polonium halos

Is this the level of mature discussion the admins want in EVC forum? If you would like to make an argument about granites, then please do so. If you would like to present some evidence about why Gentry is wrong, then please do so.All of the answers to your questions are in the wiki article I cited previously. It's up to you to put forth evidence and argumentation as to why Gentry is wrong. For some reason you apparently like to ask questions. If you think you know the answers better than I or wiki then please state your argument.

Thanks RAZD,I need your help. I am woking on providing some new evidence. They will be jpegs from my pc. I see you uploaded some directly to an EVC folder. How can I post mine?Thanks

---

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

I called your "evidence" faudulent, because it is fraudulent. Alteration of pictrues is clear evidence of fraud in most court cases, especially when you are dealing with diameters in the microns as with these Po and U halos. You presented no diametrical measurements with your alterations, so you presented no valid evidence.So I will expose your fraud by taking these pictures into a CAD program without alteration. Then I will establish a base diameter from a best fit circle of the inside halo which is always the clearest and most visible. Then I will add the other halo circles based on Gentry's measurements. (actual data)This is the Po218 Halo in Fluorite: The data was taken from here:Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective: Table 1.As the data specifies the very clear outer diameter of the inside halo is .0197mm. The theoretical ring of Rn222 would be .0205mm in diameter and is non existent on this photo. The scaled Po218 circle matches perfectly and the scaled Po214 which is faintly visible matches well also.Now according to your fraudulent representation of this image, we would have the following situation... Now according to you, the Rn222 and Po210 rings are visible. If that were true then the outside diameter of the center ring would be .0205 for Rn222. The other ring circles were then scaled accordingly. First you can see that the Po218 and Po214 circles are smaller than the measured values of Gentry et al. Notice that the Po210 circle should be visible towards the inside of the Rn222 ring. There is no definable ring diameter there. In fact the dark areas are not indicative of another isotope, but are indicative of more dense alpha decay in those areas from the Po210. To summarize, your fraudulent representation doesn't match the data at all.Now let's examine the U238 halo in Fluorite.... Using Gntry's measurements again and scaling the circles from the inner halo you can see that all of the halos are visible and matches the data.Now it should also be noted that all of the Halo pictures in fluorite have been enhanced by Gentry by He ion bombardment and contrast imaging. That is because the images don't photograph well in the clear fluorite.The microscopic images in fluorite are much clearer than those in biotite. However the picture images in biotite are much clearer than those in fluorite. You can do the same scaling on Po218 halos in biotite and the diameters match perfectly with the data.This is why scientists like Henderson, Sparks, Gentry, and Meiers all agree on the measurements and the identification that these are indeed Po218 halos. The only people portraying contrary hypotheses (RAZD, Brawley and Wakefield)must exclude the data from their images to fraudulently make their case. This is a fraudulent TalkOrigins web scam and it needs to be exposed like Haeckel was eventually.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Do you see the picture above? Do you see the faint ring on the right hand side? That ring is the evidence of Rn222 decay. Do you notice how large the radio center is? That's why it is embryonic.An embryonic halo is one where the radio center is much larger, so the Uranium at the center has for the most part not decayed yet due to the long half life. This is obviously visible from the photograph. A fully developed uranium halo is one with a small radiocenter in which enough time has elapsed that enough atoms have decayed to create the other rings.An embryonic halo is not evidence in any way shape or form that the Rn222 gas has escaped. In fact, the photo shows Rn222 rings in the process of being formed. No scientist is suggesting that the Rn222 gas is escaping from this halo. Only you are.The source of free Rn222 gas in the granites is not from encapsulated halo forming uranium particles. The source of Rn222 gas is from cracks and fissures where uranium has been carried and, is open in the crack or fissure. These situations provide staining evidence and alpha decay evidence, but no halo evidence.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : took out a harsh statement

Gentry deals with all of this in his cosmological theories which go way beyond the scope of discussion of Po halos. There is no evidence of this. This is a false assertion of yours and no other scientist has identified this. It was refuted in message 135 There is no evidence of Rn222 gas staining. The staining is evidence of alpha decay only. The isotopes involved in the staining cannot be differentiated. This evidence if fraudulent. It does not include data. It is refuted in message 134. There is no evidence of secondary processes. There is only evidence of cracks, fissures, and conduits. There is no evidence of any alpha decay from the alpha decay recoi pits, and there is no evidence of staining along these cracks. Many halos have no evidence of cracks, fissures or conduits.Collins produces evidence of staining in fissures, but we have no evidence if that is in granites taken from the same locations. Gentry has granites with halos from Canada, Russia, Ireland, Madagascar, and Europe. Gentry does present the dating information on many of his granites. They are all pre-Cambrian. There is no eviedence that any are Tertiary. That's a wild assertion as all of yours are. I don't even know what this wild claim means.So to summarize, you have presented not one piece of evidence that refutes anything that Gentry has presented. No other scientist has either.

There are pictures and videos of granite samples on his website. All of the samples and specimen pictures are property of and stored at the Oak Rdge National Labratories in TN.

You are wrong. Period. You are fraudulently wrong.Fact: We know that Henderson, Sparks, Meiers, and Gentry over the course of measuring over a hundred thousand of these halos always measured the inside ring radius(Po210)at approximately .0195mm. This is verified in multiple scientific publications.Fact: We know that Henderson, Sparks, Meiers and Gentry also measured thousands of mature U halos and the Po210 ring was always measured on average at .0195mm.Fact: On a Po218 halo, the inside diameter is the clearest to measure the outside radius.Fact: We know that Henderson, Sparks, Meiers, and Gentry measured all the Uhalos and found Rn222 to have a radius of .0205Fact: No one has ever measured a "Po" halo and found the inside ring to measure .0205mm. This eliminates the possible consideration that Rn222 could be creating the center ring. This is independendant of any discolorattion or fuzziness that the frauds present. The alpha decay enegy of Po210 is not large enough to create a .0205 radius ring in Biotie or fluorite.Fact: No one, but frauds are suggesting that the inside ring on Po halos is Rn222. They are suggesting this based on visual distortion only. No one has presented any data to correspond with the images suggesting that the inside ring is .0205mm in radius. You cannot present any data that suggests that the inside ring is indeed Rn222. You can only arbitrarlily claim that the Rn222 exists because there are color variations inside the measured .0195 radius Po210 ring. Those color variations will be smaller radius than .0195mm and that further elliminates the possibility of them being Rn222.You are fraudulently wrong. And you know it.Here is an example of it.... You've got to be kidding?!?!?! The drawing was scaled so that the inside Po210 ring was exactly .0197mm the documented measurement in fluorite. Therefore, the inside circle is by definition a perfect match. The P218 ring at .0236mm is also a perfect match as anyone can see. The data matches the image. Now the P214 ring is very faint in this image, but we know that the measurements are taken at the largest diameters on the ring. In the photo that would correspond with the 1,2,5,7-8 o'clock sections which are darker and correspond exactly with the measured values.There is no evidence of any ring in between the Po210 ring and the Po218 ring. There is no visible evidence of Rn222. That is a fact. There is no gap in the Po210 ring. There is no gap in the Po218 ring. The only gaps in the Po214 ring are where the ring is faint and not clear. Again, you are wrong This shows you are continuing to deceive and defraud. The rings match very well, but the next photo doesn't at all. Again, you are wrong. This drawing is scaled to the inside ring and it is fraudulently scaled to match the alpha decay energy of Rn222 in fluorite. That means by definition that the Rn222 circle is fraudulently perfect. But notice the Po214 ring according to the same scale. All of the dark areas are outside the circle. That means the ring doesn't match. Then notice the Po218 ring. Again the dark areas are outside the circle. That means the ring doesn't match. Then look at the Po210 circle. There is no ring definable at all in the area. The only ring that matches is the fraudulent Rn222 ring. That's because the scale is fraudulent. Do you understand? Yes, because I constructed that circle there based on the scale. Notice you cannot make a ring out of any dark areas there. The dark areas are much larger that the 1 micron delta between Rn222 and Po210. The Dark areas do not make a ring.There is no evidence of Rn222 creating a halo. Zero. Nada. Zilch. To continue to claim this is beyond reasoning at this point. You are wrong about this, and you know it.The person who first constructed this fraud is Brawley from Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo MysteryWakefield then picked up this fraud and copied John Brawley's work to his website. Notice that Collins who hosts this crap does not make the argument that these are Rn222 halos. He accepts that they are Po halos. Then of course you picked this up...tch tchThese are the words of Brawley....

quote:

---

However, on that trip I made a stop at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee and talked my way inside, to speak with a Mr. J.K. Dickens, scientist in the electron laboratory, who had worked alongside Dr. Gentry during his stay there. Mr. Dickens pointed out that, while my hypothesis was quite valid from an ideal point of view, there were several "bottlenecks" where an unusually low neutron-capture cross-section would make the transition to Polonium highly unlikely, although not impossible. (Mr. Dickens did give me some encouragement, both by suggesting a way to test for neutron addition/Polonium/Bismuth formation from lead, and by stating, upon seeing my photomicrographs of 'drifts' and 'strings' of halos along cracks and inclusions, "I've never seen anything like that!" I found it significant that one of the people who had been near Dr. Gentry and had seen his work, had "never seen" certain phenomena in the biotite that I had seen and photographed.) Note: Mr. Dickens also told me a story about the procurement by one of the researchers of radiohalo samples from Madagascar--samples previously possessed by the daughter of Madame Curie and obtained from France. A most interesting story indeed, but beyond the scope of this paper.

