Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 6
377
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 

3. How were the mirrors placed on the moon to reflect todays lasers?


Jarrah knocks this one straight out of the park in his Moonfaker: exhibit D parts 6&7:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The kid is good and getting better.... scary...




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
I am not talking about the Van Allen Belts, I am talking about the surface of the moon, and the amount of neutron radiation, the type of neutron radiation, and our knowledge of neutron radiation, on the surface of the moon, and the area known as...


Please feel free to quote the rem count of the moons serface and i will destroy your argument.


Originally posted by Josephus23


Space beyond low earth orbit (which) is awash with radiation.


Links, links, links.... Please.

I can only provide links for my argument.

If you cannot provide any links, then this is a waste of my time.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]


Erm you are the one who claimed low earth orbit is awash with radiation and you never provided figures, if you qupte figures then i can do the figures.

It's funny to see how you absolutely ignored a very long post and picked out a couple of bits.



Provide me figures to support your argument and i wil refute them. I searched around but i struggled to find rem figures for the moon so i used low earth orit figures, i then doubled those figures for the hell of it and i gave you the rem for someone in orbit for 10 days. I exaggerratted my figures to cover myself and i still found the astronauts wouldn't recieve a lethal dose, which was your argument.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Once again we see the 'flag waving in the wind' idiocy surfacing. What most people dont seem to know, or even believe when you tell them, is that the Apollo Flags all had a small battery operated mechanism built into the pole, a small motor actuated a cam that made the rail inside the top edge of the flag move from side to side, to simulate waving. A 1967 edition of BBC's Tomorrow's World featured this flag amongst other things in a feature in anticipation of the first moon landing. A big deal was not made out of it at the time and it was kind of forgotten. The well meaning geeks at NASA considering it a job well done that the planting of the flag had a wee bit more magic to it since the thing appeared to move in the wind.

Cut to 40 years later and here we are listening to endless drivel about the flags moving.

However it may be possible that the flags may be seen to move due to nearby movement not attributable to the mechanism. I speculate that this could only be caused by the existence of an atmosphere. I'm inclined to believe that the moon actually has an atmosphere in places, as some say. I'd buy that long before all this hooey about them faking the moon landings. They may have doctored a few pics to hide structures etc. they didnt want us seeing and I think there is a lot they havent told us.

I kind of feel sorry for NASA. They all seem like very nice people. It must hurt to see your lifes work pissed all over by spotty oiks on the internet trying to tell you you faked it all in the desert somewhere because they couldnt conceive that someone thought of putting a motor in a flagpole so a flag would wave in a vacuum.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by angus1745
 


Wow... Truly.... Wow....

The post started out, and it actually had some bit of significance, until it turned into sour puss.


Could you have ad hominemed a group of people with such a gross over-generalization any more blatantly?

Both logical fallacies, I might add.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AliensAreDemons
Jarrah knocks this one straight out of the park in his Moonfaker: exhibit D parts 6&7:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The kid is good and getting better.... scary...



Ok the youtuber says he russians used mechanical devices to deploy mirrors in the same way NASA did. However he seems confused, he seems to htink apollo 11 left three reflectors. Unless i am wrong they left 1, apollo 14 left another and apollo 15 left a third. The russians left two more.

One of the ones russia left was lost for years and then rediscoverd. This is because they couldn't figure where it landed whereas the NASA ones could be accurately recorded and so the lasers directed toward it.

As for the lasers hitting the Moon before the reflectors, the lasers were reflected but in seriously limited ways, they were basically firing blind and hoping for a reflection. After mirrors were placed you will find a greater accuracy.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
they are scrambling now the internet is and has become their worse enemy this is the truest sense of it all the non-believers are just DONE. this kid has laid it out he did his home work now you all are back peddling.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I have provided you with the link that stated that we had only started mapping the radiation on the surface of the moon, which has high and low neutron radiation, in 1998 - 1999.

I then provided a link to the deadly effects of high energy neutron radiation.

You have still provided me with nothing.


You seem to be the one obsessed with numbers and you cannot provide me with anything.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Yes, radiation on the surface of the Moon is of concern for long term exposure. As I said.

As your link says, we don't have a full picture of what those levels are. That one of the things that the LRO is studying. But we do know what the levels were at the time of the Apollo missions.

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...

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


All i have asked you for, and i ak you again is the level of rem radiation experienced on the Moons surface. Until you do that we have little to go on. What i have done is taken the LEO radiation of 1500 rem and then i ramped this up to 5000 rem because i am beig generous and this level of radiation is not enough to kill an astronaut because they are not exposed for long enough.

these are the figures i have provided, please feel free to provide alternatives, until you can then you are basically skirting around the issue and if you once again refuse to provide the required figures i will jsut ignore you.

