An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

cmdrkeenkid

I am working on that.
But you know what is funny nasa has probed the moon many times.
And all the spectrums that i've found do not have a scale.

You cant find out to be less.
You cant find out if it's stronger.
You simply cant find a scale when nasa has probed the moon many times.

The intensity of gamma from the moon shown in gamma spectrum light
is way above just when you lok at it.

it does not compare to earth , mars and many other places.

Why is it not like the sun quiet cause there is intensity.
It's justificated , when cosmic rays hit the moon with light speed creating gamma sprays and nuclear reactions trigering neutrons .

He sais that nuclear reactions hapen all the time.
The earth does not alow particles to hit the grownd and not just any how at near the speed of light.
Unfortunate for him he does not know what speed has to do with the procces of a cosmic ray hiting the moon.

I have tryed to explain to him with the x-ray machine that the procces is similar but that the particles hit at a much lower speed in the machine causing a weaker reaction than the one on the moon.

If the particles would travel at the speed of light in the x-ray machine
it would generate radiation levels that the human body cant resist.

The weaker effects that the x-ray machine produces are still harmfull thats why they put a led shielding on you.


One that does not understand the solar storm might not understand
the process behind it.


What is a solar storm?
Charged cosmic rays

The cosmic rays that are charged have a higher rem value.
Thats why when a solar storm hits the rems are increased.
The particles are charged so they radiate the content that they have in them.
For that see what does a cosmic ray have in it.
Charging them is just as bad has spiling them on the floor(crashing them at light speed in thye moon the spray efect)


One that does not know is going to say oooooo they are not charged.
Yes but crashing them at near the speed of light will have the same efect.
That's why you need to understand that the chart was made for the moon it's self



[edit on 12-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
The intensity of gamma from the moon shown in gamma spectrum light
is way above just when you lok at it.

it does not compare to earth , mars and many other places.

You said none of the images have a scale on them, so then how do you know the scale between the Moon, Earth, Mars, etc is the same? That doesn't make much sense!

He sais that nuclear reactions hapen all the time.
The earth does not alow particles to hit the grownd and not just any how at near the speed of light.

Get a Geiger Counter. Turn it on. The clicks you hear every so often, do you know what they are? Cosmic background radiation! So it does hit the ground, and it is moving at the speed of light. Not to mention there are particles called neutrinos that can blast directly through you, the Earth, several meters of lead, and someone else for good measure and keep on moving like it's nothing at all! Now I be THAT blows your mind, doesn't it?

Unfortunate for him he does not know what speed has to do with the procces of a cosmic ray hiting the moon.

Hmm... E=mc^2 might have something to do with that...

If the particles would travel at the speed of light in the x-ray machine
it would generate radiation levels that the human body cant resist.

X-rays are a wavelength of light. What speed does that mean they travel at? Why, the speed of light! Amazing, isn't it?

What is a solar storm?
Charged comic rays

HAHA! I seriously am beginning to think you're just here to spite us all. Really now, at least put in some research!

EDIT: Bad quotes! Bad!

[edit on 11/12/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

You said none of the images have a scale on them, so then how do you know the scale between the Moon, Earth, Mars, etc is the same? That doesn't make much sense!

Okay
Just simply compare them to earths and to mars

Get a Geiger Counter. Turn it on. The clicks you hear every so often, do you know what they are? Cosmic background radiation! So it does hit the ground, and it is moving at the speed of light. Not to mention there are particles called neutrinos that can blast directly through you, the Earth, several meters of lead, and someone else for good measure and keep on moving like it's nothing at all! Now I be THAT blows your mind, doesn't it?

Not like you think
particles that hit the ground are striped by the atmosefre before pasing(those that make it do not cary gamma)Gamma si blocked before passing atmosefer.
here
www.pparc.ac.uk...

And get a definision of the particle ray
here, under the section of gamma
library.thinkquest.org...

If particles that contains nucleus the cosmic ray particle would pass within the atmosere and hit the ground we would all die
If the particles would travel at the speed of light in the x-ray machine
it would generate radiation levels that the human body cant resist.

X-rays are a wavelength of light. What speed does that mean they travel at? Why, the speed of light! Amazing, isn't it?