---

The part in yellow there is a clear indicator of the fraud that Brawley presents. If you know anything about Oak Ridge National Labratories, then you know that this is an extremenly secure facility. This is a DoE facility which has many areas that are the highest level "Q" clearance. The area that Gentry was in may not be a "Q" level area, but with the level of equipment that Gentry was using I suspect that it was one of the highest level clearance areas.No one is just going to show up and "Talk their way inside". This whole article is a farce, a sham, and a scam. And you are promoting it.Even with Brawley's deceit who never once measures a halo, he does admit....

quote:

---

Visual judgement, however, can be wrong.

---

He is right about that part. His judgement if there ever was one was wrong. Yours is too. If this is the company you want to keep and promote, then go ahead. But I will continue to expose these internet frauds.If you cannot provide measurements of these halos from legitimate scientific sources, I will continue to call it a fraud and deceit. Making a claim on a fuzzy visual image is not evidence of anything. The image must have legitimate data attached to it. If I get admonished for this then so be it. But a spade needs to be called a spade.And finally, the fraudulent Rn222 gas halo theory cannot even start to account for Po214 halos or Po210 halos which present just as a significant problem to the uniformitarians.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : took out the lying part

I already did my homework on this. J.K. Dickens has been retired for some years. He still is involved with the ORNL. That may be why Brawley chose his name.However I called ORNL and did talk to Dr. Uribarri who is at the same listed phone number. This area is the Radioactive Ion Beam Labratory and Dr. Uribarri assured me that no one would be able to or be allowed to just "talk their way into this facility" without substantial preparation and security work. That is today or in 1992 when he says security was even tighter.You've got to admit, the whole article is fishy. Who, with half a brain, would inspect these halos and not measure them? He could verify or refute his own theory in a matter of minutes. It's a joke.

see Message 141It does match.

I guess a physicist like you measures the diamter of his vehichle tires by the inside diameter of the tread? Or do you measure them somewhere in between the outside diameter and the bottom of the tread? Most people measure them by the outside (maximum diameter).Halos are the same way. It is the outside/maximum diameter that reflects the alpha decay energy. Not any other discoloration towards the inside.Please also realize that these pictures are blown up way beyond the field of view on a microscope.If you are so wise about this, then why don't you do a little investgative work and diametrically prove Gentry, Spark, Meiers, and Henderson wrong on their measurements. Then get your paper published and all the evos will love you forever.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

The alpha particle penetration is the same for all particles coming from the same isotope. The reason all rings are not "perfect" and there is some variation in them and you have a width to the rings is because the radiocenter has a physical size. The isotopes are emitting from different physical locations within the radiocenter. In fluorite, most of the radiocenters are less that .001mm in diameter. That's why there is a range to the staining, and that is why Gentry talks about this extensively in his published reports.Large radiocenters in Biotie will produce darker stains, wider rings, and larger rings. This must all be a part of the measurement considerations. That's why Gentry identifies light medium and dark halos in his size measurements. In fluorite most of the radiocenters are small. The white area that you are seeing is a space of .0006mm or less by the CAD. That would be predicted by the radiocenter size.Now why don't we start discussing Po214 halos and Po210 halos? Do you or RAZD have a magical rock penetrating gas for these also?

Businessmen like me who wok in the field of science understand the nature of distributions also. You mean you actually measure stellar and cosmological spectra? You have my praise. Some people just look at the cosmos, and make all kinds of assertions without any evidence.Gentry, Henderson, Sparks, and Meiers all measure the halos and they agree on the results. Brawley, Wakefield, and RAZD haven't measured a thing. They just looked at the halos and made all kinds of assertions.

I assume it is because the lowest alpha energy isotope causes the stained inner circle. This circle only has an outside diameter that is definable. In the case of U238 halos they measure the OD of the U238 stain. In the case of Po halos, they measure the OD of the Po210 stain. Then they do likewise for all other isotopes.

Actually, science says otherwise. Science says there is no dispute.In 1976 after most of Gentry's earlier publications, Meiers confirms Gentry's measurements in Biotite. And once again he says:

quote:

---

The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos.

