Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by PsykoOps


Nope. No man has set foot on the moon since they supposedly did back then. Putting equipment on its surface is whole different thing.

So for any of the readers....

I hope that the critical thinkers out there have noticed the ongoing intense personal attacks against my stance, by no less than anywhere from six to eight people at at time.

It seems to me like some folks might be running scared.

The essential argument that Phage is making is that I do not know what the radiation found on the surface of the moon is...

Because no one knows.

He has given preliminary data recovered by the LRO, but it only showed the average amount of high neutron radiation released over an entire day. The average of HIGH and LOW neutron radiation combined.

To that I contend that the actual radiation on the surface of the moon would be either high or low, but not averaged. Pockets, if you will.
The distance from the surface of the moon to the LRO would only allow for an average reading of BOTH frequencies HIGH and LOW.
So I contend that the actual surface of the moon would have certain spots, or pockets, if you will, of high neutron radiation (which will kill humans), and certain spots, or pockets, of low neutron radiation.

So to this notion Phage has said that I can not even show that these pockets exist; however....

As I have stated NUMEROUS times, NASA is worried about this very same thing.
So, ONCE AGAIN, Here is a quote FROM NASA that states that they are worried enough about the placement of high and low neutron radiation on the surface of he moon to map it with the LRO.

Here is the SAME quote..... again.

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Link to quote.

Let me repeat one part of that again to answer your question Phage.

LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Let me repeat one more time where I got the idea of pockets of high and low neutron radiation.
Pay attention to the word FRACTION.

LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Now that I hope I have some folks attention.
The question becomes WHY?
Why would they do a hoax this big.
the small answer is two big words sandwiching a preposition.

Militarization of Space.

Now....Check out this thread for the big answer.
I alluded to it in my last post.

Alll Roads Lead to Rome.

Cheers all of my critical thinking friends out there.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
reply to post by WWu777

 

If men walked on the moon, why hasn't anyone gone back (out of greed and need)? That is a question no one seems able to answer.

Personally, I believe it didn't happen; but was the biggest propaganda victory of the Cold War.

If this has somehow convinced you that the Moon landings were a hoax because we have never gone back then I ask you this.

If the original landings were a hoax then why not simply hoax some more?
Technology certainly has progressed to the point that this would be much, MUCH easier now than 40+ years ago.

By this logic there could be HOAXED Moon bases and HOAXED Mars landings.

reply to post by Josephus23


Your post talks about the LEND data and that LEND will quantify what levels are high and low, we have provided to you the LEND data which shows the lows and highs. You fail to understand that the low and high are not pockets of radiation, it is to do with solar activity. When the solar radiation is higher the Moon radiates a larger proportion of highly powerful neutron radiation, when the activity is lower it radiates lower.

The LEND data takes these highs and lows of the surface output and provides an average, this is standard practice in science. There are no pockets of extremely high neutron radiation in the sense to which you refer.

As a final note, there are not 6 people attacking you personally and the fact you continue to say peopel are attacking you personally is very odd. People have debated what you are saying and you take this as a personal attack.

When i say you are not correctly interpreting the data, this is not a personal attack, it's a fact.

reply to post by Josephus23


Josephus, a question.

I notice that your links to the information on neutron radiation, among other things, go to NASA websites that consist of NASA data.

How do you determine what NASA data is "real" and which is "fake"?

I ask this in all sincerity.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Josephus23


Neutron radiation is a transient phenomenon, it can no more be "mapped" than a cloud. Averages can be taken over time to present a range of possible exposures. NASA is interested in this because they need to know the potential exposure to individuals who stay on the lunar surface over a protracted period of time.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Wrong again....

What you have shown me are the "preliminary" readings of the average amount of high and low radiation over an entire day.

And that radiation is not solely due to solar flares, like you want to insinuate, or the cycles of sun spots, or another other solar activity.

Deep space also presents a very difficult problem.
Other objects in deep space emit INTENSE radiation.

The amount of radiation is impossible to predict so the best preliminary report that can be given, is one over a lengthy period of time.

When calculating averages, then ALL numbers must be recognized.