The particles in the x-ray machine are not x-rays they produce x-rays.
go research the x-rays and the gamma rays you will see that there is very little difrence betwen them the are the same in fact the only difrence is
the energy level gamma having a higher energy level unlike other form of radiation is very difrent.
You can say gamma is x-ray with a single difrence, the energy level.
The x ray machine produces x-rays simply cause the particles in the machine dont travel very fast so it produces a lower energy level.
I welcome you to go study it.


particles that travel in the x-ray are not x-rays, they produce x rays(a lower energy form) go ceck it out

HAHA! I seriously am beginning to think you're just here to spite us all. Really now, at least put in some research!

I cant wait for you to give me the detail so i can prove you rong
So please provide details.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 12-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay
Just simply compare them to earths and to mars

You can't! You said yourself that on the images there is no scale. So who are you to say that the scale between the images is the same?

If particles that contains nucleus the cosmic ray particle would pass within the atmosere and hit the ground we would all die

Some make it down to Earth. Despite the density of the atmosphere, to some extent something is making it down. What else would make the Geiger Counter click then, eh? It's the Cosmic Background Radiation!

You can say gamma is x-ray with a single difrence, the energy level.
The x ray machine produces x-rays simply cause the particles in the machine dont travel very fast so it produces a lower energy level.
I welcome you to go study it.

Gamma rays are a type of light. X-rays are a type of light. Yes, they may have different energies, but they are still travelling at the same speed. What speed is that? The speed of light. It's a constant for a reason!

I cant wait for you to give me the detail so i can prove you rong
So please provide details.

I'll provide details just as soon as you do, bucko. And trust me, I actually have them!

You can't! You said yourself that on the images there is no scale. So who are you to say that the scale between the images is the same?

i cant argue with you on this one, but i also know you refuse
to take pictures and compare them

Some make it down to Earth. Despite the density of the atmosphere, to some extent something is making it down. What else would make the Geiger Counter click then, eh? It's the Cosmic Background Radiation!

I have provided you with the figure
If you dont accept that gamma is stoped before passing the atmosfere
it is u'r choice.

Gamma rays are a type of light. X-rays are a type of light. Yes, they may have different energies, but they are still travelling at the same speed. What speed is that? The speed of light. It's a constant for a reason!

Yes they travel at the speed of light but they have a diffrent form of energy
X-rays are produced on lower energy levels by electron particles.
Gamma rays are produced at higher energy levels.
What you dont understand is that the particles creating them are not gamma or x-rays they are cosmic rays ,electron particles , thei produce them depending on the aceleration level of the cosmic ray/electron.
Just like with the bomb if a neutron has the force to penetrate the atom
than only force will take that.
The particles in the x-ray machine do not have the force to produce hi level energy(gamma radiation) so it produces a lower frequncy of radiation of the same kind(x-rays)cause the aceleration force is not near the speed of light.
i welcome you to study it.
so it does not matter that the x ray and gamma ray travel at the speed of light, cause they have difrent energy levels and penetration.
gamma will panetrate what a x-raywould not.

To put it in other words, it does not matter that x-ray travels like gamma ray in sped it wont do the same damage.
So what if a x-ray travels fast it has a lower energy and it will do less damage.
The speed of gamma or x-rays has nothing to do with them creating more damage only a particle will decide that before they are boren.

Further more the cosmic ray has the power to produce gamma ray
since it's traveling at high speeds and is made out of atom nucleus.
At high speed near light speed when it will crash in to matter it will relise
gamma radiation and neutrons from nuclear reactions.

The moon is on constant bombardment from it and it generates high level
radiation type(gamma) that makes the protons from the belt look like a picnic.

Aluminium wont block gamma nothing will
the moon has a high level of radiation simply cause it has no atmosfere to block gamma.
Our atmosfere reduces the efect of the particles simply by impacting the cosmic rays at hi altitude .
Another factor the magnetic field pushes the particles away.

I'll provide details just as soon as you do, bucko. And trust me, I actually have them!

i already have prove my rong with theory

No hard feeling on this but this is what i belive that the moon landing is a hoax.
I dont expect every one to know about this and me my self didint know
i just went and studyed the facts before that i had no idea on what is this and that.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Yes, all electromagnetic radiation -- from radio waves to x-rays -- travel at the speed of light. In empty space this speed is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second!

www.colorado.edu...

