Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

You guys can come up with all kinds of spin on this.
Point is, there were two Major Major Proton Events during an Apollo mission.
Some of you claimed there weren't any.


More to come.

No, we wanted you to define "major". Because we knew you'd post something like this. i.e. someone using the term "major" in a way that doesn't mean "dangerous".

We are still awaiting proof of an event that can be numerically defined as dangerous.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

No.
There were no major proton events during any of the Apollo missions. You have failed do demonstrate anything to the contrary.

edit on 9/19/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

denial is the first step to acceptance

I have demonstrated it quite well thank you.
Sorry, you lose.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

No.
There were no major proton events during any of the Apollo missions. You have failed do demonstrate anything to the contrary.

edit on 9/19/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

denial is the first step to acceptance

I have demonstrated it quite well thank you.
Sorry, you lose.

Please post the numbers and references.

reply to post by FoosM

denial is the first step to acceptance

Ignorance is the first step to more ignorance if you don't bother trying to learn something.

I'm sorry I missed where you demonstrated it. You aren't talking about the quote from the guy who says this are you? He doesn't seem to understand the relevance of flux either.

In the case of moderation of the effect of geomagnetic storms, humanity is receiving substantial assistance from higher dimensional extraterrestrials.

www.preparingforthegreatshift.org...

Fish in a bowl.

The Space Shuttle and Space Station will be located in low Earth orbit (LEO), beyond the protection of the atmosphere, but still within the protection of the magnetic field. In these orbits, the radiation risk will be due to GCR particles too energetic to be significantly deflected by the magnetic field, and to trapped radiation belt protons. When the orbit of a spacecraft intersects the SAA, radiation intensity can increase by an order of magnitude. For this reason, extravehicular activity (EVA) should be avoided whenever a spacecraft is about to traverse the SAA. Even in the interior of a spacecraft, exposures could exceed radiation limits during a large SPE.

Under such circumstances, crews may be directed to limit activities to the most highly shielded area of the spacecraft, for use as a “storm shelter”.

three.usra.edu...

More NASA lies, contradictions, etc



Awash with radiation, full of radiation, a sea of radiation are some of the descriptions of the space environment:

• Solar flares are relatively small-scale explosions that emit bursts of radiation. They cause enhanced radio absorption in the so-called D layer of Earth’s ionosphere, interfering with Global Positioning System signals and shortwave reception. Flares also heat the upper atmosphere, puffing it up and increasing drag on satellites.
• Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are giant bubbles of ionized gas. If Earth is caught in their crosshairs, they can induce electric currents that surge into pipelines, cables and electrical transformers.
• Solar proton events are floods of high-energy protons that occasionally accompany flares and CMEs. They can zap data in electronic circuits and give astronauts and airline passengers an extra dose of radiation.

www.scientificamerican.com...

...the sun is constantly releasing lower energy protons that pass from the solar magnetosphere to Earth's magnetosphere. Energetic electrons and protons arriving at Earth from the sun are trapped in Earth's magnetic flux lines, where they spiral back and forth between the north and south magnetic poles, in which case they are referred to as “trapped radiation belts”. All of these three categories of radiations produce secondary radiations such as neutrons and gamma rays when they interact with matter. Crew member protection against very large solar proton storms has been a subject of considerable concern for more than four decades (Pezdirtz, 1963) and has yet to be resolved.

www.iucf.indiana.edu...


It all points to the fact that Aluminum alone could not have shielded those astronauts from the interstellar space environment. Aluminum might be good enough for LEO under the Earth's protection, but passed that... no way.

reply to post by FoosM

Interstellar space? Not hardly.

It was not the just the skin of the spacecraft which provided radiation protection. The astronauts were surrounded by equipment, basically in the core of it all. The unmanned Apollo 4 and 6 missions demonstrated that sufficient protection was provided.

And oh yes, there were no major ("very large") particle events during any of the missions.

reply to post by FoosM

Eyewitnesses?
Im sorry, who else was on the moon?

Documents?
What makes them legit?

Artifacts?
From some ancient moon civilization?

Data?
Supplied by who?

Rocks?
Compared to what?

Photographs?
Prove what?

A perfect illustration of your faulty epistemology. I suggest you look up the word: "solipsism."

The Hulk is cast as the emotional and impulsive alter ego of the withdrawn and reserved physicist Dr. Bruce Banner. The Hulk appears shortly after Banner is accidentally exposed to the blast of a test detonation of a gamma bomb he invented. Subsequently, Banner will involuntarily transform into the Hulk, depicted as a giant, raging, humanoid monster, leading to extreme complications in Banner's life.

Gamma rays (γ rays) is the popular name applied to gamma radiation, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation and thus the electromagnetic radiation with the shortest wavelengths (10 − 11 − 10 − 17 meters) and highest frequencies (3x1019 − 3x1025 cycles per second).

