Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by DJW001


So far I'm reading that NASA knew precious little about radiation on the moon in 1969..
Talk about a risky venture !!

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.

With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.

science.nasa.gov...

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 1

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

So far I'm reading that NASA knew precious little about radiation on the moon in 1969..
Talk about a risky venture !!

We all take risks but it's part of the job they do! I am more at risk than most people due to my job because I do 4x the miles an average driver does in a year,I can have up to 20 flights in a busy year and very often work at height on buildings being built or renovated ,lots of risks do I think about them YES all the time but in 30+ yrs touch wood no problems!

So they take risks any time they are on a mission, lots could go wrong most of the time it doesn't, these guys were stuck on top of what amounts to a huge firework and blasted off the Earth its a risk from start to finish if you got the chance would you do it ???

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 1

Oh snap! Here we go!

reply to post by wmd_2008


True but your risks in no way compare..
Everything YOU do is a KNOWN risk..

The more you research, the more you realize how little they knew of the risks involved with Apollo..

Would I have gone?
Probably if I was young and stupid...
But then I know a lot more now than they did then..

reply to post by FoosM

Oh snap! Here we go!

You've been here twice and you still haven't tried to help me understand what mistake I made? Is that your way of admitting that you were the one that made a mistake? That's okay, so long as you have learned from it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Thirteen minutes calling people names and splitting hairs over phrases like "barely detectable" versus "practically no," "no measurable," etc, etc, etc. Couldn't help but notice that Jarrah brought up the "Dutch Moon Rock," and has only recently become aware of Tektites... very odd as Australia is noted for them. If Jarrah now understands Tektites, why did he use them to compare Earth spherules to lunar spherules?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 1

Oh snap! Here we go!

I just completed watching the new 8-part Jarrah White series. It is very up to date and just released a few hours ago Jarrah presents a huge amount of data as usual citing all his sources. This series is not to be missed

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Thirteen minutes calling people names and splitting hairs over phrases like "barely detectable" versus "practically no," "no measurable," etc, etc, etc. Couldn't help but notice that Jarrah brought up the "Dutch Moon Rock," and has only recently become aware of Tektites... very odd as Australia is noted for them. If Jarrah now understands Tektites, why did he use them to compare Earth spherules to lunar spherules?

I watched the video..
I see nothing wrong with what JW said..
Maybe you can elaborate..

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Thirteen minutes calling people names and splitting hairs over phrases like "barely detectable" versus "practically no," "no measurable," etc, etc, etc. Couldn't help but notice that Jarrah brought up the "Dutch Moon Rock," and has only recently become aware of Tektites... very odd as Australia is noted for them. If Jarrah now understands Tektites, why did he use them to compare Earth spherules to lunar spherules?

I watched the video..
I see nothing wrong with what JW said..
Maybe you can elaborate..

Not only that, DJ probably just watched the first video and not the series.
JW reveals that the water found in moon rocks/soil is commensurate to terrestrial rocks/soil.

Originally posted by backinblack

Did Russia check surface radiation levels while on the Moon or do we just have NASA results?

Radiation as always been a big concern and many probes were sent to study it. sending data on the solar winds, radiation belts, and lunar surface radiation.

USSR:

Sputnik 3, launched on May 15.1958: The 2925-lb (1327-kg) Soviet spacecraft recorded magnetic fields, cosmic rays, solar radiation, and other space phenomena up until the craft's orbit ended in April 1960.

Luna 1 (Mechta) (USSR) 2 January 1959. Lunar flyby. Passed moon at a distance of 5995 km, 4 January 1959. Discovered solar wind. Luna 1 is now is in a solar orbit. And, while on its journey to the Moon, the probe collected data on the Earth's radiation belt, and discovered that the Moon had no magnetic field and that a solar wind streamed through interplanetary space.
The radiation detector, the only scientific instrument on board, measured a dosage of 30 millirads (0.3 milligrays) per day

Luna 2 (September 12, 1959) impacted on the surface on September 13, after confirming that the Moon had no appreciable magnetic field and no evidence of radiation belts.
Scientific Instruments:
1. Imaging System
2. Radiation Detector

Luna 10 (Mar 1966) U.S.S.R. : Lunar orbiter first lunar satellite, studied lunar surface radiation and magnetic field intensity, monitored strength and variation of lunar gravitation

Luna 13 (December 21, 1966) soft-landed on December 24. On the 25th, an on-board television system transmitted panoramas of the nearby lunar landscape at different sun angles. The probe was equipped with a mechanical soil-measuring penetrometer, a dynamograph, and a radiation densitometer for obtaining data on the mechanical and physical properties, as well as the cosmic-ray reflectivity, of the lunar surface. Transmissions apparently ceased sometime before the end of December.