If the radiation were constant, as Phage and others have said, then the ENTIRE planet could have momentary spikes of intense high neutron radiation that could kill instantly.
EVERYONE on the entire planet. (Hence the whole AVERAGE thing)

But like I said we killed it with "luck", especially given that top notch protection that the astronauts were given.


Or if the radiation were not constant, then pockets must exist for an average to even be possible.
Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of an idea existed, much less where they were....

In 1968....

But hey, we nailed that **** every time.

Because we are America.

We sure have killed a ton of folks sending them into low earth orbit, but the moon....

Please, piece of cake, not one single problem with radiation, but yet I wouldn' t darned if them NASA scientists sure are freaked out about it now.

Why not just use more of what we used....

In 1968.

The average home computer took up an entire room in 1968, but the ones on the Apollo mission, whatever.

We can't apparently figure out how to send folks to the moon AGAIN now that a home computer is, on average, the size of a telephone (nor any other developed country), and for some odd reason we still kill people sending them into low earth orbit, but hey....

We are American. We kick as much **** now as we did back then.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Neutron radiation is a transient phenomenon, it can no more be "mapped" than a cloud. Averages can be taken over time to present a range of possible exposures. NASA is interested in this because they need to know the potential exposure to individuals who stay on the lunar surface over a protracted period of time.

What in the world are you talking about?

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Link to quote.

reply to post by DJW001


Please see this link on Neutron Radiation.

Transient?
Yeah it moves and it is extremely deadly....

Am I actually shocked at exactly how non-sequitur that or yours statement was?


[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Wrong again....

What you have shown me are the "preliminary" readings of the average amount of high and low radiation over an entire day.

And that radiation is not solely due to solar flares, like you want to insinuate, or the cycles of sun spots, or another other solar activity.

Deep space also presents a very difficult problem.
Other objects in deep space emit INTENSE radiation.

The amount of radiation is impossible to predict so the best preliminary report that can be given, is one over a lengthy period of time.

When calculating averages, then ALL numbers must be recognized.

If the radiation were constant, as Phage and others have said, then the ENTIRE planet could have momentary spikes of intense high neutron radiation that could kill instantly.
EVERYONE on the entire planet. (Hence the whole AVERAGE thing)

But like I said we killed it with "luck", especially given that top notch protection that the astronauts were given.

Or if the radiation were not constant, then pockets must exist for an average to even be possible.
Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of an idea existed, much less where they were....

In 1968....

This is wrong Josephus, NASA was aware of neutron radiation in the 1960s.

There was a paper written in 1969 about this:

Kastner, Jacob; Oltman, B.G.; Feige, Yehuda; and Gold, Raymond: Neutron Exposure to Lunar Astronauts. Health Phys., vol. 17, no. 5, Nov. 1969, pp. 732-733.

And you should find this paper interesting:

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

in it they conclude:

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth.

Radiation protection for the Apollo Program was focused on both the peculiarities of the natural space radiation environment and the increased prevalence of manmade radiation sources on the ground and onboard the spacecraft. Radiation-exposure risks to crewmen were assessed and balanced against mission gain to determine mission constraints. Operational radiation evaluation required specially designed radiation-detection systems onboard the spacecraft in addition to the use of satellite data, solar observatory support, and other liaison. Control and management of radioactive sources and radiation-generating equipment was important in minimizing radiation exposure of ground-support personnel, researchers, and the Apollo flight and backup crewmen.

reply to post by Josephus23

You are the only one who is talking about "pockets" of radiation. Can you provide any source other than yourself in regard to these pockets? Are you a nuclear physicist or are you just speculating with absolutely nothing to back it up?

I never said the radiation was "constant". I said it occured where ever and when ever cosmic rays strike the surface. Cosmic rays strike every where and all the time. There are no preferred locations or times. There will be times when radiation is at greater levels than others but it will not occur in "pockets". Cosmic rays from outside the Solar System are fairly constant but if the increased radiation is associated with a solar particle event it will occur over the entire day side of the Moon. Such events were of concern and still are. But such events are not terribly common and there were none during any of the Apollo missions. It was a calculated risk.