X-rays are very high frequency waves, and carry a lot of energy. They will pass through most substances, and this makes them useful in medicine and industry to see inside things.

X-rays are given off by stars, and strongly by some types of nebula.
An X-ray machine works by firing a beam of electrons at a "target". If we fire the electrons with enough energy, X-rays will be produced.

X-rays are used by doctors to see inside people. They pass easily through soft tissues, but not so easily through bones. We send a beam of X-Rays through the patient and onto a piece of film, which goes dark where X-Rays hit it. This leaves white patches on the film where the bones were in the way.


www.darvill.clara.net...

X-Rays travel at the speed of light.. Period.. No discussion - FACT.

Background Radiation: Naturally occurring radiation is always present, it includes high energy gamma rays from the sun and outer space and alpha, beta, and gamma radiation emitted from elements in the earth
www.seintl.com...

No-ones arguing that Gamma radiation isn't emitted by the moon due to the bombardment of cosmic particles, but you havn't produced any figures. Gamma radiation is present all around us, if you get a Geiger counter and keep the Beta shield closed then you'll hear the clicks of background Gamma Radiation - I have a geiger counter (though it broke a couple of days ago admittedly) so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Gamma radiation is also used in medicine:

The applications of gamma radiation are much the same as those of X rays, both in medicine and in industry. In medicine, gamma ray sources are used for cancer treatment and for diagnostic purposes. Some gamma-emitting radioisotopes are also used as tracers (see radioactive isotope).www.infoplease.com...

You can't use a picture with no scale and you CAN'T compare it to the Earth one because there is no point of reference. We all know that these pictures are made to look pretty and what we get to see as a press release is practically useless to gain any data from.
Why can't you understand this? They use different methods to take the images and process them differently. IT IS NOT A CASE OF SIMPLY 'COMPARING THEM'.

Gamma Radiation does NOT automatically equal death - like other forms of energy it depends on doseage.
Get some figures from somewhere that state what the actual levels are and if they exceed the tolerable dose then we might listen - but until you do it means nothing.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Oh and you might want to ask yourself why the hell the Russians were in on it too, because apparantly they must have obviously falsified information in favour of the Moon Landings... I think the following evidence speaks for itself.:

Zond 5 was launched from a Tyazheliy Sputnik (68-076B) in earth parking orbit to make scientific studies during a lunar flyby and to return to Earth. En route to the Moon the main stellar attitude control optical surface became contaminated and was rendered unusable. Backup sensors were used to guide the spacecraft. On September 18, 1968, the spacecraft flew around the Moon. The closest distance was 1,950 km. High quality photographs of the Earth were taken at a distance of 90,000 km. A biological payload of turtles, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter was included in the flight. Additionally, according to the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the pilot's seat was a 175 cm tall, 70 kg mannequin containing radiation detectors. Returning to Earth another attitude control sensor failed, making the planned guided entry impossible and forcing the spacecraft controllers to use a direct ballistic entry. On September 21, 1968, the reentry capsule entered the Earth's atmosphere, braked aerodynamically, and deployed parachutes at 7 km. The capsule splashed down in the backup area in the Indian Ocean at 32.63 degrees S, 65.55 degrees E and was successfully recovered, safely returning the biological payload. It was announced that the turtles (steppe tortoises) had lost about 10% of their body weight but remained active and showed no loss of appetite. The spacecraft was planned as a precursor to crewed lunar spacecraft. It represented the first successful Soviet circumlunar mission.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Curiously, the film used to take pictures on these Russian craft didn't 'fog up' from all the radiation either...

You might want to look at their list of successful Soviet missions here too:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And on the topic that was brought up in the Fox show and is a favourite amongst the ill-informed - the 'Lunar Lander test failures':

The famous video of Neil Armstrong ejecting from the 'prototype' is not what it seems, it is infact a simulation rig designed to approximate the experience of flying and landing the Lunar Module in the lunar enviroment. It is NOT a representation of the Lunar Module and that specific failure was infact a mechanical failure with the device - not pilot error or a design flaw.
There were only 3 serious crashes in total and hundreds of succesful flights.

LLRV no. 1, piloted by Neil Armstrong, crashed in May 1968 when the helium pressurization system for the steering jets failed, leaving Armstrong no way to control the vehicle. This was not because the vehicle was too unstable to control, or because Armstrong was a poor pilot. This is like driving your car down the freeway and having the steering wheel come off in your hands. You will crash in that situation, and it's not because cars (in general) can't be steered -- it's because a mechanical failure caused your car to lose control in that particular instance.

There were two other crashes: two of the LLTVs crashed, one in December 1968 and the other in January 1971. These too were caused by technical failures. They used state-of-the-art fly-by-wire technology, and it did not always work perfectly. This is why the vehicles were equipped with ejection seats.

By April 1966 the LLRV had already performed more than 100 successful flights (Fig. 2). Conspiracists generally refer only to Armstrong's crash and imply that this was the typical outcome of an LLRV flight. On the contrary, the typical outcome was a safe, successful landing. A fleet of experimental aircraft that can perform hundreds of times over several years with only three serious crashes is not inherently dangerous, unstable, or unflyable. To imply otherwise is to ignore a great deal of fact.

It is important to understand that these vehicles were not built as prototypes for the lunar module. A prototype is built to test the technology that will go into the final version, whether everything fits together, and to determine how it can be built on an assembly line. The LLTVs and LLRVs were built to reproduce for the pilot, as best as could be determined in advance, the "feel" of flying the lunar module using whatever ad hoc technology had to be included to do that in an earth environment.
www.clavius.org...

When the LLRVs arrived at Houston, where research pilots would learn how to become LLTV instructor pilots, No. 2 had been flown just 7 times while No. 1, the veteran, had a total of 198 flights. In December 1967, the first of the LLTVs joined the FRC's LLRVs to eventually make up the five-vehicle training and simulator fleet.

Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston—LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTVs, in December 1968 and January 1971.

The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.

Donald "Deke" Slayton, then NASA's astronaut chief, said there was no other way to simulate a moon landing except by flying the LLTV.
www.nasa.gov...

Anyone that entertains the ideas from the likes of the Fox show and it's associated HBs should seriously consider doing research of there own, instead of believeing everything they hear because it's all said with a commanding and dramatic voice, accompanied by edited footage and sinister music.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by 4for4
Not really adding much to the thread, just saying that I admire the patience of AgentSmith, Halfofone and the others. I couldn't even read the whole thread!

I repeat! That was 6 pages ago.

Can I try to clarify what you are saying Pepsi? You're claiming that the moon emits a whole lot more radiation than what NASA and other studies are saying is present, and that we should do our own research on it.

Ok... Well short of having the resources of NASA, how do you know that? What study have you done that disproves NASA, and can you show that to us?

Let's not forget he is also disagreeing with Russian research as well.
So come on Pepsi, spill the beans - what do you know that everyone else doesn't and what is your incredible source of information?
Don't tell me..... you built your own satellite and launched it using a modified Estes rocket! am I right?

EDIT:

I just had a brain wave, the Space shuttle was obviously fake. Many people including myself remembered it going up but it was obviously all filmed at Area 51. They can't fly it now, all that exists are a few relics. Some people claim it flew for the last time a few months back but they are STUPID!
These morons need to be enlightened with the truth, the fact is we cannot fly the space shuttle any more and if it really had existed then we could. All we get is some crappy museum pieces. Has anyone actually seen it launch themselves anyway? It's obviously all Hollywood special effects on the TV - the Apollo hoax proved that it could be faked years back.
Everyone knows that if the human body goes faster than 30mph then it is CRUSHED! the Space shuttle travels at many THOUSANDS of miles per hour (allegedly). Cars are also FAKE because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GO FASTER THAN 30MPH!
I am a Physicist and I know what I am talking about, my brother who is also a physicist and worked for NASA (but wishes to rename anonymous for obvious reasons) told me that the sky is FAKE and all the things we see that we think are stars and the moon are in fact TRANSPARANCIES stuck onto the glass roof of our planet. We are in fact within a lab in my best friend's cousin's Alien abductors facility.
There is secret footage in my DVD which you can buy for $999.95 which shows NASA operatives clearly sticking the stars onto the sky.
All the footage you see of space probes are in fact filmed in the old quarry at the bottom of my road, I have the pictures to prove it! - these to are included in my DVD... I promise they are not so fuzzy and insignificant that you will see ANYTHING to justify spending all that money on my DVD!

