Radiation

[timfinch]

A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Hey, I know you're mostly ignoring me, but I literally already gave you a list.  Pages back.  Want to give me yours?  Bet it isn't as comprehensive.

I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind.  Few women dare venture into this realm and  the ones that do garner my deepest respects.  I was a teenager when Apollo 11 blasted off and i watched with profound admiration and respect for the courage the astronauts displayed.  My parents didn't buy into it but I did.  It was only recently that doubt crept into my mind.  I do not think the Van Allen belts are much of an obstacle or that traveling to the moon is an insurmountable obstacle.  I simply believe the danger it presented was an obstacle that they were not prepared to face.  I believe President Nixon chose to take the safe path and ordered the deception.  You remember Tricky Dick, right.  I don't condemn him.  I would have erred to the side of caution myself.  The thing that set me on this path was the graph that showed the mission dosage of all the NASA missions.  When I realized that the Lunar mission had mission dosages similar to the LEO missions, I became suspicious.  I then began to research data to explain the similarities.  My research led me to believe that it is not possible to have LEO dosages if you actually made a lunar transit so here I am.  That is my story and I am sticking to it.  Having rambled on, What it would take for me to believe the Apollo lunar landing happened is a return to the moon and back safely with similar exposure levels.  If they are incapable of doing it or they kill and astronaut then my disbelief will blossom.

[LunarOrbit]

I am curious.  Is there anyone on this site that believes in any conspiracy theory at all?  Kennedy assassination? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Titanic?  Anything?

Most of the members of this forum are intelligent and rational, and unlikely to be gullible enough to be fooled by such ridiculous conspiracy theories. And considering how offensive the Sandy Hook and 9/11 "theories" are, I'm pretty sick of hearing about them. So I'd recommend sticking to discussing Apollo in the future.

[raven]

Um . . .timfinch. 'Tricky Dick' wasn't even inaugurated when an Apollo spacecraft first went to the moon.
Sure, he was president for the big payoff, the actual landings, but the actual development? The part where they first would have sent humans through the Van Allen belts? Nope. He had nothing to do with that.  So he would have had no say in whether deciding it was feasible or not.
Moreover, he had a speech written just in case Apollo 11 actually failed in a way that killed the crew. Plus, before he even elected President, let alone inaugurated, Apollo had already killed three people . . . and they kept going.
Finally, the USSR had sent their own  unmanned probes contemporary to Apollo to, among other things, test the radiation environment. They found that  "seven day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from a radiation point of view".  I seriously doubt the USSR had any  significantly better radiation protection than what NASA would have had, so the idea NASA would concoct this big, massive lie that if, no, when, it was discovered would  be hugely  embarrassing on the world stage, when it wouldn't even be necessary, even with the tech of the time?
I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines, but your little story is ludicrous on multiple levels, even to me.

[nomuse]

Hey, anyone seen the bingo card? I think I just got four across.

[LunarOrbit]

http://www.apollohoax.net/bingo

[Rob48]

Timfinch, how would faking it be "taking the safe path"? Faking a lunar landing has a 100% likelihood of being found out: if the landers and evidence of human activity aren't all present and correct, and exactly matching the photographic record which was made very public, then you are busted.

Those landing sites are likely to be visited quite soon (isn't there a private plan to send an unmanned rover to visit one within a year?). At the time of the landings, for all anyone knew the Russians could have been ready to land within months. What president would risk the international embarrassment of being caught out in a lie of that magnitude, compared to the small ignominy of failing in an attempt to do what nobody had ever done before?

[Zakalwe]

I sense a stealth flounce....

[gillianren]

I didn't mean to ignore you as you are special in my mind.  Few women dare venture into this realm and  the ones that do garner my deepest respects.

Can I give you a hint?  That's partially because we're creeped out at being told that we're special in strange men's minds.

