View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:33

ProfWag wrote:You make good points Arouet. I want to add a couple less technical things which are 1) Gemini missions, specifically 10, sent spacecraft through the belts from which measurements and the effects on the body were taken. 2) He referred to something that Van Allen said soon after his discovery, but unlike conspiracy theories, science constantly evolves. I'm curious why Jarrah didn't mention this statement: "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Arouet wrote:If White knew about that Van Allen quote it certainly would be intellectually dishonest of him not to mention it.


SydneyPSIder wrote:yes, although it appears Dr James van Allen and other 'experts' suddenly changed their tune when they went on the NASA payroll. I assume you will be able to head this concern off as part of your brilliant research effort.


Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:yes, although it appears Dr James van Allen and other 'experts' suddenly changed their tune when they went on the NASA payroll. I assume you will be able to head this concern off as part of your brilliant research effort.


Van Allen worked with NASA well before the 1961 article cited by White (he was part of the Explorer project) and worked for the navy going back to WWII.

(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... allen.html)

Can you elaborate on when you think this "sudden change" took place?

Also: could I have your thoughts on my posts about the radiation question and whether you think White addressed the questions raised by the Clavius article?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:36

Arouet wrote:So Misha, Syd (and any newcommer): We've taken a quick look at White's piece, and the admittedly unsourced Cluvius piece. I've identified some areas that to me it looks like White didn't cover. Do you agree with my assessment? Or is there something I'm missing in White's paper? (or maybe he addressed them somewhere else?).

If we're in agreement that White didn't cover those areas, then we can take a closer look at the Cluvius position and see how it measures up. If you think White did address those issues we should get that position down first.


Arouet wrote:
Misha wrote:Hi Syd & Arouet. I'm here. I've been quite busy on other matters. I'm fascinated by the Apollo controversy, but frankly I am a bit reticent at pushing the issue further. I think we will end up going in circles and rehashing other people's research endlessly. For now I am going to let it lie until something stirs me to post on the subject again.


If you don't want to get into it that's fine, but for the record my purpose in approaching the radiation issue as I have, is to structure the discussion in a manner that will help us avoid going around in circles. That is: first identify the questions that should be asked. See if the various proponents of either view have addressed them, and if so, have they addressed them adequately. Then presumably try to reach some kind of consensus ourselves.

The last bit might not happen, but I think the methodology gives us a shot at at least having a structured conversation about it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:38

Arouet wrote:Hmmm, so when you posted this:

SydneyPSIder wrote:Why not discuss moon rocks and radiation evidence and physics reasoning and try to keep the thread on topic for a change, so you can get trounced the way you fear you will, with your zero evidential base.


was it just a bluff? And I called you on it and now its a dead end?


SydneyPSIder wrote:Add in photo and video evidence to that list as I've been saying all along. You are reduced to nit-picking at hurried comments now? Suggests to me you're worried the video and photo evidence is your weakest point. e.g. wire flashes in video, astronauts falling down and levitating back up, flags waving in the breeze, etc. More to come of these, of course. As noted, the NASA 'evidence' only has to fail at one point to question the truth and trustworthiness of accounts of the entire set of missions. And if they're still faking evidence by Apollo 17, the very last of the missions, I think any reasonable person could safely assume they spared themselves the cost and risk of any genuine trips into space whatsoever.

The radiation evidence and research has already been posted. If you can find some convincing counter-evidence, please paste it in and do an analysis -- we're still waiting. For instance, NASA has recently indicated they have no good data or research on radiation levels in space or going through the van Allen belts and that work still needs to be done. Can you refute this? What happened to the research and data on radiation they MUST have gathered as an essential scientific measurement to test the safety of space travel? Or they just got in that rocket and went, without worrying about radiation, like a B-grade sci-fi flick from the 50s? After all, 'duty calls', doesn't it?

Interestingly, some 700-odd rolls of 'video' taken 'from the moon' have been accidentally 'taped over' by NASA. How do you think they could have let that happen to that historic and important footage? And what on earth would they be taping these days to go over the old footage?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:41

SydneyPSIder wrote:
The radiation issue is extremely important, but harder to demonstrate and analyse, especially where the research has not been done. Most of what we have to go on is the evasiveness of astronauts who have no memory of significant radiation artifacts, contradicted by space shuttle astronauts who have seen artifacts at 400 miles, still well below the most serious belts. And the omission of radiation data logging and research by NASA on the missions suggests they weren't worried about radiation and safety, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WEREN'T GOING TO SEND ANYONE.

I note that Dr James van Allen now contradicts himself and says it's safe, when queried explicitly on a moon landing hoax, whereas his earlier research strongly suggested it wasn't safe. Now contradicting Dr Allen's surprising new view is NASA itself, which wants to conduct radiation safety research before it sends anybody out anywhere into deep space and out of earth orbit for the first time in history. So NASA and the pseudosceps now want it both ways, apparently -- it was safe for the Apollo missions, but it's not safe now. Except it is. Except it's not. Interesting scientific world view you lot possess. I'll remind you once again, Arou, for the fourth time, the topic of the thread is 'Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense'.


SydneyPSIder wrote:At the point when NASA and the govt realised they would have to fake the Apollo results in the mid-60s, and if he wanted to keep his rarefied job and career he'd better go along with it.

The Clavius article I just read on radiation concerns doesn't seem to cast any real technical light and it tends to agree that it is quite risky, just that the risks can be mitigated somewhat if you steer a careful course through the belts. However, once again, we don't know if that happened -- all we have is 'the document' of a rocket taking off straight upwards on video -- what happened to that rocket and whether anyone was even on it isn't actually known.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:43

Arouet wrote:To be clear, I was using the cluvius article to help define the relevant questions, as I said, they don't source their answers so I don't take them as authoritative. What I wanted to do first was identify the relevant questions, see if White addressed them (since he's been proferred as an authority to rely on). If he has, we'll look closer at his answers. If he hasn't we'll look into it ourselves.

