|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 18:43:00 GMT -4
Cos- Once again circular reasoning creeps up. you stated: "Well whatever you think of NASA's research prior to the landings, history would suggest that they got away with it. 'I think they didn't do enough research' ergo 'it never happened' is rather too big a leap given the mountain of evidence." You are saying that the moon landings are true because they got away with it, but a hoaxer would say that they are a fake because they didn't truly get away with it. In each sentence the belief in one person's truth is predicated by the fact that it is true. What I am saying is that not enough information exists to allow me to make a sound judgement one way or the other. Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.” It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles. ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htmI don't have a whole lot of time, but saying something is true because it happened is not adequate when the debate is over the factual nature of what supposedly happened. I will respond to AstroSmurf as soon as I get out of lab this evening. Thanks for the replies ladies and gentleman. -S
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:59:12 GMT -4
I have to go to school to do some lab work, but I will return. I would like to thank everyone who participated. This has been a lot of fun. I feel much more informed and I am grateful for your input.
Chat with everyone soon!!
-S
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:55:52 GMT -4
Apollo Gnomon- You can see my mea culpa regarding the Saturn Rocket in a previous post. I would suggest reading the entire thread to get up to date. Otherwise, I thank you for your ideas. The covered wagon remark is a non sequitor. My statement was intended to show the contradiction in NASA's reported information concerning neutron radiation. That comparison is fa sho like apples and oranges.
Scooter- Precisely my point!! The flux of neutron radiation on the Moon's surface is not known, thus, the 1971 report does nor accurately reflect what is represented. The 1971 report states that the exposure was significantly lower than expected. This does not jibe with the latter report stating that NASA has NO IDEA what parts of the moon reflect high or low radiation. This is NASA's way of saying that the success of the moon missions was basically a crap shoot, and that is not a parsimonious explanation. No responsible scientist would engage in such methodology, and the likelihood of a successful mission, much less 6(I think?), resides somewhere in between improbable and impossible.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:41:12 GMT -4
Look folks. What I said about the photos and video footage is that their absence is a confounding factor. Without looking at the originals we will never know what validity they may or may not provide. It is merely a factor that is missing and that is all.
Laurel- I wanted to see the originals simply because I wanted to see the originals. Don't take offense, but I was unaware that more footage existed. As I said before, I came here to try and find an answer to the radiation issue. The pictures and video comments were not intended to be anything other than being a missing variable, and everybody on this thread took it and ran with it. I would like to thank you for the links, just as I would like to thank everyone for their input.
Cos- Just as with Laurel, the pictures were of little consequence to me. If you need a more clear example of what I was attempting to say, then I will accept the onus. Look no further than the War of the World's broadcast. People at the time believed that it was true because they confused the radio for reality. It can happen and that was my only point. I am very appreciative of the links that you have posted as well. Thank you kindly.
Apollo Gnomon- While I absolutely agree that the term "awash" is not quantitative, it is a qualitative description desiring to reflect an amount rather than an emotion. The article was definitely not found in a journal of methodology, but it was trying to convey an idea regarding an amount. This idea was further exemplified in my references to the other articles describing the qualitative elements of neutron moon radiation. Which as I will say again, is the reason that I am here in the first place.
Once again I would like to thank everyone for their input. I have learned a great deal about the Apollo missions that I would have otherwise not known.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:19:29 GMT -4
This is a quote from the 1971 report. "Neutrons Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (Kastner et al., 1969). Two methods for neutron-dose assessment were used. These techniques of whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil were initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Both methods were retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles and because of possible crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages." The intended meaning of this seems to say to me that NASA had already accumulated the necessary evidence reflecting that the neutron radiation was minimal(notice that nowhere in the 1971 report is any mention made of long or short duration visits); however, the article that I am quoting from NASA, which is much more recent, clearly states that concrete information concerning neutron radiation on the moon was not available until 1998. "Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are. The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe." This not only seems to completely contradict the dossier commissioned in 1971, but it states very clearly that prior to this experiment NASA had no idea what fraction of the radiation is high energy(really bad) and what is low energy(kind of bad), whether the time was long term exposure or short term is of no consequence if the exposure is to high energy radiation. If NASA scientist had no idea what fraction of the radiation is high or low energy, how can they effectively state that short term exposure is acceptable? I can not imagine the US sending astronauts to the moon if it did not know what effect the neutron radiation would have until they actually got to the moon. This is just really bad science and it is circular reasoning. Both the individuals on this board and the 1971 report state that the reason short term exposure is okay is because it should be okay. No evidence is offered until 1998. The 1971 evidence is gathered after the astronauts were already supposedly there, so of course they will say that the exposure was minimal. If this was true, and the 1971 evidence was that compelling, then why appropriate the most recent study involving the LEND? The logic is illogical. As for the two hours comment. This is a quote from a debunker who's page brought me to this page. Here is the quote "Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding." Here is the link: www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htmOnce again we are back to my original comment. The article that I cited, originally, states in no uncertain terms that space beyond low earth orbit is awash with intense radiation. What I am being is skeptical. I am not promoting any idea or belief. The contradictions beg for an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 15:25:10 GMT -4
First I would like to thank you for the link Cos; however,
like I said before, my original intent was to focus on the radiation and not the pictures. I understand that you find the pictures to be compelling Cos, but I do not base any belief on video evidence. Someone who studies general semantics would call that "confusing the map for the territory". It is a common mistake among people who confuse pictures or film footage of UFO's (unidentified flying objects) with alien spacecraft. If it is possible for the photos or pictures to be contrived through fakery, such as the movie Capricorn One, then I will take them for what they are, pictures that reflect some kind of event.
