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: 190
377
<< 187  188  189    191  192  193 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Why? Whether an SPE was threatening is the only fact worth discussing.


No its not. What was NASA's protocol when they detected an SPE or MAJOR flare during the Apollo missions?

You see, if you fake something, you dont have to worry about environmental dangers.

For example. If I'm making a movie about hikers climbing K2 or any other dangerous mountain,
I wouldn't be concerned to warn the crew and cast if an actual avalanche or snowstorm would occur on that particular mountain because the crew and cast would be somewhere many miles away safe and sound on a set.

And I submit to you and everyone else, 5 major flares during A12 should have had the same drama as Apollo 13. That goes for any SPE that is measured from Earth. Some type of safety precaution would have to be put in motion. NASA really wouldn't want another congressional hearing / investigation over the deaths of Astronauts.
Especially when they made it sound like radiation was not a problem.

So who will be the brave soul that provides the facts on NASA's safety procedures for Solar Flares and SPEs during Apollo? Maybe you have proof that NASA had none? Maybe there detection systems were bogus?




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seem to me these protocols are found in a single Google search, in fact it was the hit on top of my page.

www.informantnews.org...

Why don't you just post this information upfront and tell us whats wrong with it?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Anyone care to guess where this famous item would be?

Yes, that's how a serious investigator behaves.

OK, let's look at this PROPERLY. Your selected quotes from the NASA transcript (you believe this transcript? OK, so be it..) comes from A14 at 135.08, as you correctly point out.

But that is NOT when the final decisions about what was to be jettisoned were made.

Indeed EVA-2 didn't finish until much later and these comments are about putting a camera in the ETB (Equipment Trasfer Bag) long before going back into the LM to begin final preparations. After that, (in the bits you don't include or mention), they:

    * did the golf shot thing (135:09)
    * had more discussions about what needed to come back (135:09:27)
    * went to the MESA (135:11)
    * then went to the SWC (135:12)
    * things were taken out (135:15:42)
    * then went to the MET (135:16)
    * made references to 'weigh bags', suggesting further decisions to be made (135:17:27)
    * discuss all sorts of problems about what fits in the ETB (135:18 to 135:20)..


Anyway, critically, there is this little discussion (just after 135:23:18):

[Shepard, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "We did get everything up there (to the cabin), with the exception of one camera magazine."]
[Mitchell, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "Outside of my own stupidity - missing that one magazine. This was complicated by the fact that, in real time (at 119:50:37, we decided to take the extra magazine we hadn't used on EVA-1 out on EVA-2, so that we had an extra magazine on the surface. In checking things off on the checklist before ingress on the second EVA, I very brightly marked off three magazines. We had three (in the ETB) indeed. There was a fourth magazine sitting there on the (16-mm) camera that we just overlooked."]
[See, also, the discussion following 132:59:35. The forgotten magazine was HH (Hotel-Hotel), which they loaded in the 16-mm camera before leaving the LM but didn't turn on until 133:47:47 as they were making their way toward Station F on the trip back to the LM.]

Note that there is no mention of the Hasselblad camera (which is 70mm), only the *magazines* from the camera. The magazine on a camera is identified as a 16mm (movie) camera, NOT a Hasselblad. They then jokingly admit that they may have lied about what exactly went into the ETB...
.

And then there is this, after 135:07:37:

[One possible explanation for Houston's request is that Al has been having trouble with his camera handle and Houston wants to take a look at it.]

Who's to say that they didn't examine the camera in the LM before ascent, identify the problem, and then discard it? Like I said, it is not 100% clear..

Then and here's the critical FINAL NAIL, there is this, after 135:51:37:

[Long Comm Break.]
[They will remove the PLSSs, check to make sure that the OPSs are still working properly (in case they have to be used for an emergency spacewalk across to the Command Module), and prepare a jettison bag with unneeded equipment to be discarded along with the PLSSs. They perform the OPS check before discarding the PLSSs for the simple reason that, should one of the OPSs not check out properly, they will keep a PLSS. Astronaut Joe Engle, the backup LMP, takes over as CapCom.]


So... MORE STUFF WAS JETTISONED. Perhaps even a camera....


NOW, may I once again ask:

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS OTHER THAN TO DISTRACT???

