Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

and what about bremsstrahlung?

In your own words, please define bremsstrahlung and explain where and why it might be a problem.

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

Don't be such a dimwit...My smart ass answer...answers your dumb ass question.

The lack of oxygenated blood to the brain is deadly...

Do you get it yet?

I get it. Radiation isn't deadly, severe chromosome damage can sometimes be deadly. There, entire debate settled. By your own reasoning, you have absolutely no case.

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

Furthermore, don't you find it rather unbelievable that NASA hasn't insisted these MOONWALKERS, be studied, and documented for the effects of having been subjected to all that radiation.

Let's see those studies...

pinnacle.allenpress.com...(2001)156[0460:SRACIA]2.0.CO;2

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com.../31/1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docan chor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1355281332&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=

www.sciencedirect.com.../31/2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanc hor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1355280924&_rerunOrigin=scholar.g

engineering.dartmouth.edu...

These should get you started.

Edit to add: Some of the longer URLs need to be entered manually. Sorry. You can always just google: "space medicine radiation study."


[edit on 1-6-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by ppk55

Seems their knees bend just fine. (see below video).

Oh, for pete's sake!!!

The video you posted is from Apollo 17!!! Do you not know the suits used on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 were designed to bend MORE in the knee, than the other suits...BECAUSE of the LRV! They needed to be able to bend, in order to sit on the Rover.

BUT...they STILL don't bend in the same way an un-encumbered person's knees can....why is this so difficult for these "hoax" believers ( who claim that they, and ONLY THEY have 'logic' on their side(?) Hoo, boy! )

This needs to be repeated also....these 'logical' thinkers don't have the slightest clue about physics, apparenlty. Because they have this insane notion that in 1/6th gravity a person should be able to 'jump' six times higher!

But wait, there's more!! These same crack(pot) "experts" also claim that the Astronauts were supported by wires! !!

SO...the obvious question for allthe 'geniuses' out there is: WHY don'tthe Astronauts actually JUMP really, really 'high'....since YOU GUYS are convinced they were on wires???

Logic fail, big time....and it doesn't ever seem to have a cure...not even education seems to help.

Tragic.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHY don'tthe Astronauts actually JUMP really, really 'high'....since YOU GUYS are convinced they were on wires???

I didn't say they were on wires ??? Why do you think that ?

I just said if their 300 pound weight stopped them from doing amazing 1/6 gravity jumps then why does it look like their 300 pounds doesn't exist in the video. It has to be one or the other doesn't it ? Who said anything about wires ???



[edit on 1-6-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55

Who said anything about wires ???

FooosM did:

2. Also look at 0:18, it looks like he was unexpectedly being pulled up

what a bunch of B.S.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you should take it up with him. It sounds like you two are having a disagreement.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1

 

Furthermore, don't you find it rather unbelievable that NASA hasn't insisted these MOONWALKERS, be studied, and documented for the effects of having been subjected to all that radiation.

Let's see those studies...

pinnacle.allenpress.com...(2001)156[0460:SRACIA]2.0.CO;2

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com.../31/1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docan chor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1355281332&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=

www.sciencedirect.com.../31/2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanc hor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1355280924&_rerunOrigin=scholar.g

engineering.dartmouth.edu...

These should get you started.

Edit to add: Some of the longer URLs need to be entered manually. Sorry. You can always just google: "space medicine radiation study."


[edit on 1-6-2010 by DJW001]

Thanks DJW001.
Though I am starting to have the suspicion Un4g1v3n1 might also be a Google-denier...

reply to post by ppk55


No...it wasn't YOU claiming there were wires, but it is a general consensus amongst some landing "hoax" believers, that's all.

But, again....the issue of the actual weight of the entire EVA suit, including the PLSS seems to confuse people.

Of course, in the Lunar gravitational field, the "weight" is about 1/6th what it would be on Earth. IF you just compared, by picking it up, or putting it on and wearing it....but the MASS remains the same.

People seem to forget the relationship of MASS, and INERTIA.

In any case, even with the added flexibility of certain joints, the suits were still cumbersome, and a person certainly couldn't 'squat', and then spring up to 'jump' in the same way you can on earth, wearing gym shorts.

The, there is the INERTIA, too....Newton's Laws, remember?

Don't forget, also....the PLSS on the back tended to throw their center of gravity off, and they certainly didn't want to risk falling backwards, at any point.

Still, the PROOF of their being in the lower G environment can be seen in the videos...the 'hopping' method of locomotion was the most efficient, and they accomplished that BECAUSE of the low gravity. You cannot duplicate that same motion in 1 G.

Here, should read up on it, thisis a start: history.nasa.gov...





[edit on 1 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by torch2k

First, if you want an open and honest discussion, then let's have one. But let's cut out all the BS. Stop calling me an 'Apollogist' and I'll stop calling you a 'hoaxer'. (Neither of us have used those terms for each other personally, but you get what I'm meaning, no?)

Second, let's relax and take our time, you and I. Or anyone else that wants to join a sensible, meaningful debate. Or we'll hold this as a side debate, if that works. Apollo 11 is 40+ years ago in the books ... even if you want a win/lose debate, does it need to be solved by next Tuesday? Stop shooting from the conspiracist hip at me, and I'll stop firing trusty anti-conspiracist ammo at you.

Third, would you accept a prosaic explanation for an 'effect' if one was offered. And if you didn't accept same, would you state your counter-argument without resorting to name calling? Could you remain civil in the midst of a disagreement? That would be a HUGE improvement in any hoax discussion.

Think about it. When hoaxers say the shadows and the light looks strange in the photos. How many people actually say, 'well NASA discovered that on the moon shadows and light behave differently for some reason.'?

If we go to other planets, things will look strange! We will bring back images that will defy our sense of what seems normal. Are things behaving differently, or are our perceptions tricked by the strangeness of the context?

I snipped the rest. Do you want to rehash these arguments? Or perhaps start afresh?

I have no problem discussing anomalies in the context that there were manned landings.

I think at the end of the day, we all want to determine if NASA has something to hide. Because it means we should demand the truth. The reason why they are hiding something is not important. Whether its UFOs, fakery or simply ignorance we can leave that out this discussion. Lets simply see if NASA has sufficiently given explanations for various anomalies. I propose we go through these anomalies and simply agree or disagree if NASA's explanation, if they have one, is sufficient.

We can start with the blue aura around the astronauts because it is a strange anomaly.
Whether or not I would believe men landed on the moon, I cant explain it. What is NASA's explanation for it and is it sufficient? And maybe you have a better answer than NASA, if so what is your theory?

This is open to anyone who wants to participate.

Ill begin-
If NASA's official answer to the blue halo is it being due to a dust smudge, I think its a not a sufficient answer. And I posted 4 reasons why, two of which I think make complete sense.

Originally posted by FoosM


and what if the astronaut was on the moon's surface?

We know you don't bother reading anything that will interfere with your worldview, so I'll point it out to you as it was answered in the very post you were quoting!!!:

Researchers have been studying it ever since. Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

And even asking about bremelstraung in this instance proves you don't understand what it means, let alone its application.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


and what if the astronaut was on the moon's surface?

We know you don't bother reading anything that will interfere with your worldview, so I'll point it out to you as it was answered in the very post you were quoting!!!:

Researchers have been studying it ever since. Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.

And even asking about bremelstraung in this instance proves you don't understand what it means, let alone its application.

Whats a quick trip back to earth?
Thats a very vague answer, wouldn't you agree?
I mean, how soon after exposure would you need medical attention to
offset some of the damage?

3–4 Sv (300–400 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.

Anatoly Dyatlov received a dose of 390 REM during the Chernobyl disaster. He died of heart failure in 1995 due to radioactive exposure.

[edit] 4–6 Sv (400–600 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats a quick trip back to earth?
Thats a very vague answer, wouldn't you agree?
I mean, how soon after exposure would you need medical attention to
offset some of the damage?

3–4 Sv (300–400 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.

Anatoly Dyatlov received a dose of 390 REM during the Chernobyl disaster. He died of heart failure in 1995 due to radioactive exposure.

[edit] 4–6 Sv (400–600 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.

If you are comparing the radiation from solar flares to the radiation from Chernobyl, you have absolutely no clue about radiation. AT ALL.

They are two entirely different things, they affect you differently, exposure tolerances are different, shielding requirements are different.

You might as well be talking about infrared radiation vs. microwave. They are completely different things.

Nothing you could post could show your ignorance about radiation better than what you just posted. To people like you, you see the word "radiation", and it is all the same, dangerous stuff. But it isn't. Not even close.

reply to post by FoosM


IF this radiation "danger" was such a concern then WHY were the Soviets actively attempting to "beat" the USA?

Looks like a little history lesson is in order:

More than three years had passed since President Kennedy's speech. On 3 August the Chelomei bureau also received final approval to build the LK-1 spacecraft to send two cosmonauts on a circumlunar mission by October 1967, the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. At last, the Soviet effort appeared to gain momentum (Harvey,1996).

While all this was taking place, Korolev hurriedly designed a manned 'stopgap' program called Voskhod ('Sunrise') to satisfy Khrushchev's apetite for new space spectaculars. First proposed in February 1964 (Hedrickx, 1997), Voskhod was basically a Vostok capable of carrying 2-3 cosmonauts into low Earth orbit to practise long duration spaceflight or (using additional equipment) spacewalks and dockings in space before Soyuz became available in 1966. But in order to accommodate more cosmonauts, Vostok's single ejection seat had to be removed, leaving the crew with no chance of survival if the R7 carrier rocket malfunctioned during the first 27 seconds of launch until the upper stage could fire (Harvey, 1996). Despite the huge risks, Voskhod 1 took off on 12 October 1964 with three cosmonauts on board - then a new record.

OK, I realize this is going to bore FoosM by now...but notice how the Soviets were going to try a grandstanding play, and be the first to send humans out to Moon, and back...target by 1967. (Might have made it, too...just for being "first" and the right to claim...but, they certainly weren't worried about "radiation" dangers. Their space program suffered other setbacks...)

AND, I want to preempt any claims that the USSR was somehow 'better'. They DID manage to achieve a few firsts, BUT it was all politics, and propaganda.

The story continues, after my interruption - (take note of the date above):

Khrushchev was removed from power by the Politburo later that day.

THAT deserves a !!! !!!

It completely changed the Soviet's focus.

The new leadership, headed by Leonid Brezhnev, was less interested in manned space 'firsts' than Khrushchev had been.

Still, they soldiered on...but they continued to suffer losses....and they had a very, very bad idea for their version of a Lunar Lander, which amounted to increased technical difficulties:

By late 1964, three design bureaus had submitted proposals for a manned landing on the Moon. Chelomei's OKB-52 proposed a lunar landing spaceship based on the LK-1 circumlunar spacecraft. It would be equipped with a new high-energy deceleration rocket stage plus landing gear and could land two cosmonauts on the Moon with no need for rendezvous in Earth or lunar orbit. Chelomei claimed this would be simpler and quicker than assembling a vehicle in space like the Americans (and Korolev-) were proposing. The drawback was that his LK-700 spacecraft would have to be rather heavy since it would have to carry additional fuel plus landing equipment for the return to Earth. A large heavy-lift version of the Proton, called UR-700, would be required to launch the spacecraft. Chelomei had been working on this rocket since 1962 (Newkirk, 1992) and now proposed it as a more powerful alternative to the N1. Modular blocks from the Proton program would have been used to assemble a rocket as powerful as the American Saturn V, with a lifting capability of 130 tonnes to low Earth orbit (Clark, 1992).

You can visit the full LINK for the rest of the story --- for those not familiar with how the Soviet's space prgram crumbled. Of course, in the West, we were unaware of what was really happening over there....

reply to post by Tomblvd


Were the astronauts to receive 400 rem of external radiation they could receive treatment immediately. There really isn't much that can be done but treat the symptoms, such as nausea and possible infections due to an impaired immune system. They had plenty of sea sick pills and antibiotics in their medical kits. Fortunately, as your source points out, an exposure of 400 rems has an LD50/30. What this means is that the astronauts have a 50% chance of surviving after 30 days. Strictly speaking, it means that 50% of a given population will die within 30 days. The measurement dates to the days when people concerned themselves with "kill ratios" and "second strike capacity." So yes, a major solar event would have been a spot of bad luck. Before you jump on your soapbox, however, bear in mind that Christopher Columbus was darned lucky to cross the Atlantic twice without ever encountering a hurricane. (The third time he was not so lucky and limped into Santo Domingo in a dugout canoe. But I digress.) The point being there is an element of risk in any worthwhile activity, and Americans are notorious risk takers.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Were the astronauts to receive 400 rem of external radiation they could receive treatment immediately. There really isn't much that can be done but treat the symptoms, such as nausea and possible infections due to an impaired immune system. They had plenty of sea sick pills and antibiotics in their medical kits. Fortunately, as your source points out, an exposure of 400 rems has an LD50/30. What this means is that the astronauts have a 50% chance of surviving after 30 days. Strictly speaking, it means that 50% of a given population will die within 30 days. The measurement dates to the days when people concerned themselves with "kill ratios" and "second strike capacity." So yes, a major solar event would have been a spot of bad luck. Before you jump on your soapbox, however, bear in mind that Christopher Columbus was darned lucky to cross the Atlantic twice without ever encountering a hurricane. (The third time he was not so lucky and limped into Santo Domingo in a dugout canoe. But I digress.) The point being there is an element of risk in any worthwhile activity, and Americans are notorious risk takers.