If that's not proof enough then try and talk your way out of this! I forced my mate to stare at the Sun and he now complains he can't see anymore.
Obviously the sun is far to bright for us to exist near it and yet we apparantly do, if it was really a big Nuclear fusion reaction then we would all be DEAD from the radiation. NASA mutter something about the 'Van Haylen' belts protecting us from the radiation, something to do with Magneto's fields or something like that - probably being watching X-Men too much. But I don't understand it properly so it's obviously FALSE! Don't forget I am a physicist myself and I'm sure I would know something about it if it was true - so more PROOF that we did not go into space and that the astro-NOTs are liers. It also makes it perfectly clear that what we think of as the Sun is in fact a big stagelight, the multiple shadows during the day prove this.

This secret picture from the NASA archives clearly shows that the launches we saw on TV were in fact an ELABORATE MOCK-UP and didn't really happen!



I even tackled the head of NASA about it all, after calling his Mum a camel and poking him in the eye he PUNCHED ME IN THE FACE! In front of my camera crew - proof enough I think that the stars are in fact stuck onto black velvet hanging in orbit around the planet to stop you seeing the LAB!!

Don't forget - my DVD only $999.95!

I've just found this secret image from the FBI archives! It clearly is the conclusive proof that everything I have been saying is true and is also proof that there is truth behind the old saying 'The man in the Moon'.!





P.S. - Pepsi, Resistance - for your benefit that bit below the 'EDIT' was a joke and isn't true, I thought I'd better point that out.....

[edit on 13-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Forget it i have erased it my self all of it.
I just copy and paste to make it legitimate to see that other source says the same has me.
I am not here to colect points.
The reason i use ats is just to debate.
The points do not itrest me.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

FWIW, When I graduated from college, back in the mid 80's I worked for a while in a commercial radio-isotope lab, they analyzed environmental samples for the Nuclear power industry.

Anyway, the gamma counting chambers were big boxes made of stacks of 3/8 inch thick steel plates. The total thickness was about 6 inches. The interesting thing was, the steel had to be special steel salvaged from pre WWII ships. Steel made after that time often contained traces of radioactive contamination that made it unsuitable for use. (It was my understanding that this contamination was from the use of a Co60 source in the foundries to monitor the condition of the furnace refractories)

In any case, one of the biggest background sources for gamma radiation is K-40
(Potassium) and since potassium is a major component of the human body, we are all glowing with gamma right now.

Originally posted by pepsi78
That the faster the particle moves the biger the efect would be .

It's light! It all moves at the same speed!

Particles made here in acelerators are far lamer than the one's out there
and are difrent go see it if you dont belive me.

A gamma ray is a gamma ray is a gamma ray. My point? It doesn't matter how they're made, they're still the same!

And this site explains you some facts
Cosmic Rays

It also shows me where you copied and pasted most of your information for this post from. That's called plagiarism. Not only is it illegal, it's against the Terms and Conditions of Use for ATS.

[edit on 11/13/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

kmd kid
It does not matter on wich speed it travels in the case of(gamma or x-ray )
x ray will always have a lower energy than gamma.
Yes you are right but that does not change how they act.
The dammage is calculated on the intensity of energy level and not on speed.
x-ray will never reach a energy level that gamma has it is not posible i dont say it fisics say's it.

A gamma ray is a gamma ray is a gamma ray. My point? It doesn't matter how they're made, they're still the same!

Of course it matters
A gamma ray can be difrent in intensity
Gamma rays has a energy scale
How difrent they are in energy will only be established by the particle that creates them.
I know i am right, but if you dont accept it that is realy okay.
The atmosfere is like a lead shield if you like to call it that
Thats why the gamma will be less intensive at a lower level cause it will not penetrate and continue at the same intensity
When it is produced it has a higher level.