The irony is that I'd love to find out that one of the lunar surface Hassy's came back, as I would like to see it in the flesh before I pass this mortal coil...

So, make my day, stop playing stupid games, and see above for GENUINE RESEARCH, in context (and relevant) quotes, and the proper consideration of all possibilities.


You should try that sometime.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seem to me these protocols are found in a single Google search, in fact it was the hit on top of my page.

www.informantnews.org...

Why don't you just post this information upfront and tell us whats wrong with it?


Oh I linked where you can find this info.
But I want Apollo defenders to post the info.
Because they tend to criticize anything coming from us who think the whole thing has been faked.
But all you did was give a link. Why not go the distance and post the text?


Because only approximately 20 percent of the flares resultin particle events, it is not necessary to change normal mission procedures on thebasis of RF or visual observations alone. Rather, radiation sensors on board solar-orbit and earth-orbit satellites, as well as on board the Apollo spacecraft itself, are used to confirm the particle event.

Only after the appearance of particles is confirmed would action be taken to protect the crewmen.

For a typical event, approximately 8 hours would be available from the time particles are confirmed to the time of peak radiation dose.


So basically the minute particles are confirmed action would be taken. Because they have no idea how high the peak flux would be. So now all we need is to confirm if any particles were detected and if any action had taken place because of it during any of the missions.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
For some reason, you ignore Figure 1 in the very document you use.

There were no major proton events during any of the Apollo missions. Though and beyond Apollo 12.

And just because it's there, here is the contingency plan.





edit on 9/11/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I think we are all waiting for about 20 pages already for you to show such an event happened.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So... MORE STUFF WAS JETTISONED. Perhaps even a camera....


NOW, may I once again ask:

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS OTHER THAN TO DISTRACT???

The irony is that I'd love to find out that one of the lunar surface Hassy's came back, as I would like to see it in the flesh before I pass this mortal coil...

So, make my day, stop playing stupid games, and see above for GENUINE RESEARCH, in context (and relevant) quotes, and the proper consideration of all possibilities.


You should try that sometime.



Thats what you call analysis? What a "reach" job.
Dude you might as well crack your knuckles and prepare to type an apology.



05 23 45 30 CC And, of course, we're going to bring back the
docking probe. Now, on stowage: the first three
items, the tethers and the webbing, can go in the
temporary stowage 'bags in the con, hand module. The
Hasselblad in the ISA, which is normal, and your
gloves can go in the PGA bag, and the probe up
underneath the right-hand couch in the temporary
stowage location.



05 23 45 59 LMP Okay, we've already stowed most of this stuff,
Bruce. The tether - the 100-foot tether is already in the ISA; the LEC waste tethers can go in the TsB and so can the 30-foot tiedown webbing. The Commander's Hasselblad we can put in the ISA; the EVA gloves are already in the ISA. Okay, stand by, please.


Thats from the tech brief.
They were already off the surface of the moon at this point in orbit.


Again, from the transcript:


135:23:03 Haise: And, Al and Ed, I just wanted to check once again on the camera mags to make sure you got four 70's and four 16-millimeter mags. I guess one of the 70's is on a camera.
135:23:18 Mitchell: That's affirm, Fredo.

[Shepard, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "We did get everything up there (to the cabin), with the exception of one camera magazine."]


Now...

Apollo 14 was the eighth manned mission in the Apollo program and the third mission to land on the Moon. (An H type mission with two EVAs or moonwalks.) The nine-day mission was launched on January 31, 1971, with lunar touch down on February 5.


So it was launched 01/31/1971
The Apollo Lunar checklist has three dates
01/21/71
09/15/70
11/16/70
all dates prior to launch.
Which makes it a todo list, a script if you will.
On page...
3-14
you will see what appears to be diagram with a path and arrows for where the astronauts should walk and take photos on the moon.
Even what f-stop to use, etc.
Now think about that for a second.

go to page
6-7
history.nasa.gov...

Read number 6:
Take 24fps movie: 1 mag
-kick boulders into crater ???
-Crew walk around & pose ???

Read 7:
- Al behind big boulder, Ed document ???
How would they know Al would be behind a big boulder?
How would they know there was a big boulder there?

Go to the next page
6-8
You can see how detailed the entire photography was for the mission.
They pre-determined framerate and f stops.
How would they know?
Read point 4
Ed - footprint & photo ???

Who said here photography wasn't important ?



134:54:14 Haise: Roger, Al, and I guess from here, we can split up; and Ed can take the MET and proceed to the cluster of boulders he had reported earlier to the north(west) of the LM; and you can proceed out to the ALSEP.


that wouldn't be the same boulders on page 6-11 would it??

Now real important.
on page 6-16
It states at 3+34
Stow in ETB
-1 70mm cam
-1 70mm mags
-3 16mm mags

Hmmm....

6-17
You see a checklist with a 70mm camera stowed and the tether is written in.


05 23 45 59 LMP Okay, we've already stowed most of this stuff,
Bruce. The tether - the 100-foot tether is already in the ISA; the LEC waste tethers can go in the TsB and so can the 30-foot tiedown webbing. The Commander's Hasselblad we can put in the ISA; the EVA gloves are already in the ISA. Okay, stand by, please.


Now is this why NASA was so adamant about bringing back a Hasselblad because it was in the checklist?


135:07:13 Haise: I stand corrected. What they really wanted was to bring Al's camera back, instead of yours. So, we'll only be bringing one camera, the CDR's.
135:07:13 Haise: I stand corrected. What they really wanted was to bring Al's camera back, instead of yours. So, we'll only be bringing one camera, the CDR's.
[One possible explanation for Houston's request is that Al has been having trouble with his camera handle and Houston wants to take a look at it.]


No... its because it was on the checklist



08 23 45 07 CMP And moonset, Houston.


Exactly... what a moonset, lol

Anyway, according to some... this person knows where the camera is:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

He might tell you it was placed here:
Kansas Cosmosphere

However...

What follows is a list of artifacts that were identified as missing from the Kansas Cosmosphere in a December 2003 searchwarrant. It is presented here as transcribed from a copy of the warrant. Due to the condition of the document, it is possible that errors were introduced as it was transcribed


On that list you can find:
Lens for 35 MM Camera SEC33100952-3021005
Hasselblad Body Camera SEF33101017-3011006
70MM Hasselblad Camera Body SEC33102115-3021007S
70MM Camera Body SEF33100040-3051027
70MM Hasselblad Camera SEB33100081-201

underalms.typepad.com...

what can you say




history.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats what you call analysis? What a "reach" job.
Dude you might as well crack your knuckles and prepare to type an apology.



Allow me to reiterate the previous question asked of you:

"WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS OTHER THAN TO DISTRACT???"

How does any of this relate to the Apollo Hoax other that it gives you a chance to change the subject an avoid answering the radiation question you've been ducking for over 10 pages now?

Now please, post you radiation data or admit you don't have any. This is getting beyond tolerable.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
In my humble opinion, this nonsense has gone on long enough.
Foo wants to move on to another topic. Well I say we don't let him.
Do not answer any posts of Foo's unless it addresses the radiation issue; specifically the data relating to "major SPE". and a definition in the form of actual data. .
Refuse to engage in any debate with him until that issue is resolved.
Then we can move on to the next fallacy.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
In my humble opinion, this nonsense has gone on long enough.
Foo wants to move on to another topic. Well I say we don't let him.
Do not answer any posts of Foo's unless it addresses the radiation issue; specifically the data relating to "major SPE". and a definition in the form of actual data. .
Refuse to engage in any debate with him until that issue is resolved.
Then we can move on to the next fallacy.


Agreed. All this new posting does is prove he's never looked at a NASA checklist (at least very carefully).



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
For some reason, you ignore Figure 1 in the very document you use.

There were no major proton events during any of the Apollo missions. Though and beyond Apollo 12.



Im glad you brought that up.
Where is the other half to that chart?

Well here is an opportunity for somebody to explain what that chart is saying in layman's terms. Without being condescending to others.

We have skin doses in rem.
This goes from .001 to 100 rem right?
Is that per hour, per second?

Lets take a look at one of the bars.
There is one in November 1969 that is pretty high.
But what do those dose numbers mean?
1.5 x 10^8 = 150.000.000 right?

Somebody please explain it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats what you call analysis? What a "reach" job.
Dude you might as well crack your knuckles and prepare to type an apology.



Allow me to reiterate the previous question asked of you:

"WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS OTHER THAN TO DISTRACT???"