As far as "having no idea" about the possible dangers of neutron radiation in 1968. Yes, they did have ideas about it, as pointed out here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The article was first published...when? That's right, 1968 by Argonne National Laboratory.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by DJW001

 

Transient?

I believe by that he means that since lunar neutron radiation is a secondary radiation, its production is dependent on variables, i.e. cosmic radiation.

Yeah it moves and it is extremely deadly....

I think it is a mistake to say neutron radiation is "extremely deadly". It all depends upon levels. At times of low flux, the emission of neutrons would also be low.




[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Phage


Who cares if they knew that the neutron radiation might exist?

The point is where and how much.

See you 'til next time fan club.

Ciao.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by DJW001

 

Transient?

I believe by that he means that since lunar neutron radiation is a secondary radiation, its production is dependent on variables, i.e. cosmic radiation.

Yeah it moves and it is extremely deadly....

I think it is a mistake to say neutron radiation is "extremely deadly". It all depends upon levels. At times of low flux, the emission of neutrons would also be low.
[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

And sometimes it would he high.

High neutron radiation kills.

Cheers.

reply to post by Josephus23

Still waiting for any indication that there are "pockets" of instantly lethal radiation lurking on the Moon. Still waiting for anything from you about what could cause those pockets.

Still no answers.


[edit on 5/3/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Phage

 

Who cares if they knew that the neutron radiation might exist?

Apparently you did a few minutes ago when you wrote this:

"Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of an idea existed, much less where they were....

In 1968...."

The point is where and how much.

Which I, and others, have pointed out.

See you 'til next time fan club.

There are still unanswered questions, I'd appreciate answers.

Originally posted by Josephus23

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by DJW001

 

Transient?

I believe by that he means that since lunar neutron radiation is a secondary radiation, its production is dependent on variables, i.e. cosmic radiation.

Yeah it moves and it is extremely deadly....

I think it is a mistake to say neutron radiation is "extremely deadly". It all depends upon levels. At times of low flux, the emission of neutrons would also be low.
[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

And sometimes it would he high.

High neutron radiation kills.

Cheers.

You aren't big on answering questions, are you?

Anyway, I'd appreciate a source on where this "high neutron radiation" can be found.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Still waiting for any indication that there are "pockets" of instantly lethal radiation lurking on the Moon. Still waiting for anything from you about what could cause those pockets.

Still no answers.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Phage]

Here is your answer Phage, yet again.

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Link to quote.

Let me repeat the important part for you.

LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

Now with that being said....

What you have shown me are the "preliminary" readings of the average amount of high and low radiation over an entire day.

And that radiation is not solely due to solar flares, or the cycles of sun spots, or another other solar activity.

Deep space also presents a very difficult problem.
Other objects in deep space emit INTENSE radiation.

The amount of radiation is impossible to predict so the best preliminary report that can be given, is one over a lengthy period of time.

When calculating averages, then ALL numbers must be recognized.

If the radiation were constant, as you and others have said, then the ENTIRE planet could have momentary spikes of intense high neutron radiation that could kill instantly.
EVERYONE on the entire planet. (Hence the whole AVERAGE thing)

But like I said we killed it with "luck", especially given that top notch protection that the astronauts were given.

Or if the radiation were not constant, then pockets must exist for an average to even be possible. (again the whole AVERAGE thing)
Deadly high neutron radiation pockets.

That we had NOT ONE IOTA of where they were....

In 1968....

But hey, we nailed that **** every time.

Because we are America.

We sure have killed a ton of folks sending them into low earth orbit, but the moon....

Please, piece of cake, not one single problem with radiation, but yet I wouldn' t be darned if them NASA scientists sure are freaked out about it now.

Why not just use more of what we used....

In 1968.

[edit on 5/3/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Tomblvd


Link to the effects of high neutron radiation.


I am getting tired of repeating myself and answering the SAME questions again and again simply because you do not like the answers.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Link to the effects of high neutron radiation.


I am getting tired of repeating myself and answering the SAME questions again and again simply because you do not like the answers.

That article does not tell me anything about the amount of neutron radiation measured on the moon.

Fast neutron radiation is not necessarily deadly. There must be an amount given.