Radiation

[Zakalwe]

On the contrary, I am personally glad you brought him here. Thanks to his trolling, the responses from our acknowledged experts, engineers and scientists on this forum has taught me a lot about the radiation environment around the earth and in cislunar space.

That's where debating with hoaxtards really has it's merits. Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts. There's probably a graph to be made (someone else can argue about the scaling of the axes ) that plots the likelihood of them accepting facts against how spittle-flecked their arguments are.
The real benefit is to be gained by the audience that are sitting on the fringes. I, for one, have learned loads during this debate.

It's just a shame that Tim has such a closed mind. Wilful ignorance really is intellectual cowardice. 

[Mag40]

again sorry guys. I speak with Tim on facebook but i'm not sure if i will continue. he has clearly trolled here. apologies

As a fairly quiet participant on this forum, you might like to point him to the dictionary he brought up earlier and get him to look up humility. Pretty much this whole thread has him avoiding the original data because he failed to read it in favour of looking at the pretty picture of the graph(even that shows his error). His behaviour is just laughable, but sadly not unique, as hoax believers do this sort of thing all the time. A complete and almost humiliating failure to admit his errors whilst insisting that only he knew the answers. Arrogance only works when the person knows what they are talking about.

The upside as always, is we get to here some fairly concise arguments and references, that serve as a good go to point when encountering the radiation claims.

[Jason Thompson]

Oh, I'd also point out that you know bugger all about filming if you think it wouldn't have taken easily a hundred people or more to manage the kind of special effects work that would have been required even if filming Apollo on Earth were possible, and that's without all the people in on the bits where you'd have to fake the rock and soil samples and so forth.  Any hoax would have to be huge.

This is just another of the HB oversimplification strategies. Somehow or other a handful of people can pull off a hoax because in their minds only the few have to know it is a hoax. Of course, everyone involved in running a soundstage filming the fake surface footage would notice. Even if they didn't realise it at the time, they'd sure as hell spot it when they sit down to watch the 'live' TV from the Moon and see the movie they were working on being broadcast. Even worse is the idea that no-one building the hardware had to know, because HBs can't grasp the notion that if you tell a bunch of engineers to build you a lunar spacecraft they will do exactly that, and if you don't tell them it doesn't have to work then it will work, because that was their assignment. Essentially, if you don't tell the engineers it's all fake, they will provide you with working hardware which means you won't need to fake it anyway!

[Zakalwe]

Essentially, if you don't tell the engineers it's all fake, they will provide you with working hardware which means you won't need to fake it anyway!

Probably be cheaper to just go to the Moon as well. After all, you're only going to save on a bit of catering.....

[bknight]

In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

[theteacher]

You are confusing an exponential scale with a log scale.  If the scale is in logs then it is a log scale.  If the scale is in exponents then it is an exponential scale.

Tell me then how you determine the difference between a logarithmic scale and an 'exponential' scale when the only numbers included on the axis are the powers of 10. And tell me exactly where such a scale is used and why you would convert the data to fit it on such a scale rather than just plotting it on a log scale.

Your argument fails for lack of any evidence that such a scaling method is ever actually used.

And, as I already pointed out, when the CraTer data is plotted in Excel on a log scale it looks exactly like the graph on the website that you first introduced. Why should we not conclude that the CraTer graph is a log scale?

I come from a time of graph paper and slide rules.  When plotting data, if you plotted it on logarithmic graphing paper it was actually a logarithmic conversion process.  If you wanted to see your data in a linear plot you could first convert it into logarithms and then plot it on regular graph paper.  It was before your time and it might be difficult to come to term with pre-computer technology.

So do I.

I made a little sketch on a random piece of paper.

What is the meaning of the smaller tics along the x-axis? They divide the x-axis in increments of 0.1. Rather convenient.

Then what about the smaller tics on the y-axis. What is the meaning of them?
Nothing. They have absolutely no meaning. They would only disturb the interpretation af any graph drawn in this particular coordinate system on this paticular piece of paper.

But that was the only paper I had on hand. Maybe I would have been better off drawing on the backside of it with no grid at all and just adding the major tics with the edge of my slideruler. 

[LunarOrbit]

In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

NaN means 'Not A Number' so there is probably a letter or symbol in that field.

[JayUtah]

In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

"Not a Number"

For this particular practical purpose, yes it means the data are not available for whatever reason.  In modern IEEE representations of floating-point data in a computer, a few patterns of bits are reserved to represent concepts like this, and are assigned customary labels when they are printed out.  "NaN" means no value is set for that number.  "Inf" means infinity, and so forth.

[bknight]

In the CRaTER data that I downloaded, I have some errors in the download.  They pertain to items starting around 64900, whereby the data is NaN.  I am unfamiliar with this type of data so I'm asking what this means Not Available ??

"Not a Number"

For this particular practical purpose, yes it means the data are not available for whatever reason.  In modern IEEE representations of floating-point data in a computer, a few patterns of bits are reserved to represent concepts like this, and are assigned customary labels when they are printed out.  "NaN" means no value is set for that number.  "Inf" means infinity, and so forth.

The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.

[JayUtah]

The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.

There's no way to tell a precise cause since there are many possible causes.  Transmission error is certainly among them.

[bknight]

Ok, thanks

[LunarOrbit]

The errors are on all of the detectors not just one, would this be representative of a transmission error?

ETA:
And these lack of data points lasted for about 2 days (48 hourly) points.

That's obviously when a cloaked alien mothership arrived. They probably shutdown the probe so that it wouldn't detect the radiation coming from their exhaust port. 

[JayUtah]

Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.

The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs.  They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts.  Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons.  It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation.  Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it.  He made the ideology argument his major point.

[gillianren]

Lets be honest, it's rare that these people are ever swayed by facts.

The facts they cite are not what led them to their beliefs.  They arrived at their beliefs according to different lines of reasoning (e.g., "Don't ever trust the government") and then try to backfill with arguments that allude to the available facts.  Or stated differently, they cherry-pick and misinterpret the facts to support a proposition they believe for wholly different reasons.  It wasn't very hard to get Tim to tip his hand and reveal that his claims had more to do with ideology and worldview than with radiation.  Toward the end, he wasn't even really trying to hide it.  He made the ideology argument his major point.

And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology, either.  While I'm quite sure that he would lie and claim that he'd accomplished something he hadn't, I'm also sure that he would gleefully reveal if one of his rivals had lied to accomplish something it could be proven they hadn't.  If you won't accept my argument about Nixon, which I admit is very much armchair psychology from me, there's always the Soviet Union or North Korea.  If a retired Navy electrician can find the one thing that proves the lie, the only way to suppose that no other nation had the expertise to show it up is to assume that they could and didn't.  So they, too, would have to be in on the hoax.  Eventually, everyone is.

[12oh2alarm]

To those that downloaded the CRaTER data: it would be interesting to find stretches of time where the dose rate (of at least one or even all six) detectors is always below the magic 0.22mGy/d. Are there continuous stretches longer than the Apollo 11 mission duration?

A little bit of Unix awk magic might not convince our hardcore math talent, but it would make for some cool facts to point at.