Now back to the radiation. I have read the report posted concerning the radiation exposure of the Apollo missions and it states the same thing that every debunker states, the two hour Van Allen belt radiation exposure explanation. Also, the report was commissioned in 1971, and we did not know anything whatsoever about the **true** surface radiation of the moon until 1989.
If you look through my past posts, I cite two articles released by NASA contradicting the Van Allen belts explanation. But by far, the one anomaly that screams "figure me out" concerns neutron radiation on the surface of the moon. Even to this day scientist for NASA are not sure how much radiation exposure an individual would receive on the moon's surface. It can not be possible for anyone to know if a trip would result in minimal exposure if one does not know the degree of radiation exposure encountered on the moon. Especially if the surface of the moon itself is radioactive.
Please see my previous posts. I do not want to repeat myself again.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 14:38:53 GMT -4
I think that we are getting a little off topic here, and I would like to reinforce that I am not saying that the landings were faked. What I am saying is that the anomalies beg for an answer. My original concern was the radiation, not the film footage. The film footage is at best speculative and proves nothing one way or the other, but it would be nice to actually view an inspect the original footage. By the way, I do not see how the supposed hours of footage meet the requirements of being parsimonious. It is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the footage or pictures were not tampered with. Like all things media, they are at best representations of what could have happened. The fact that the 11 tapes are missing is simply missing data and a point of concern anytime data is missing. I would rather deal with concrete scientific principles that can either be valid or invalid.
And that brings me back to the radiation, and in order to solve this I will email the authors of the report above relating to the radiation dangers on the Apollo missions.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 14:25:47 GMT -4
Laurel- I can not find any links to the original video footage from other Apollo missions. Apparently the footage that most people see is the restored footage of the broadcast of the monitor images from NASA's control room. I am not saying that it does not exist, but what I am saying is that what I have found is either of very poor quality or it is the restored footage of the footage. The reason that so many hoaxers focus on the 11 footage is because of the depth of quality that could be discerned by viewing the 11 footage. I have also seen several of the photo's, but they were mainly released during the 90's, if I am not mistaken. Although the original photo's were taken in digital imagery, no hi-def images were released until the 90's. (I could be wrong on this so if you could kindly point me to the direction of only the original footage of the 12 or latter missions.) I watched your link, but it looked like restored content only and coverage of the control room by way of a documentary.
Thanks.
-S
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 13:11:16 GMT -4
Touche Cos!!! You are correct the blueprints are on microfilm; however, the original tapes covering the "live" video feed are gone. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013002065.htmlIn my opinion the original tapes being missing is much more confounding than the Saturn rocket. I was basing my non-speculation on the non accumulation of appropriate data. Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding regarding the Saturn rocket. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:42:38 GMT -4
I meant the same battles of cognitive dissonance. I am a college student and I am a science major, and from what I can gather, there is simply not enough concrete data to convince me that we either went, or staged the landings.
My professors preach constantly to never speculate beyond the data. All of the blueprints for the Saturn rockets are missing. All of the original tapes of the moon landings are missing, and the data concerning radiation exposure is contrarian. Due to those facts alone, I cannot say for sure one way or the other what actually happened. Doing so requires an act of faith but faith and pure science are diametrically opposed to one another.
Thank you once again for the intelligent and thoughtful responses.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:36:16 GMT -4
Laurel, I read the same statement; however, it was anecdotal and it does not state anything specific. Although he may have said "staying there for more than a few days", he has no idea what he is basing his statement upon. The article very clearly states two very important facts:
"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so. When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!"
as well as this quote
"The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe."
In the scientific method we always operationalize variables. This quote "staying there for more than just a few days" is far from operationalized. There is no way for anyone to know what length of exposure is long term or short term if no one knows exactly how much radiation exposure one would endure on the surface of the moon. This is A HUGE variable that any responsible scientist would want to know in a concrete fashion before exposing any human being to that type of danger.
I am beginning to think that the people who firmly believe that the Moon landings happened are struggling with battles of cognitive dissonance as the lunatics who swear that they were staged.
From all the of data that I can gather, I am unable to confirm either proposal.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:10:29 GMT -4
Thank you for the links guys. I am reading them over and I will email the authors of the article Cos.
I think that the information is so contrarian that I need to go to a pro for an answer.
Once again, I would like to thank all the posters for the intelligent banter, the reserved tone, and the respect most people do not give to hoaxers.
Cheers to all!!
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 12:04:16 GMT -4
How exactly is the Apollo mission not considered long term duration? At first, everyone seems to want to say that the astronauts were only exposed to 2 hours of radiation, but that is not true. here are two more articles for you to chew on. www.space.com/scienceastronomy/radiation_evarm_020716.htmlwww.universetoday.com/2005/09/09/radiation-on-the-moon/This is a quote from the above article. "The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe." Notice the last part of the quote. Are you telling me that we had no idea if the astronauts would be safe and that we are JUST NOW getting around to finding out,but we sent the astronauts anyway and that we are just now starting to worry about this? With that reasoning, then we got to the moon by an act of God. Bob B. you state that I keep insisting that the Apollo missions are long duration but you state that they are not. They are long duration, especially considering that NASA has not idea how much radiation exposure a human would need to be able to endure in order to go "back" to the moon. So far, I have my answer on the materials used to protect to astronauts from radiation exposure and the answer is NO MATERIALS WERE USED. Now, please explain to me how the astronauts were not exposed to intense radiation. NASA admitted in the article above that they have NO IDEA how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon. I am repeating myself because I cannot get an answer that jibes with the facts that I am presenting along withe links to the articles. If NASA has no idea how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon then how can anyone determine what is long term exposure and what is short term exposure?
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 11:18:06 GMT -4
Astrosmurf, you say this: "Conspiracy theorists like to claim that space is "awash" with radiation, but the levels are much lower than in the Van Allen belts. The general level is higher than on Earth, true, and there's the added danger of solar flares which increases the longer your mission duration is. It is for this reason that NASA now requires better shielding than the Apollo missions had. As far as I can tell, neither the Lunar Module nor the space suits had much in the way of radiation protection, since the mission was short enough that the astronauts could cope with the total exposure. For a longer-term mission, the damage will add up over time, so they need to have a strategy to reduce the average exposure, as well as plan for what to do in the event of a solar flare." I am beginning to think that not a single person is reading the article that I posted, so I posted it below. Please read it. The article in question does not contain one comment concerning solar flares. As a matter of fact, I am not quoting conspiracy theorists who say that space past beyond earth orbit is "awash" with radiation, but... I am quoting an article put out by NASA which states this: "Space beyond low-Earth orbit is AWASH with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important." This statement, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear to me that ALL of space beyond low earth orbit is AWASH with INTENSE radiation. Once again. If the Astronauts made it to the moon then why not use the same, or over 40 years improved, technology? I am delighted with the many replies, but I have yet to receive an adequate response. Most of what people have said are the same tired quotes about the Van Allen belt that debunkers post on the many ill-informed hoax websites. In fact, every single response has been a logical fallacy. An ad hoc hypothesis. You guys are beginning to sound like all the lunatics on the hoax websites. I came on this forum honestly expecting to have someone clear this up, but I do not think that that will happen. I never thought that I would begin to question the landings, but I am currently changing my belief status from "not a hoax" to "I am not sure". Am I reading the same article that you guys are reading? science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htmI fully expect the normal argument ad hominem (tin-foil hat, lunatic, nutbag, etc...) but please, if someone can respond and it makes sense then I want to buy that story. So far, I cannot buy what I am being sold.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 1:09:26 GMT -4
Once more, correct. There are various shielding strategies, but one of the key aspects is weight; the lighter the better. If weight (to get us out of the gravity well) were not an issue, the the shielding problem would be easy![/quote]
So what was used to shield the astronauts during the Apollo missions? Clearly they were exposed to more than two hours worth of radiation.
I can not understand why NASA is worried about this? If I could know what they used for radiation protection in the first trip then I think that would help me understand.
Thanks to everyone for their input.
|
|