Provide lunar rem exposure details and i'll do the required figures. However my exxageration of the rem experienced in LEO should be enough to see that radiation isn't an issue when exposed for such a short time.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you Phage for finding the rem exposure for me, i was struggling to get the figure.

So according to lunar orbit with that shielding they were exposed to 0.28 rem (rounded up) of radiation, that is if we assume 4 days of exposure, which is an overestimate. So let us go further and say they experienced 1 rem.

1 rem is nothing, easy to survive and so any argument over radiation is completely gone.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The neutron radiation on the surface of the moon contains high and low types of neutron radiation energy.

Am I correct in that statement?

If it contains high energy neutron radiation, then the exposure time would be of great concern.

I do not understand where you are getting the short or long term exposure idea from.

This is the usual approach the "pros" take concerning my question and they avoid the numbers that the other guy keeps rambling about, because the numbers are really difficult to track down.

Wanna know why?

Because we didn't start mapping the radiation, the neutron radiation regarding HIGH and LOW and where they are, until 1998-99.

Why wouldn't this information be public?

The official storyline first said that they only radiation that the astronauts received was in the Van Allen Belts, and now they are pulling out the continual ad hoc hypotheses by now stating something to the effect of what was posted by you, Phage.

I wanted you to respond because I really thought that if anyone could actually show me the money on this neutron radiation issue, that it would be you.

But I have been let down once again.

Edit to add:

I am talking about the neutron radiation, not what was supposed to be the radiation as you have provided, I want to see the numbers from the LROD mapping of the high and low neutron radiation.

The link that you have provided has information from before 1998.

It is impossible for it to be accurate regarding the neutron radiation that I am speaking of.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

You're not the only one who would like to see the data from the LRO. But until we have that, all we have to go by is the instruments which have been on the surface of the Moon itself.


Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (Kastner et al., 1969). Two methods for neutron-dose assessment were used. These techniques of whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil were initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Both methods were retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles and because of possible crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Radiation was encountered during the entire mission. All at much lower levels than in the Van Allen belts. All within acceptable levels for short term exposure.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I'm afraid i must thank Phage again for the link he provided me.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

This link states that Lunar radiation is about 10% neutron radiation. Now if we go nuts and say this increases exposure tenfold, then we see that each astronaut was exposed to 10 rems of radiation. I want to stress this is an absolute and complete overblown figure. The actualy figure is down around 2 rem at most but i like to exaggerate figures when dealing with this kind of situation.

10 rem, not leathal, stop talking about radiation please.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hence my point in a conspiracy, I have pointed out the fact that the surface of the moon has a type of extremely deadly radiation that no one has any idea where it is.

Am I honestly supposed to believe that we just happened to get it right?


EVERY single time that we tried?

Without doing ANY damage to any astronauts.

It is too big of a change to take and too much of an anomaly.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
The neutron radiation on the surface of the moon contains high and low types of energy.

Scarily enough, so does the earth. ummm, you didn't know that???? Oh dear. But of course it's the AMOUNT that is significant. You're the one saying the levels were too high to survive. So YOU, that's Y O U have to put up or admit that you plucked your claim out of thin air.


If it contains high energy neutron radiation, then the exposure time would be of great concern.

NUMBERS. Where are YOUR numbers? I mean, people are even giving them to you, and you still don't get it?


I do not understand where you are getting the short or long term exposure idea from.

Then you clearly do not even understand the basics.


the numbers are really difficult to track down.

Only for someone who hasn't much idea about *serious* research.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


The link i provided (or more accurately that phage provided) states that the level of neutron radiation is 10% of the overall radiation. This gives us a good figure to estimate the surface radiation and i have massively exaggereated the figures involved to show that even going nuts with the figures doesn't provide a lethal dose.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You are supposing this on information that was supposedly collected from the space suit.

We do not know what the radiation on the surface of the moon is.

His link has sources, but they are ALL from before 1998, which is when we began to map the moon's surface regarding neutron radiation.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You are supposing this on information that was supposedly collected from the space suit.

We do not know what the radiation on the surface of the moon is.

His link has sources, but they are ALL from before 1998, which is when we began to map the moon's surface regarding neutron radiation.



So let me get this straight. My figures are based upon NASA's research and backed by other scientists. Your ideas are based on........................no figures other than the ones scraped from the inside of your paranoid head.

Good to know. I think i'll go with the science for now. Or we can assume that all NASA scientists are liars, every single one of them huh. Ok got ya.





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join