But what Foos missed or ignored (or both) was this:

An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill.

But when you don't know the difference between particle and EM radiation, or the differences within those differences, attenuation means nothing.

You're just running around the thread waving your hands in the air (virtually, of course) shouting "RADIATION!!!".

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Whats a quick trip back to earth?
Thats a very vague answer, wouldn't you agree?
I mean, how soon after exposure would you need medical attention to
offset some of the damage?

3–4 Sv (300–400 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.

Anatoly Dyatlov received a dose of 390 REM during the Chernobyl disaster. He died of heart failure in 1995 due to radioactive exposure.

[edit] 4–6 Sv (400–600 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.

If you are comparing the radiation from solar flares to the radiation from Chernobyl, you have absolutely no clue about radiation. AT ALL.

They are two entirely different things, they affect you differently, exposure tolerances are different, shielding requirements are different.

You might as well be talking about infrared radiation vs. microwave. They are completely different things.

Nothing you could post could show your ignorance about radiation better than what you just posted. To people like you, you see the word "radiation", and it is all the same, dangerous stuff. But it isn't. Not even close.

whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert ?

reply to post by FoosM


REM, for Rad Equivalent Mammal is an older unit. The Sievert is a newer unit equivalent to, I believe, 100 rems. The Sievert is the new preferred international standard but the rem lingers on in the older literature.

Originally posted by FoosM


whats the difference when referring to rem or sievert ?

Protection.

oops: edit to add "quality factor".

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Tomblvd]

As ppk55 is now back on the motion of astronauts in 1/6 gravity topic, I think it is probably appropriate (and slightly ironic) to draw the forum's attention to this post of his:

Originally posted by ppk55
It's called slow motion... many of the videos appear to have been slowed.
You can even see in some places where they switch to it .. I'll try and find a few.

Here's that post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Strangely, I can find NONE of these promised videos. He says that you can see the effect is 'some places', and that he will find a few examples. Yet, he hasn't managed even one.

Is that perhaps because I mentioned the magic number, namely 2.46?


Genuine Apollo researchers will understand what that number means, and how it is derived, and knowing that, I suspect ppk55 is not wanting any serious analysis of any of his purported 'slow-motion' videos.


So, ppk55, which is it? Slow motion, or wires. Commitment, please.

Either way, it's time you put up or shut up. If it's slow motion, where are your videos to prove it? Original footage please.

By the way, thanks, guys, for doing all that radiation work.. It looks like all I'll be doing is summarising!

It's also noteworthy that 'unforgiven' is not exactly engaging in any meaningful debate. It seems that his favorite topic of radiation is NOT one he wishes to go into any detail on - how surprising...

Indeed, his one lame attempt at a supporting link contained these gems, that he didn't want to include in his quotes:

At low doses, such as that received every day from background radiation, cellular damage is rapidly repaired...

Radiation effects can be categorized by when they appear...

- Prompt effects: effects, including radiation sickness and radiation burns, seen immediately after large doses of radiation delivered over short periods of time.

- Delayed effects: effects such as cataract formation and cancer induction that may appear months or years after a radiation exposure...

The effects can be significantly different when only portions of the body or an individual organ system are irradiated... For example, a dose of 500 rem delivered uniformly to the whole body may cause death while a dose of 500 rem delivered to the skin will only cause hair loss and skin reddening...

At low dose levels of millirems to tens of rems, the risk of radiation-induced cancers is so low, that if the risk exists, it is not readily distinguishable from normal levels of cancer occurrence.

See, I can do selective quoting too.

Just remember, that was 'unforgiven's link...

The point is, that without measuring the actual amount and type of radiation involved, and looking carefully at how it was encountered (eg in a short burst, over time..), then you are just proving you do NOT understand the topic at all.