Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

Reviewing this thread, sometimes I think the better approach is to adopt the 'how could so many people be in on the hoax' tact immediately and ignore the initial claims. Arguing the finer points of science and engineering often (always) ends in a to and fro reaction for all participants. It was a little like fattydash and the lost Eagle all over.

I've looked back and realised that several people were posting in response, often with the same point, and the volume of posts could become confusing for the individual on the receiving end. Is this the correct approach? I looked at one of my replies, and saw that the verbage I used could lead to some confusion over scaling. This is no criticism of individuals as I could sense the frustration I was feeling when doing my utmost to clarify the point being made by all.

Having said this, the consistency of response from both sides of the debate provides a record Tim's ineptitude when faced with basic math, the concepts of using data correctly, and the difference between visual inspection and analytical processes. He arrived at the board with professed expertise and a smoking gun, elevated himself as the holder of privileged knowledge with a cast iron case, and was then quickly found wanting after 1000+ posts. I can see the merit of the approach followed last night too.

Please, I'm not trying to act as moderator or tell others how to post, that is neither my role and would be presumptuous to elevate myself above others. I've read a few of the recent posts and am thinking about the simplicity of the counter argument. Occam's razor springs to mind.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

From about mid-2012 all the way through to the end of 2013 at least all but a few readings at the extreme upper end of the range picked up by any of the six detectors is below that magic line. This was pointed out to him several times but, since he is so wedded to the idea of his being right, even this blatant visual clue he was wrong did not sway him. He insists the numbers have been manipulated somehow so they don't reflect reality.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

I'm going to remove the SPE data and plot it on a linear scale after dinner. Why? Tim finally understood from various graphs that the data does indeed fall below the 0.22 mGy day^-1, but then fell back on visual inspection to suggest it was close enough to 0.22 mGy day^-1when it did fall below the line. It actually falls to values less than 0.1 mGy day^-1. So yes, it's a job that can be easily done.

However, Tim hand waved that away with his GCR probably contributes up to 1/3 of the total dose, so add the VAB, lunar environment and other factors would ensure the numbers rise above 0.22 mGy day^-1.

[Luke Pemberton]

And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...

...and throwing in a bit of casual misogyny for good measure.

[Jason Thompson]

Reviewing this thread, sometimes I think the better approach is to adopt the 'how could so many people be in on the hoax' tact immediately and ignore the initial claims.

The issue with that from my point of view is threefold:

1: Their whole argument is usually 'I have found an issue that can only mean a hoax', and I would rather present alternatives and show where their understanding is wrong than sidestep their 'unanswerable' question.

2: It is hard to tell at the start whether someone is a dyed-in-the-wool hoax believer or just misguided, and I prefer to remain optimistic at least for the first few posts.

3: The question 'how could so many people be in on it' will end up in the same to and fro anyway, since they invariably cannot conceive of how reality actually works when it comes to things like Apollo. Tim already said he believes only about 50 people would be needed to pull it off. It's easier to drill down into specifics and give conrete examples of where someone is in error (such as showing that the numbers absolutely do not fit his argument) than to concoct what may appear to any spectators to be no more than 'you say, I say'. Plus the more they keep ignoring the specific simple questions and blustering the more they undermine their own arguments.

I've looked back and realised that several people were posting in response, often with the same point, and the volume of posts could become confusing for the individual on the receiving end.

I honestly have no sympathy for them. If they come to a group forum they can expect a group response, and if they are not willing to take the time to consider the responses before replying again with more rubbish they earn everything they get.

Having said this, the consistency of response from both sides of the debate provides a record Tim's ineptitude when faced with basic math, the concepts of using data correctly, and the difference between visual inspection and analytical processes. He arrived at the board with professed expertise and a smoking gun, elevated himself as the holder of privileged knowledge with a cast iron case, and was then quickly found wanting after 1000+ posts. I can see the merit of the approach followed last night too.

That's where I see the merit in it too.

[/quote]I've read a few of the recent posts and am thinking about the simplicity of the counter argument. Occam's razor springs to mind.
[/quote]

Occam's razor unfortunately only works when someone is willing to consider they may be wrong as one possible answer to the problem they think they have found. As several people tried to point out, Tim refused to even consider the possibility that he just didn't fully understand how to interpret the data.