In general, a solar flare produces copious radiation across the full electromagnetic spectrum from the longest wavelength radio waves to the highest energy gamma rays. The contrast over the background (quiet-Sun) emission is much higher at the shorter X-ray and gamma-ray wavelengths that will be observed with HESSI. Furthermore, these high energy radiations carry direct information about the energetically dominant products of the energy release that is not available from emissions at any other wavelength. The X rays result from the interactions of the high energy electrons energized during the flare, and the gamma rays result primarily from nuclear interactions of the high energy protons and other heavier ions.

The most effective gamma shields are materials which have a high density and high atomic number , such as lead, tungsten, and uranium among others.

Density:
aluminum 2.7
lead 11.3

At even higher energies, we find gamma rays produced, not from the flare electrons, but from nuclear interactions of the protons and heavier ions accelerated in the flare. These high energy particles interact with the nuclei of the different elements in the ambient solar atmosphere to produce a far more complicated emission spectrum than the relatively smooth continuum bremsstrahlung spectrum. Many individual gamma-ray lines from a wide variety of different elements in the solar atmosphere have been detected. They result from the decay of such relatively abundant elements as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. that are excited to high energy states in the various nuclear interactions. The relative intensities of the various lines provide information about the composition of both the accelerated particles and the target nuclei.

During the Apollo 12 EVAs
Two X-class solar flares were recorded.

X = Dead

Perhaps the most spectacular discovery in gamma-ray astronomy came in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Detectors on board the Vela satellite series, originally military satellites, began to record bursts of gamma-rays -- not from Earth, but from deep space!

Gamma-rays travel to us across vast distances of the universe, only to be absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere. Different wavelengths of light penetrate the Earth's atmosphere to different depths.

The four core individuals traditionally associated with the Fantastic Four, who gained superpowers after exposure to cosmic rays during a scientific mission to outer space, are: Mr. Fantastic (Reed Richards), a scientific genius and the leader of the group, who can stretch his body into incredible lengths and shapes; the Invisible Woman (Susan "Sue" Storm), Reed's wife, who can render herself and others invisible and project powerful force fields; the Human Torch (Johnny Storm), Sue's younger brother, who can generate flames, surround himself with them and fly; and the monstrous Thing (Ben Grimm), their grumpy but benevolent friend, who possesses superhuman strength and endurance due to the nature of his stone-like flesh.

Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.

In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.

cosmic rays created a secondary -- and potentially more dangerous -- shower by blasting particles in the lunar soil which then become radioactive.

"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.

If you could see gamma-rays, the night sky would look strange and unfamiliar.
The gamma-ray moon just looks like a round blob - lunar features are not visible. In high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is actually brighter than the quiet Sun

Why is the Moon so bright in gamma rays? High energy charged particles from the cosmos, known as cosmic rays, constantly bombard the unprotected lunar surface generating gamma rays. The Sun is shielded from these particles by its magnetic field. EGRET's gamma-ray vision is not sharp enough to resolve a lunar disk or any surface features but its sensitivity reveals the bright gamma-ray moonglow against a background of gamma rays from our Milky Way galaxy, gamma-ray quasars and some still mysterious unidentified sources.

hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...(comics)
en.wikipedia.org...
news.discovery.com...
www.triumf.ca...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM

 

Interstellar space? Not hardly.

It was not the just the skin of the spacecraft which provided radiation protection. The astronauts were surrounded by equipment, basically in the core of it all. The unmanned Apollo 4 and 6 missions demonstrated that sufficient protection was provided.

And oh yes, there were no major ("very large") particle events during any of the missions.

edit on 9/19/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes there were.
You cant prove otherwise.

I suggest you find some evidence of a manned lunar landing during Apollo- STAT!

reply to post by FoosM


In other words, you refuse to accept anything that anyone says. That sprawling complex at Cape Canaveral was built as a tourist attraction. The people who watched the Saturn V lift off were all drugged and hypnotized. Not one single person went outside at night to watch the stars. Every single astronomer on Earth was bribed and corrupted. The Soviets mysteriously played along, despite the damage to their prestige. Nuclear scientists somehow managed to synthesize rocks with exotic compositions. Thousands of employees were blackmailed to lie under pain of death but only Bill Kaysing was brave enough to blow the whistle, but when he did, and nothing happened, no-one else backed him up. Of course, the simplest explanation of all the facts.

If the newspaper archives, museums of the world, the global scientific community, the eye-witnesses to the launch, orbit and progress of the mission inherently lack credibility... what gives Jarrah White any? What is your standard. You still haven't answered that simple, primary question.

Originally posted by Phage
It was not the just the skin of the spacecraft which provided radiation protection.

Actually according to Eleanor Blakely ... The aluminium 'skin' of the spacecraft would pose more problems. Are you self appointed experts disputing her findings? Here is just part of her CV...
So far I haven't heard a valid response that you could confront her with.

1991-present Project Director of a NASA-funded NSCORT (NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training for Radiation Health); Faculty Affiliate Appointment, Department of Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

1996-present Appointed Member, NCRP Scientific Committee #1-7-Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Travel Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

1990-present Appointed Member, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Scientific Committee 75 on "Guidance on Radiation Received in Space Activities"

Her section starts at 1.15.