How does any of this relate to the Apollo Hoax other that it gives you a chance to change the subject an avoid answering the radiation question you've been ducking for over 10 pages now?

Now please, post you radiation data or admit you don't have any. This is getting beyond tolerable.


Please, what bunch of whiners.
What did I tell you from the very beginning when I came to these boards.
Im going to HIT YOU FROM ALL ANGLES.

Im very capable of maintaining several conversations/debates at one time.
Why cant any of you?

There is like... like 5 for 6 regulars here on this thread who defend NASA's version of Apollo, and you guys cant handle that I bring up different topics? OMG PATHETIC!! Im starting to wonder if maybe these 5 or 6 people aren't just one or two people with ALT accounts! This 'group think' you guys have is worrisome and sick.

This is why J.W. aka Young Aussie Genius is whipping you guys in the moon hoax debate. You just cant handle the various points that get brought up.

There are many topics still open such:

Windows on the LM and CM how did they block radiation?
Blue glowing astronauts of Apollo 12, what kind of photo or moon anomaly was that?
And many more loose ends that nobody seems to be able to answer.
I can see how getting to new topics would make your mind spin.
But dont worry, its just the rinse cycle of your brain wash.

So no sorry TOM.
I dont debate on your terms.
You can't handle it, don't be involved.
I recall actually long long ago you were planning to never respond to my posts... LOL.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

The unit, rem, is a dose factor. The chart is showing the total dosage which the astronauts would have been exposed to during the entire particle event. The MOD (maximum operational dose) for the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads. Converting rems to rams depends on the nature of the radiation involved but for high energy protons the Q factor is 10, meaning that 100 rems would be the equivalent of 10 rads. So even if Apollo 12 had launched a week earlier, that proton event would not have been dangerous, even during an EVA. None of the missions got anywhere near 400 rads.

I've mentioned this before...when I went through radiation therapy I recieved 250 rads at each treatment. For a total of 4000 rads. I didn't die.

Your questions have been answered.

The windows of the CM consisted of more than 1" of glass. More than enough to absorb x-rays even if the window had been pointed at the Sun during a flare. Why do you keep harping on that unsubstantiated claim about how deadly the x-rays would have been? It would have taken an extreme flare to have been lethal.

The "glowing astronaut" is a result of a smudge on the lens. It is apparent in the whole series of images. I did not glow after my radiation treatments. People do not glow when exposed to radiation.


edit on 9/12/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The only reason anything is still being discussed is because you change topic to avoid answering any questions. Or simply dont understand the subject matter: case in point, the chart you asked be explained to you. If you even glanced at it within the document you yourself posted it should be clear as day what the chart is showing.

Once again, present your SPE data.

PS: you should review your definition of "whipping"



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

The unit, rem, is a dose factor. The chart is showing the total dosage which the astronauts would have been exposed to during the entire particle event. The MOD (maximum operational dose) for the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads.


Just to clarify for our readers:

...the maximum operational dose (MOD) limit for each of the Apollo missions was set at 400 rads (X-ray equivalent) to skin and 50 rads to the blood-forming organs.


I would interpret that as 400 rads to blood-forming organs would be major problem, right?



Converting rems to rams depends on the nature of the radiation involved but for high energy protons the Q factor is 10, meaning that 100 rems would be the equivalent of 10 rads. So even if Apollo 12 had launched a week earlier, that proton event would not have been dangerous, even during an EVA. None of the missions got anywhere near 400 rads.

I've mentioned this before...when I went through radiation therapy I recieved 250 rads at each treatment. For a total of 4000 rads. I didn't die.


Yes, you shared this before, but you will agree this was a controlled use of radiation.
With probably a specific type of radiation.
Over significant length of time; time for you body to recover from the dose.
Not to mention, you probably received medical after care.
I cant imagine that you received 4000 rads of high energy protons or alphas over a period of week.
And you didnt clarify if this was 250 rads equivalent to exposure to your organs or to you skin.

If you dont mind sharing, with your treatments, did you experience nausea? Even go so far as to vomit? Were you tired, not able to concentrate? Did you experience any side effects from your treatments? You see, all those side effects would be life threatening if you were out in space. Would you agree? On Earth, it is manageable.



Your questions have been answered.


You gave answers, thank you, but it doesn't mean we are any further than we were before.