USA:
Explorer III - USA - (1958): Discovered Earth's radiation belt.
Pioneer 4 (USA) 3 March 1959. Lunar flyby. Passed moon at a distance of 60,000 km, 4 March 1959. Pioneer 4 carried a Geiger-Mueller tube detector and a photography experiment. No radiation was detected and the probe was not close enough to trigger the photoelectric sensor. Pioneer 4 is now is in a solar orbit.

Beginning in 1965, the United States launched a series of small Pioneer probes into orbit around the sun to study solar radiation. Many of these probes were still operating more than 20 years after launch. In 1974 and 1976, the United States launched two German-built Helios probes, which passed inside the orbit of Mercury to measure solar radiation. The Ulysses space probe was launched in 1990 by the United States and the European Space Agency, an association of 14 European nations. In 1994, Ulysses became the first probe to observe the sun from an orbit over the sun's poles.

During Sputnik 2’s orbit, on January 31,1958, the United States successfully launched Explorer 1, its first Earth satellite from Cape Canaveral ( later named Cape Kennedy 1963-1973), Florida. The 31-lb (14-kg) cylindrical spacecraft, 6 in (15 cm) in diameter and 80 in (203 cm) long, relayed measurements of micrometeorites and cosmic rays for 112 days and gave data about the Van Allen radiation belts.

Did we go to the Moon in a Soup can?

(warning: some strong language)

reply to post by FoosM

Not only that, DJ probably just watched the first video and not the series.
JW reveals that the water found in moon rocks/soil is commensurate to terrestrial rocks/soil.

If he does, it is undoubtedly by cherry picking papers like this one:

The Moon has long been thought to be highly depleted in volatiles such as water, and indeed published direct measurements of water in lunar volcanic glasses have never exceeded 50 parts per million (ppm). Here, we report in situ measurements of water in lunar melt inclusions; these samples of primitive lunar magma, by virtue of being trapped within olivine crystals prior to volcanic eruption, did not experience post-eruptive degassing. The lunar melt inclusions contain 615 to 1410 ppm water, and high correlated amounts of fluorine (50 to 78 ppm), sulfur (612 to 877 ppm) and chlorine (1.5 to 3.0 ppm). These volatile contents are very similar to primitive terrestrial mid-ocean ridge basalts and indicate that some parts of the lunar interior contain as much water as Earth's upper mantle.

www.sciencemag.org...

He will ignore the affirmation that most lunar rock contain less than 50 parts per million of hydroxyls, and emphasize the 615 to 1410 ppm figure. This is indeed comparable to the mineral composition on Earth. He will undoubtedly conveniently overlook the fact that these are olivine inclusions, that is, tiny crystals trapped within the basaltic matrix that have been unable to degas. He might also cite this paper:

The Moon is thought to be depleted relative to the Earth in volatile elements such as H, Cl and the alkalis[ 1–3] . Nevertheless, evidence for lunar explosive volcanism [4,5] has been used to infer that some lunar magmas exsolved a CO-rich and CO2-rich vapour phase before or during eruption[ 6–8] . Although there is also evidence for other volatile species on glass spherules [9] , until recently [10] there had been no unambiguous reports of indigenous H in lunar rocks. Here we report quantitative ion microprobe measurements of late-stage apatite from lunar basalt 14053 that document concentrations of H, Cl and S that are indistinguishable from apatites in common terrestrial igneous rocks. These volatile contents could reflect post-magmatic metamorphic volatile addition or growth from a late-stage, interstitial, sulphide-saturated melt that contained 1,600 parts per million H2O and 3,500 parts per million Cl. Both metamorphic and igneous models of apatite formation suggest a volatile inventory for at least some lunar materials that is similar to comparable terrestrial materials. One possible implication is that portions of the lunar mantle or crust are more volatilerich than previously thought.

web.eps.utk.edu...

Exciting as this sounds, the figures that compare to terrestrial apatite are extrapolations back to the original magma, not the currently measured amounts, which are assumed to be degraded. Although more and more examples of minerals with "high" amounts of hydroxyls are being found thanks to the development of secondary ion mass spectroscopy, for the most part the lunar samples are below the 50 ppm that lead earlier researchers to declare the Moon "bone dry. As the graphic below indicates, even the "wettest" parts of the Moon are as dry as the driest deserts on Earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2cc3c9341efc.jpg[/atsimg]

Source. (This is the most readable summary of this issue.)

Of course, Jarrah will ignore that all of these researchers affirm the over-all low hydroxyl content of the lunar samples in general, and that none of them express the opinion that the samples were of terrestrial origin. Was this the gist of his video?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

So far I'm reading that NASA knew precious little about radiation on the moon in 1969..
Talk about a risky venture !!

[snip]

science.nasa.gov...

They made an estimation, and it was more than survivable. According to the OS, the radiation on the moon was actually less than they had expected in 1969, and the LEND backs those results up.

reply to post by FoosM

Still not telling DJ what his mistake was, or me what evidence you would accept as convincing, or acknowledging that I did, in fact, admit HBs could be right, and then I described what it would take for me to believe it.

reply to post by FoosM

Did we go to the Moon in a Soup can?

Thank you for shedding light on the type of person who believes in the "Moon Landing Hoax," man. Let's just pass a doobie around and bag on The Man. You might want to delete this video while you have a chance.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

True but your risks in no way compare..
Everything YOU do is a KNOWN risk..

The more you research, the more you realize how little they knew of the risks involved with Apollo..

Would I have gone?
Probably if I was young and stupid...
But then I know a lot more now than they did then..

I wasn't trying to compare my risks I was just showing we all take risks, their risks are known as well I would say they just have a very complicated risks!

reply to post by backinblack

I watched the video..
I see nothing wrong with what JW said..
Maybe you can elaborate..

First, he alludes to the "Dutch Moon Rock," which we all know is a case of mistaken identity. He must certainly be aware of this by now, but he drags it out anyway, the way he does with Bill Kaysing's Gemini spacewalk forgery. He then collects a series of quotations that state, in various ways, that the Moon has "no detectable water," which until the development of SIMS was literally true. Geologists simply couldn't measure less than 50 ppm. He somehow twists this to make it appear as though they we claiming that there is absolutely no water at all on the Moon, and that this is a deliberate lie. He then singles out one of his favorite shibboleths and catches him speaking casually about there being no water on the Moon. (As I recall it's Phil Webb, of course.) I'm sure if Webb knew that his every off-hand verbalization was going to be relentlessly parsed for accuracy, he would have phrased things differently, saying that "the lunar rocks have less than 50ppm hydroxyl content" rather than the "lunar rocks are anhydrous." (Oh yeah, Webb refuses to talk to Jarrah now, precisely because of Jarrah's inability to understand informal speech for what it is.)

Let's take a look at why someone might call lunar rocks "anhydrous." Water is extremely common on Earth. Basalt in the sub-oceanic ridges contain about 1600 ppm of hydroxyls. This is about three hundred times what is contained in the lunar materials. Now, in a city of one million people, 1600 people would be a small but visible population; a politician would consider wooing them as a voting block. In the same city, 50 people would be invisible. Now, let's say someone asks you how many elephants live in your city. You would probably say that no elephants live in your city. Jarrah would call you a liar, because there are four elephants living in the city zoo. What's more, when the circus comes to town, the elephant population skyrockets 300%!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


I just completed watching the new 8-part Jarrah White series. It is very up to date and just released a few hours ago

Jarrah presents a huge amount of data as usual citing all his sources. This series is not to be missed

Wow. I just watched the whole thing.
And this is only Episode 1?
JW put the hurt on.

Revealed:
Moon rocks having as much water as rocks from Earth.
NASA knew about traces of water found in moon rocks since the 70's.
Scientists are in conflict regarding the origin of the water: Contamination vs From the Moon.
Leading theory on Moon's origin is called into question.
and more!

JW I will repeat is a twat!

pass this to JW