Also, here is her full CV.
hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...

edit: I find this part of her CV most interesting

1996-present Appointed Member, NCRP Scientific Committee #1-7-Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Travel Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

reply to post by ppk55

Actually according to Eleanor Blakely ... The aluminium 'skin' of the spacecraft would pose more problems. Are you self appointed experts disputing her findings? Here is just part of her CV...
So far I haven't heard a valid response that you could confront her with.

Why would anyone want to confront her? She knows what she's talking about. When I hear from her I will be sure to pass on her reaction to people taking her research out of context. She has been researching the effects of high energy radiation on human vision. Aluminum doesn't "make things worse," as you seem to think. When gamma radiation strikes aluminum, it can cause a type of secondary radiation called "bremstrahlung." Ironically, less dense materials, like glass are less prone to this. In other words, the window offers the best protection against gamma radiation! In any event, the bremstrahlung is less energetic than the original radiation. As I said, I'll keep you posted.

By the way... is it my imagination, or do some people, not you, PPK, but some people here seem to think that everything NASA says or does is "tainted" or a "lie," unless they say something they think they can twist to their own purposes?

this is stupid, we landed on the moon guys. Why be ignorant for?

we have mirrors on the moon - 7 infact

www.newscientist.com...

Many of our best tests of relativity come from lunar ranging experiments. Several times a month, teams of astronomers from three observatories blast the moon with pulses of light from a powerful laser and wait for the reflections from a network of mirrors placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions, as well as two Soviet Lunokhod landers. By timing the light's round trip, they can pinpoint the distance to the moon with an accuracy of around a millimetre – a measurement so precise that it has the potential to reveal problems with general relativity.

This is factual stuff people.
Lunar hoax?

Originally posted by ppk55
Are you self appointed experts disputing her findings?

MAY I IMPLORE those who are tempted to answer such ill-presented garbage... demand that PPK explains in his own words - WHAT FINDINGS??? ppk should explain EXACTLY what she says, with in context quotes, and how it pertains to the Apollo hoax theory.

These ignorant, contentless, youtube-spamming posts are destroying ATS. They are disruptive, effectively unanswerable distractions, posted deliberately to derail the thread. Sadly that happened a hundred or so pages back.

It's your choice, dear readers, but imo, encouraging that sort of thing is not a good idea.

Originally posted by andre18
this is stupid, we landed on the moon guys. Why be ignorant for?

we have mirrors on the moon - 7 infact

www.newscientist.com...

Many of our best tests of relativity come from lunar ranging experiments. Several times a month, teams of astronomers from three observatories blast the moon with pulses of light from a powerful laser and wait for the reflections from a network of mirrors placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions, as well as two Soviet Lunokhod landers. By timing the light's round trip, they can pinpoint the distance to the moon with an accuracy of around a millimetre – a measurement so precise that it has the potential to reveal problems with general relativity.

This is factual stuff people.
Lunar hoax?

edit on 20-9-2010 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

So how did the Soviets get those mirrors on the moon if they claimed they never landed a man up there

You think the Soviets lied about landing people on the moon? You think the US&USSR have been busy colonizing the moon without us knowing about it?

Please explain!!!!

It doesn't matter who claimed to have a reflector .. the mythbusters have been well . um .. been busted.
It seems anyone can bounce a beam off the moon and get a reading.

The part where he confronts Adam Savage is gold. How embarrassing for the mythbusters.
Adam Savage says he trusted a 3rd party source.

reply to post by ppk55

Her section starts at 1.15.

Why listen only to her "section"? Why not her whole lecture? The one in which she is talking about long term exposure during a mission to Mars.

Blakely is talking about galactic cosmic rays, particles which have much higher energies than solar radiation. Shielding against them is problematic. However the flux levels of this type of radiation only make it dangerous in the long term, like on a trip to Mars and back.

Here is her entire lecture. The early part where she explains the dangers posed by GCRs, and the end where she answers questions make it quite clear what she's talking about...long term exposure.

During the Apollo missions, the shielding provided by the CM was sufficient for protection from low energy protons (which do not fragment). The period of exposure was not long enough for cosmic rays to be dangerous.

I'm inclined to think this guy is full of $h!t. His entire argument is based on "Flag Movement". He actually said "Movement was recorded every time the lander took off or landed." Wouldn't that be construed as thrust from the Lander? As for the flag's erratic movement; he is correct that there is no wind or atmosphere on the moon, but that only hurts his argument. The flag's movement comes from the Astronaut trying to adjust the flag. The reason it appears to "blow" is due to the fact that the low gravity allows for less downward pull, while the atmosphere-less setting creates an ease of movement forward and backward with no friction to slow it (I.E. making it seem more erratic than a simple jiggle here on the ground)
I know the experiment to show how waving a flag in a "vacuum" shows a different result then what was captured on the moon, but has anyone tried waving a flag in a vacuum while at 1/6 the gravity that is present on Earth? All I'm sayin'

Originally posted by Phage
Blakely is talking about galactic cosmic rays,

Sorry In case you didn't watch the video all the way, the question was

'How difficult would it be to shield spacecraft or a space suit against DIFFERENT types of radiation.'

And she replied



starts at 1.15.

edit: please don't reply to things you haven't fully researched.