---

​

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

It can be found here: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/1004/10040185.PDFMeirs actually measured these halos. He actually presented EVIDENCE. Gentry actually measured these halos. He actually presented EVIDENCE.Now just as a reminder, RAZD, cavediver, Brawley, and Wakefield, who are the only people claiming these are Rn222 halos have not presented one actual measurement to support their claim. Their claim is baseless. Oh since you haven't produced one measurement or one cited measurement, nor have you ever witnessed a halo under a measuring microscope, now you are going to define how these halos should be measured.Oh, but what is this? You are not actually measuring a thing. You are scaling rings to a drawing. This is not measuring. It is a bogus claim. I will repeat....RAZD, cavediver, Brawley, and Wakefield, who are the only people claiming these are Rn222 halos have not presented one actual measurement to support their claim. Their claim is baseless. Ok, let me see if I understand. You established your datum off the largest ring (Po214 R34.52 microns) which you can't even see in this picture?????? Oh, I see! you realized that you couldn't see it, so you chose the next ring which violated your aforementioned procedure. Then you established a three point best fit circle on a ring that is less than 40% visible. I wonder what the validity of of that circle is??????? The first thing I noticed about your picture is the outside ring is cropped off in two places. The second is that if you are establishing your other circles off of this, then what three points did you use to establish it. They must not have been very good, because your datum ring should match perfectly. It doesn't match at all at 8 o'clock and it is small at 2 o'clock. Your datum circle doesn't even match the ring for Po214.Now look at the Po218 circle. It is obviously way too small all the way around. This ring is very visible, and you are not within the error margin. Several spots around your circle exceed .001mm delta. This ring doesn't match at all.Now interestingly the Rn222 circle does match the Po210 ring just like it did in my fraudulent version of this halo. And the Po210 circle has no ring definable anywhere.So to summarize, just like in my fraudlent version of the Po218 halo in Fluorite, the outer circle for Po214 which is supposed to be your datum doesn't match. The Po218 circle is out of sinc by at least .001mm. And there is no discernable Po210 ring. So once again the fraud continues to be a fraud. What were you double checking? That your figures still don't figure?You say that there was no scaling in these pictures. I believe you. But there should have been. The U halo was was captured at approximately 880 x's magnification. The Po218 halo in Fluorite was captured at approximately 725 x's magnification. That's only a 21% ERROR. Unfortunately, you really screwed this one up. Sorry. Still, not one shred of evidence of Rn222.QED FRAUD as I say, eh?Meiers (a geologist after confirming Gentry's measurments eight years after Gentry's first publications) states:

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

It's about time we have a little discussion about anecdotal evidence.Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia What RAZD has been producing is anecdotal evidence of Rn222 halos. This suggestion comes from one non-scientific individual John Brawley of TalkOrigins fame. This information is passed on through the TalkOrigins network and is not documented scientifically. Wakefield then picked up this anecdotal evidence and ran with it by adding it to his website. Then somehow RAZD found it. All three individuals provide "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis." Not one has measured a single halo and documented it which would then make it empirical evidence.But what did Gentry do? He used sophisticated microscopes to document the measurements of hundreds of thousands of halos. That evidence is not anecdotal, but empirical. The documented radii of these halos, provides solid evidence that they are Po halos. The documented empirical evidence is unchallenged that these measurements show that Rn222 was not involved.But Gentry didn't stop there. In his first publication he tested the hypothesis of secondary origin. Again, he provide empirical evidence from fission track analysis and from alpha recoil pit analysis that again these halos showed no evidence of secondary isotope origin which includes Rn222. Then Gentry used the Ion microprobe to show that these halos couldn't have been created from a uranium source, because no remnants were present in the halos. However, he didn't stop there. He tested the halos with Scanning electron microscope-x-ray fluorescence spectra and once again showed empirical evidence that agreed with the diametrical measurements. And He didn't stop there. He searched for known, verifiable sources of secondary uranium supply, and he found that in coalified wood. The evidence here also showed no Po218 or Po214 halos, because the half life was too short. However there was an abundance of Po210 halos. Rn222 gas would have been orders of magnitude more abundant in this case than in the granites. But still no Po218 halos or Rn222 halos. Again he provided empirical evidence.So what do we have from RAZD. We have anecdotal evidence (unscientific evidence) that he thinks the Po218 ring is actually Rn222. This can be scientifically verified empirically in a matter of minutes. But he hasn't done it. Nor has Wakefield. Nor has Brawley who supposedly used good microscopes for his fraudulent project. So RAZD has ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCEHe only has anecdotal evidence. tch tch eh?