We're accepting that we're all lay people here, doing the best we can to understand technical issues. But I think this is a good way to proceed.

Then we can do the same with the pictures.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:44

Ok, I think those are the relevant ones. Some posts had to be truncated because the software has some rules about too many quotes within quotes - any edits were in whole paragraphs. If anyone thinks something else should be added, let me know. (or just go ahead and add it yourself!)

So let's see where we can get with this!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 10:11

ProfWag wrote:Kudos to arouet for wanting to examine this subject logically.

As for the radiation belts, the following is from the Health Physics Society:

"The radiation levels were too low to be lethal. Astronauts on Apollo missions were exposed to radiation from the Van Allen belts (trapped particles) and the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) background. There were no solar particle events of any significance during these missions; hence, there were no dose accumulations from them. Radiation exposures for the transits through the trapped belts were kept very low by transiting quickly through them. Since the Apollo mission lengths were only a week or two, there were also no significant accumulations of radiation dose from the GCR background. Thus doses were well below thresholds for any measurable radiation effects, including lethality. Average exposures to Apollo crews measured by onboard dosimetry were 4.1 mGy (0.41 rad) absorbed dose and 12 mSv (1.2 rem) dose equivalent for the mission duration."

Larry Townsend, PhD
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q753.html

Now, I guess we could believe what Mr. Jarrah White says (albeit in 3rd person) or we can believe what an organization who specializes in radiation actually says. Personally, I vote for Dr. Townsend.

haha, sure, there weren't any solar flares in 5 years of running the alleged missions, especially the random ones that flare up all the time and cannot be predicted.

and they can't just make up numbers like '4.1' or '5.2' or whatever, the exact same way I used to do occasionally in uni pracs in physics and chemistry when the experiment got botched or the numbers I was getting didn't quite fit the theory.

3.7... 2.8... 5.1... 6.957....

That must be why NASA is too scared today to send anyone up without doing a lot of extra meticulous research on actual radiation levels out there. Oh, now it's about preparing for 'long term' stays on the moon -- um, well, wouldn't you just take the measured dose of radiation from those short-term stays and multiply it out by the extra number of days to estimate the long-term exposure, and compare with what we know about radiation exposure on earth? And what were all those bodgy 'experiments' about on the moon that the astronauts used to kick about? Nothing measuring the solar wind radiation levels? I wonder why not. 'Personal dosimeters' indeed.

Let's just face the fact that it's a hoax and NASA still don't have good data on cross-van Allen belt or solar wind exposures, or if they do, from unmanned probes, they are too lethal to report.

And I see I'm the only person who's actually posted anything much to Arou's dynamic new thread except Arou himself! Curiouser and curiouser.

And let's not look at the obvious physical evidence of fakery in photos, videos and in stereoscopic analysis, let's stick to claims and counter-claims by 'experts' paid by NASA that can't be verified or proven.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 11:17

Syd, what do you think of the questions I identified above and whether White addressed them all? Any questions I missed? Let's get them all out then try to track down answers.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Dec 2012, 13:01

Arouet wrote:Syd, what do you think of the questions I identified above and whether White addressed them all? Any questions I missed? Let's get them all out then try to track down answers.

yes. yes, let's do that.

which questions?

and why are we restricting ourselves to White's comments?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 28 Dec 2012, 22:39

We're not really restricting ourselves to White's comments, but since both you and Misha sited him as a reliable source, and you went through the effort of posting a detailed except from him, it seems like a good launching point for the discussion.

As for my questions: I've copied and pasted the relevant posts above, maybe give them a quick read and we can continue the conversation.

Misha? hope you stop by too!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 29 Dec 2012, 00:36

Arouet wrote:We're not really restricting ourselves to White's comments, but since both you and Misha sited him as a reliable source, and you went through the effort of posting a detailed except from him, it seems like a good launching point for the discussion.

As for my questions: I've copied and pasted the relevant posts above, maybe give them a quick read and we can continue the conversation.

Misha? hope you stop by too!


Hi Arouet,

Though I find White's information very credible and thorough it is not the only source on this issue I draw from. I believe I had stated that I have read Percy & Bennett's book - "Dark Moon, Apollo And The Whistle-Blowers and Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step." I have read both of these books cover to cover. Have you guys read these books? Keep in mind that I have referred to White because you guys can watch all his videos to at least understand the opposing thesis. However, it is my opinion that videos are fine, but books are better.

Yes, I would like to see Jarrah put his information in a book. I wonder if there is anything in Jarrah's videos or other author's books which might support the Apollo Hoax theory? I think this might be helpful in discussing a particular anomaly? Also, let me know of any books on this subject that you think might be interesting to read, either for or against.

Again, guys. Let me know if you read the aforementioned books.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 29 Dec 2012, 01:08

I haven't read those books and I'll be honest, I don't really intend to at the moment. Why don't we see how far we can get with information available on the net?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 Dec 2012, 07:59

Arouet wrote:I haven't read those books and I'll be honest, I don't really intend to at the moment. Why don't we see how far we can get with information available on the net?

Then you can watch the movie, it's much less brain fag — there's some information available on the net:



SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 29 Dec 2012, 20:30

Sydney, do you really expect us to watch four hours of movies?
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 29 Dec 2012, 21:04

Unless you can direct us to the relevant part on radiation, the movie should be in the main thread.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests