight. We know now, that the astronauts were not there long enough to build up a lethal dose of rads.

So you can just stop with your meme, and circular reasoning junk. Your own sources say you're wrong...period.

I expect you'll try and ignore 95% of this post, like you did my last post though. Anything to remain in denial...right?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


Wrong.



This is YOUR OWN SOURCE. So you must admit that Neutron radiation on the Lunar surface is not a problem unless you're there for more than a few days.


Sorry, but you have just straw manned me, and breaking my evidence up individually is a great technique.

Divide and conquer; however, you do not address the meat of my argument, which is...

High neutron radiation kills.

We do not know where the high neutron radiation is located because we did not begin mapping it until 1998-99.

My source is NASA.

Do you really think that they will contradict their own propaganda for the moon landings?

Not directly, that is why we are taught critical thinking skills.

Hindsight, circular reasoning....

They are the same.

Until I can get a good argument, all I have to do is repeat the same argument that I am making.

Step outside of the box for a second.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Okay, I'll bite. How do we know that neutron radiation kills? You keep repeating that meme. Prove it.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


LMAO

Breaking up your evidence?
That is what you did to me when you ignored the VAST MAJORITY of my first post to you.

You are a hypocrite.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
...
Why don't you address the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE, states that people can be on the Moon for a few days?

You seem fond of relinking so here's it back at ya.

YOUR LINK CONCERNING 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.
This is YOUR OWN SOURCE. So you must admit that Neutron radiation on the Lunar surface is not a problem unless you're there for more than a few days.

It's not circular reasoning, it's hindsight. We know now, that the astronauts were not there long enough to build up a lethal dose of rads.

So you can just stop with your meme, and circular reasoning junk. Your own sources say you're wrong...period.



Josephus seems to be very quiet on this point - his own link debunks his claim. And you will notice that NOT ONCE, has he posted a figure for his claimed lethal radiation levels. He just keeps repeating (circularly!), his mantra - "High neutron radiation kills".

Yes, it CAN, but at what level, Josephus?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


I have one question and it is regarding the presence of high neutron radiation on the moon.

And it should be clear to anyone reading that not one single person can answer my question.

A question that, singly, could make the moon landings an impossibility.

I feel like I am surrounded by people who want to normalize things.

Outliers in statistics really mean something and to discard them in favor of the most normal answer is akin to pseudoscience.

Of course, the vast majority of researchers will tell you "discard the outliers", but is everything really as it seems?

History does not validate that idea.

Galileo, Copernicus, Newton...

The list goes on and on.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

No.
All of the neutrons radiation produced by cosmic radiation is high energy radiation. You are confusing that initial radiation with the radiation detected by the Lunar Prospector. The neutron spectrometer on board the LP was only capable of detecting neutrons which had been slowed down after encountering other materials (like hydrogen). That is what its purpose was, to determine what other materials (water in particular) were present. That is why the map from LP shows differences in neutron radiation levels.

Here's what happens. A cosmic ray hits an atom on the surface. This releases neutrons. Some of those neutrons hit other atoms on the surface, bounce off, and fly into space, losing energy in the process. That is the low energy radiation detected by LP. Some of those neutrons fly into space without hitting anything. That is the high energy radiation detected by LEND. That high energy radiation is produced by every cosmic ray strike, everywhere, equally, on the moon. It is that high energy radiation which is of concern.

The cosmic rays are sufficiently energetic to break apart atoms in the soil releasing high-energy neutrons that are then slowed down and absorbed by nuclei of elements in the soil. Not all the neutrons are captured by the soil, many escape, creating a leakage flux of neutrons which the LEND instrument will observe.

lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov...

LEND is able to tell the difference. The direct neutron radiation on the Moon, according to data from LEND, is .12mSv per day. That is the equivalent of .012 rem. It is not going to kill anyone in 3 days or even three weeks.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


We do not know what the radiation levels are because we did not start to map them until 1998-99.

High neutron radiation DOES kill.

I have already posted a link.

The only evidence that ANYONE can give me is from the supposed moon landings themselves.

And that is circular reasoning.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Sorry phage your wrong this time, Tell me this then Why havent we gone back to the moon?

A space shuttle could make a good landing on the moon, but yet like everyone says we havent gone back.
So why is that?


Its because of radiation and also we are sending more drones and drones to the planet mars and not on moon, why?


why they wont let us see whats on it or how it looks like from a drone point view eh?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Where is it?

You are giving me preliminary reports and nothing concrete.

You are giving me an average over a large period of time and nothing from the surface of the moon, which is where the radiation would be located.

The pockets of HIGH neutron radiation, which KILLS.

Not the average observed from above, but the numbers on the face of the moon.

Unless you want to reference more "moon landing" data.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Your question keeps changing to suit your purposes.
It's not worth anyone's time to try and answer it further.

You are a goalpost changer, and a hypocrite.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Tell me.
What would cause these "pockets" of high neutron radiation?
What evidence can you present that such areas exist?
What would confine such radiation to the surface?



[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I can not tell you, because WE DO NOT KNOW.

And the only evidence that you can give to me is evidence from the supposed "moon landings" themselves.

I am asking a very specific question, and the answer is that there could be pockets of high neutron radiation or there could not be pockets of high neutron radiation.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

So, we were either incredibly stupid when we "sent the astronauts to the moon", or we were incredibly lucky, or...

It is all a hoax.

I do not know, but I do not believe that we did anything as long as extremely contradictory holes in the official storyline still exist.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Really?

Okay, let's suppose the shuttle could even reach the Moon.

Then let's suppose a shuttle could land on the Moon, even though there are no paved landing strips.

How would it take off?

The Moon has no atmosphere to provide lift for the wings. Wings need air to work, and the Moon has none. And the shuttles wings aren't lifting wings anyways.

The Shuttles thrusters are not strong enough, nor do they have enough propellant to lift the shuttle, even in the reduced gravity of the Moon. They are only strong enough to move the shuttle slowly in a zero/near-zero G environment in short bursts.

This isn't "Airplane 2", shuttles cannot land or take off from the Moon. Thanks for the LOL though, perhaps the funniest thing I read all day.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join