More to the point, though, do you have anything substantive to say about my list?  You bring up Nixon; okay, you've got me there.  I don't remember him, at least not as President.  I was born in 1976, making me considerably younger than most of the fine people who've handed you your hat on the forum over the last week or so.  My grandmother went to grade school with him, though, and my aunt was alumni director at Whittier College while he was still alive, so I guess that's something.

But okay.  You know how Nixon felt about Kennedy, right?  Man, there was some deep personal betrayal going there; he'd actually gotten along reasonably well with the family before JFK ran for office.  He took a lot of the campaigning personally, and by 1969, he hated the whole family.  Probably Bobby in particular, from what I can tell, because Bobby's criticism was more pointed.  Anyway, he wasn't the world's biggest LBJ fan, either, and LBJ was gung ho for NASA in a way that JFK wasn't personally.  JFK's interest was a lot more political.  The point is, take Nixon.  Do you really think he would've let Apollo stand as their legacy if he could prove that they'd been lying to the American public and the world for the whole build up?  There never would have been an Apollo 11 fake under Nixon, because the first thing he would've done was to use it to denigrate JFK and LBJ in the popular view.  That's so incredibly basic to his psyche; he wanted to be loved.  All the dirty stuff he did to make sure he got reelected was to make himself feel important.  Faking Apollo wouldn't have done that; remember that he axed the last few missions as soon as he had wrung all the propaganda value out of them that he thought he could.  Revealing a fraud?  That would have resonated with him . . . the same way it clearly does with you.

[gillianren]

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.

[nomuse]

Heck...as gillianren also knows quite well...it's hard to film a romantic comedy with only a hundred people. My rule of thumb for live theater on the small-to-regional scale is if you put all the people who worked on a single production in seats for opening night you'd have less than half the house left to sell to paying audience. And that's theater -- our technical standards are lower and we don't have to pay for the film.

[benparry]

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

[Jason Thompson]

Total inability to reply to my simple questions about the axes noted.

On the slide rule subject, I am honestly baffled why anyone thinks mastery of a slide rule (or any other 'old' technology) somehow automatically makes them an expert greater than anyone who uses other, newer technology. I use calculators and computer analysis packages because those are the tools I have at my disposal. Hand me a slide rule and instruct me in its use and I'd be just as capable of using that to achieve the same results. Hand me an abacus, a book of log tables, or even the fundamental (if complex) calculations that were done using nothing more complex than pen and paper and I'd still be able to perform the same mathematical functions using the tools of whatever age anyone cares to choose. It's not the tools that matter, it's the ability of the person using them to use the right and check and interpret the output correctly.

[MBDK]

I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines

I doubt it.  As a retired Radiological Control Technician (a.k.a. Physical Science Tech), I have dealt with many nuclear workers, both civilian and Navy.  The Navy's personnel who performed functions similar to mine and had a fair amount of nuclear physics knowledge was an Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT), but they were still less trained than personnel in my profession were.  A nuclear electrician's knowledge of the actual physics of radiation is VERY limited.  The "nuclear" in their title just allowed them to work in areas where radiation was present, and be monitored for their exposure.  No detailed knowledge was required, and I think that is quite evident by Mr. Finch's ignorance regarding the subject.  He just used that title to sound more qualified than he was.

[smartcooky]

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

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.

[raven]

I am no expert like most of the fine people on this fine forum, you yourself even know much more about radiation within your field of nuclear reactors aboard submarines

I doubt it.  As a retired Radiological Control Technician (a.k.a. Physical Science Tech), I have dealt with many nuclear workers, both civilian and Navy.  The Navy's personnel who performed functions similar to mine and had a fair amount of nuclear physics knowledge was an Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT), but they were still less trained than personnel in my profession were.  A nuclear electrician's knowledge of the actual physics of radiation is VERY limited.  The "nuclear" in their title just allowed them to work in areas where radiation was present, and be monitored for their exposure.  No detailed knowledge was required, and I think that is quite evident by Mr. Finch's ignorance regarding the subject.  He just used that title to sound more qualified than he was.

Fair enough. I certainly learned something I did not know before.  I may be ignorant, but at least I'm willing to admit it.