You say that:
"So even if Apollo 12 had launched a week earlier, that proton event would not have been dangerous, even during an EVA. None of the missions got anywhere near 400 rads"

How did you come to that conclusion? Show us the math. Bring it home for us laymen.
Im still wondering what that 150.000.000 total dose represented.
What are they really saying abut the November SPE.
How much of a dose for the CM, LM and EVA?
And would this be in REM?



The windows of the CM consisted of more than 1" of glass. More than enough to absorb x-rays even if the window had been pointed at the Sun during a flare. Why do you keep harping on that unsubstantiated claim about how deadly the x-rays would have been? It would have taken an extreme flare to have been lethal.


You want us to take your word on it, or you have some evidence to back that up?
Us layman will have questions regarding never having to take x-rays behind glass.
We would also want to know if there was any radiation scattering associated with that glass.
And, how protective that glass would be from energetic protons, or any other radiation found in interstellar space.
NASA should have documents about how protective this glass was, right?



The "glowing astronaut" is a result of a smudge on the lens. It is apparent in the whole series of images. I did not glow after my radiation treatments. People do not glow when exposed to radiation.


Sorry, but you have provided no evidence it was a smudge.
You will have to do substantiate that claim or admit its an open unsolved anomaly.

And nobody is saying those astronauts are glowing because of radiation.
I certainly am not because I say they never left LEO.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


The only reason anything is still being discussed is because you change topic to avoid answering any questions.


What?





Or simply dont understand the subject matter: case in point, the chart you asked be explained to you. If you even glanced at it within the document you yourself posted it should be clear as day what the chart is showing.


Sorry its not. Tell us what its showing.
Instead of telling us that its clear.




Once again, present your SPE data.


Say "pretty please... with sugar on top"




PS: you should review your definition of "whipping"


Why?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd
you seem to be the only person who thinks it was important to take a picture of the flag with an astronaut beside it. NASA obviously didn't consider it a priority


Actually NASA did seem to think it was important, that's why flags were deployed on ALL alleged surface missions.
That's right ... they needed to plant not 1, but 6 of them. Wouldn't one have been enough ?

In fact total set up time for all 6 flags was around one hour. That's one hour of extremely valuable lunar surface time ... setting up a flag. Once I can understand, but 6 times.


Originally posted by Tomblvd
becuase it wasn't on the mission plan (you know, the stuff they REALLY wanted them to do).


It certainly was in the 'Final Lunar Surface Procedures' for Apollo 12,14,15,16 and 17.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by Tomblvd
Two shots is more than enough for something like that.


Well, seeing as Bean didn't follow procedures and broke the TV camera on Apollo 12, I think the stills would have been even more important than ever.

Considering it took them 8 minutes to set up the flag on Apollo 12, it seems ridiculous they also only took 2 photos with an astronaut beside it and hoped they turn out ok.

Imagine getting back home ...

"Hey you know that photo of the flag and the astronaut that was supposed to go out to every magazine and newspaper in the world tomorrow?

Well, the only 2 photos you took were fogged by radiation / under exposed / over exposed / not framed correctly / out of focus / blurred etc ... Why didn't you just take a few more with different settings? After all .. you didn't have a viewfinder to see what you were doing."

Plenty of time for golf though






edit on 12-9-2010 by ppk55 because: added important word ... alleged + golf video



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Does it not occur to you that you're whomping a deceased equine with a blunt object, here? On this "flag issue"??



In fact total set up time for all 6 flags was around one hour.


Great!!!! You've just managed to confuse (hopefully not all) the readers by mixing up the "total" of 6 missions, and accumulated time spent on the "flag", and making (or trying ot make) it seem 'important'.

Smart people will realize that ONE HOUR diveided by SIX = TEN minutes. EACH. PER. LANDING. (and "flag planting")

BTW....don't you think the experience of previous crews was passed on to the next????

Also, BTW....only takes ONE Astronaut to accomplish that particular task. The other guy? Hope you don't think he was just standing around with his thumb up his.....oh, wait! He couldn't physically put hs thumb in his....well, you get the idea. The OTHER guy was busy with the mission EVA plan.

But, since we ALL understand (don't we?) the cumulative nature of SIX MISSIONS = ONE HOUR, stil we have this next (very confusing....is it on purpose?) comment:


That's one hour of extremely valuable lunar surface time ... setting up a flag. Once I can understand, but 6 times.