A x-ray will be stronger than gamma if a biger led shielding is used
for gamma and a less biger shielding will be used for x-rays

But at the production level a x-ray will never beat a gamma ray at the point where it is produced.
so you can have a x-ray stronger than gamma only after it has passed a wall shielding and not before



A cosmic ray not one that is produced in the acelerator a original one
will always deliver high energy gamma the moon is not protected by anything so it will go at a higher itensity cause such particles will always produce a high energy level of gamma.

My only point in this discution that has taken many pages is about the report and that 5 rem's that are claimed in the oficial report are not justified.
Maybe they went to the moon i dont know, but it is questionable simply cause of the oficial report.




[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
How difrent they are in energy will only be established by the particle that creates them.
I know i am right, but if you dont accept it that is realy okay.

Originally posted by pepsi78
But at the production level a x-ray will never beat a gamma ray at the point where it is produced.
so you can have a x-ray stronger than gamma only after it has passed a wall shielding and not before

Below is a quote from Wiki, with Bold for emphesis
Gamma rays form the highest-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are often defined to begin at an energy of 10 keV, a frequency of/ 2.42 EHz, or a wavelength of/ 124 pm, although electromagnetic radiation from around 10 keV to several hundred keV is also referred to as hard X rays. It is important to note that there is no physical difference between gamma rays and X rays of the same energy — they are two names for the same electromagnetic radiation, just as sunlight and moonlight are two names for visible light. Rather, gamma rays are distinguished from X rays by their origin. Gamma ray is a term for high-energy electromagnetic radiation produced by nuclear transitions, while X ray is a term for high-energy electromagnetic radiation produced by energy transitions due to accelerating electrons. Because it is possible for some electron transitions to be of higher energy than some nuclear transitions, there is an overlap between what we call low energy gamma rays and high energy X-rays.

I know it may be "Dificult" for you to understand the "fisics" involved. It doesn't matter the energy level of the radiation, what matters is the quanitiy and length of exposure to the radiation. We can get X-rays taken at the dentist and hospital with little or no ill effects. We have even been able to use radiation to kill cancerous cells. It would be safe to assume that most Chemotherapy patiants have probly been exposed to more radiation for longer periods of time then any astronaut has, regadless if they were on the moon or in space.

Pepsi, can you refer to my post above and share with us any insight in how the Russians managed to fly those turtles, insects, plants, etc to the Moon and back without any ill effects?
Surely the radiation would have a more dramatic effect on these things as there would be less tissue to penetrate before reaching vital organs, and as we know Gamma Rays need several feet of lead for shielding, so how did they survive? Was it the turtle's shells that protected them?
Maybe we should strap turtle shells to our spacecraft in the future?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

tecnical dificulties


[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
tecnical dificulties


[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

What with your Estes rocket? Is that a problem with your instruments you must be getting your data from or are you stalling to try and get rid of the question?

no i am makeing a scale hold u'r horses i will respond

If you're making a scale of those false colour images which were taken over different periods of time and touched up to look nice you're wasting your time. Nice idea though, if it was viable in some way I'd have done it long ago... So where are you getting your data from, I noticed on that other board they also tried explaining to you over several pages, in much more detail than any of us have, why you are wrong. Reading what some of them say you really should listen to them, I kind of got the impression that physics is a job to some of them.

And answer the question, how did the animals survive the Russian trip, including all that Gamma radiation while in orbit? Or were they helping the Americans? LOL

[edit on 13-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

I think we are geting lost in the woods.

1 x-rays do not have the same penetration level why(cause they are not on the same energy level only gamma will penetrate far more than x-rays cause it has a higher value)
2 can we have a gamma ray at the same frenquncy level of an x-ray when it is produced(no you cant gamma in the spectrum of elecromagnetic is produced at a higher energy level than x-rays)

In fact take a spectrum and set it at a energy level where usualy x-rays
are and you will see only x-rays, when you want to see gamma you tune up the spectrum to a higher level.


here i'll draw the darn thing


You cant have x-rays where you have gamma.
The only time when a gamma will be weeker is after it penetrates
and not from the starting point of production.


And agent smith i can say about the monkey that died after it came back from space nasa put a monkey in space and it died.
After a week apolo took off.