[Luke Pemberton]

The issue with that from my point of view is threefold:

1: Their whole argument is usually 'I have found an issue that can only mean a hoax', and I would rather present alternatives and show where their understanding is wrong than sidestep their 'unanswerable' question.

2: It is hard to tell at the start whether someone is a dyed-in-the-wool hoax believer or just misguided, and I prefer to remain optimistic at least for the first few posts.

3: The question 'how could so many people be in on it' will end up in the same to and fro anyway, since they invariably cannot conceive of how reality actually works when it comes to things like Apollo. Tim already said he believes only about 50 people would be needed to pull it off. It's easier to drill down into specifics and give conrete examples of where someone is in error (such as showing that the numbers absolutely do not fit his argument) than to concoct what may appear to any spectators to be no more than 'you say, I say'. Plus the more they keep ignoring the specific simple questions and blustering the more they undermine their own arguments.

Thanks, that's unfogged my mind, particularly point 2. I've noticed that in your posts and those of others, the patient start until you've worked out the lie of the land. This is a good starting position, fair and welcoming, and at least giving the person chance with their claim.

I honestly have no sympathy for them. If they come to a group forum they can expect a group response, and if they are not willing to take the time to consider the responses before replying again with more rubbish they earn everything they get.

Once one realises they are dyed in the wool and not simply misguided, then the group approach is fair game, particularly when people have invested the time and effort to counter the claim, yet the claimant is not ready to make that effort themselves - such as plotting the data. This was borne out in this thread. All contributors began in the spirit of point 2 above.

Occam's razor unfortunately only works when someone is willing to consider they may be wrong as one possible answer to the problem they think they have found.

I was thinking more from the point that the simpler explanation of how could it be faked given the number of people involved, rather than the technical aspects that can be difficult to explain. However, I refer back to your point number 2. The initial claim has to be addressed for reasons of fairness.

[Jason Thompson]

Thanks, that's unfogged my mind, particularly point 2. I've noticed that in your posts and those of others, the patient start until you've worked out the lie of the land. This is a good starting position, fair and welcoming, and at least giving the person chance with their claim.

Glad to have helped. The thing about Apollo is it is not simple, not intuitive, and yes, there's a lot about it that doesn't seem to make sense at first glance. That people have questions is understandable. My own introduction to this whole arena was the Fox Special, and after I watched that I had some doubts myself. I even bought Dark Moon and the accompanying video, read the whole book and watched the whole video. It wasn't long before the cracks in their arguments started to appear and by the time I joined Apollohoax and Bad Astronomy, as it was then, I was pretty convinced the conspiracy theory was bunk. Still there was a lot I did not know and I learned a heck of a lot from Phil Plait, Jay, Bob B. and others. I am always mindful when new people arrive here that my own motive in the online community when I started was to learn about the bits I wasn't sure of, and try to treat others as I expected to be treated then.

Once they turn down the road of ignoring gaping holes in their basic mathematics and refusing to look at actual data or do simple tasks for themselves, well, see the next quote:

I honestly have no sympathy for them.

[Luke Pemberton]

The thing about Apollo is it is not simple, not intuitive, and yes, there's a lot about it that doesn't seem to make sense at first glance.

For me, that was the photography claims and secondary lighting (e.g. falloff with Aldrin in the crater, Aldrin on the ladder of the LM etc). Various visits here, discussions with a once very active YouTube community and Clavius have been invaluable sources.

The hoax discussion has led me to read about lunar geology, which has been fascinating. I knew a fair chunk about space weather and radiation before, but I've consolidated that knowledge with a broad range of published articles from the scientific literature. This discussion had only added to my understanding.

The rocket engine discussions confuse the living hell out, particularly the benefits and functions of different types of rocket engines and their fuels.

[Zakalwe]

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.

Indeed. They become so blinded by confirmation bias that they think that their position is unassailable. Ally to that an ego the size of a house and an obnoxious demenour and you've got a thoroughly unlikeable combination.

I'd hate to become so egotistical that it became impossible to question my position and to shut myseldf off from learning new things.  Wilful ignorance is the most cowardly of intellectual fallacies.

[nomuse]

I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......

[gillianren]

And did so, as usual, without even really understanding human psychology...

...and throwing in a bit of casual misogyny for good measure.

If I let that drive me away from these discussions, I would've abandoned them years ago.  Like the time someone I had barely had any exchanges with sent me a PM asking for pictures.

[bknight]

I have two different hats on when it comes to this stuff. One is as an amateur fan of science, technology, and the history of both. The Apollo Program continues to be a year-long Advent Calendar of new gifts, as every time I come back to it I discover some new and fascinating bit of the story.

I think the hoax is basically dead. It sort of got laughed out of the room. But even if the only vocal doubters are a futile minority, the underlying conflict is alive and well and growing new legs (and I have no idea where that metaphor is going). The hoaxies will rarely change their minds, the observers mostly don't care, but there's still a space where science itself can be and should be defended. Every unchallenged bit of lying and twisting, from Young Earth Creationist claims to the Ancient Aliens crap that continues to crawl all over the public face of archaeology will, if left to stand (or crawl...damned metaphors!) will add to the divide.



Ah, but I also have a second hat, and that one is on a brain that thinks story. Is there a plausible narrative in which the Apollo Program is faked? Hell no. But is there an amusing one that kinda sorta holds together in some limited way? I'm still waiting for that one. The best the hoaxies have ever been able to do, however, is unrelated incident. Plot is beyond them. An actual interesting story......

The hoax proponents now thrive in Ytube land go visit, unfortunately it is still alive.

[nomuse]

I'm seeing Flat Earth more often. I guess what I meant was the classic Apollo Hoax 1.0 is mostly gone; the charmingly naive one that generally accepted (although rarely understood) astronomy and physics and the other sciences. "Apollo was impossible because of the temperatures. Here, let me explain from my poor understanding of thermodynamics."

Now it seems to be imbedded in more generalized disbelief and conspiracy theory, and the argument format is a lot closer to; "Apollo was impossible because They are lying about the existence of Space."

Of course the typical hoaxie was always a Pringle eater. Like our recent guest, they could never bite on just one conspiracy theory.

But the focus on just Apollo, and the willingness to at least pretend to place it within an accepted framework of science and technology, is gone. I rarely see the Moon Hoax alluded to except in a wider context of disbelief in science itself.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm seeing Flat Earth more often.

Even the Facebook algorithm is throwing links to flat Earth on my feed, more often than not links to a scientist or celeb-wity that's 'owned' flat Earthers with a 'single tweet.' Curious to how that works, maybe it's my interest in science in general.

I guess what I meant was the classic Apollo Hoax 1.0 is mostly gone; the charmingly naive one that generally accepted (although rarely understood) astronomy and physics and the other sciences. "Apollo was impossible because of the temperatures. Here, let me explain from my poor understanding of thermodynamics."

How we long for the days of 'but the film in the camera would melt' and 'how could they be cold in the LM the surface is really hot' arguments.

Now it seems to be embedded in more generalized disbelief and conspiracy theory, and the argument format is a lot closer to; "Apollo was impossible because They are lying about the existence of Space."

Interestingly, space has been measured to be flat with 0.3% error, but then the flatness of space and the 3-dimensional geometry that we observe on a day-to-day basis are two different things.

Of course the typical hoaxie was always a Pringle eater. Like our recent guest, they could never bite on just one conspiracy theory.

Once you've popped, you can't just stop. Amusing comparison.

But the focus on just Apollo, and the willingness to at least pretend to place it within an accepted framework of science and technology, is gone. I rarely see the Moon Hoax alluded to except in a wider context of disbelief in science itself.

Our friend here showed his true colours in the end, the anti-government, sheeple argument finally surfaced.

[onebigmonkey]

Flat earthers and Mr Finch, in my experience, mostly don't care about proving their case, they want to prove how clever they are. It doesn't matter to them that the Earth is flat, they just want to prove they can get one over on someone else.