I hope everyone reading this can see MY point.......

Now, I AM glad to see that you're accepting the NASA official accounts as facts.....because THAT is a step to understanding the REALITY of Apollo.

Still, straying a bit with Apollo 12, and this is keeping witht he "obsession" about the "flag" (It really, really isn't all that important. Explained below...):



Well, seeing as Bean didn't follow procedures and broke the TV camera on Apollo 12, I think the stills would have been even more important than ever.


THEY WENT!!!! Pictures of the flag,??? Who flippin' cares?!?

The Astronauts??? Nah...they wanted to do the science. The "flag" was PR, pure and simple. It was a task, and dutiful crewmemebers accomplished the tasks, per the checklist. AND per the many. many, many pre-flight mission briefings.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No-one ever said photographs weren't important. Engineers wanted to know what sort of wear and tear the LM took (hence specified photos) geologists wanted to know how the regolith looked and behaved (hence kicking a rock into a crater, if possible, to see whether it leaves a track or causes an avalanche) the biometrics people wanted to see if there was any difficulty operating hatches and tools, and so forth. That's why the bulk of the photos, as specified by the checklist, are so boring. As for your great "gotcha," how many 70mm cameras does the checklist specify be stowed after repress? I count one. They had two. I suggest you go back and read through all 178 pages of the technical mumbo jumbo you seem to think they just made up for no reason to see if you can account for the other one. What items missing from a museum has to do with anything, I don't know. Could you explain what the black market in historical collectibles has to do with Apollo? Adter all, if you're going to hit this from all angles, you might want to explain why people would risk imprisonment to steal and spend thousands of dollars, to acquire something fake.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I would interpret that as 400 rads to blood-forming organs would be major problem, right?


Yes one would imagine it would be, so?



Yes, you shared this before, but you will agree this was a controlled use of radiation.
With probably a specific type of radiation.


That is not relevant in that the amount he was exposed to is however much he stated. 100 REM is a 100 REM at the end of the day. And your comment about it being a 'specific type of radiation' doesn't really make sense? The whole point of having REM (now replaced by Sieverts) is that you use the quality factor of the type of radiation to calculate the equivalent dose. Using a QF of 10 then 100 REM of proton radiation would be the same as 10 RADs of Gamma rays for example.



Not to mention, you probably received medical after care.


What relevance does that have? You can't take a pill to repair damage caused by radiation.



And you didnt clarify if this was 250 rads equivalent to exposure to your organs or to you skin.


Luckily the graph from the article you used makes it clear the total accumalated dose from the event with which you are concerned was only about 50 REM. That's REM so it is the equivalent dose, you don't multiply it by anything.




You say that:
"So even if Apollo 12 had launched a week earlier, that proton event would not have been dangerous, even during an EVA. None of the missions got anywhere near 400 rads"

How did you come to that conclusion? Show us the math. Bring it home for us laymen.


It's in the graph? As you pointed out the graph only goes up to 100 REM and nothing exceeds it, pretty obvious really...




Im still wondering what that 150.000.000 total dose represented.


Coming from you, that's not exactly a surprise. As it says p/cm^2 - particles / cm^2



What are they really saying abut the November SPE.
How much of a dose for the CM, LM and EVA?
And would this be in REM?


The chart is about as simple as possible, so if you can't understand that......



You want us to take your word on it, or you have some evidence to back that up?


Or you could just get an education..... Some of us have to pay a lot of money for it, why should you get it for free?





The "glowing astronaut" is a result of a smudge on the lens. It is apparent in the whole series of images. I did not glow after my radiation treatments. People do not glow when exposed to radiation.


Sorry, but you have provided no evidence it was a smudge.


Well what do you think it was? He was glowing because of radiation? So you admit they were on the Moon then?



You will have to do substantiate that claim or admit its an open unsolved anomaly.


Doesn't stop you......


And nobody is saying those astronauts are glowing because of radiation.


Well why are you unhappy about it being a smudge then?



I certainly am not because I say they never left LEO.


Yes, well you obviously enjoy showing your ignorance and being wrong.. So why stop now?




top topics



 
377
<< 187  188  189    191  192  193 >>

log in

join