Radiation

[jfb]

The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?   

[timfinch]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

[timfinch]

The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?

I am quite sure it is.  The range of possibilities limit the probabilities.  The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.  Apollo 11 mission dosages do not reflect even this low of an exposure.

[Jason Thompson]

Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

Is that really the best you can do? You came here arguing about radiation and spacecraft. There are xperts in those subjects here talking to you. You have yet to prove there is a global hoax. Prove that, then we can discuss expertise in global hoaxes.

[Jason Thompson]

The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.

I repeat, not all solar peaks are created equal.

[MBDK]

So, I am expected to support my opinion with documentation yet you have no such responsibility?

You are the claimant.  You have the burden of proof.  Someone who listens to your argument and concludes it lacks support or is based on assumption or supposition has no obligation to mount an affirmative counterclaim in order to reject it.  You labor under the false impression that an argument cannot fail simply by insufficiency.

You won't be offended if I disregard you opinion as being frivolous will you?

You can disregard whatever you want for whatever reason.  But what you cannot do is dictate that, having done so, you can still demand credibility.

Ditto!

Jay's credibility doesn't come from his demanding it, it comes from decades of experience and demosntrated expertise. He doesn't demand credibility, he has it.

Pardon my insolence and arrogance but I don't know him and my telepathic receptors have a distance limitation.

They have apparently also short-circuited your logic center.  You have yet to adequately reply to my post asking how you figured the LEO portions of the Apollo missions into their daily dose average, or why you continue to ignore the difference factors mentioned.

What are you going on about?  I did not include LEO doses in my calculations, nor did I include lunar or VAB doses.  I simply assert that mission doses have to be greater than cislunar GCR doses.  The fact that they don't indicates they never ventured beyond LEO.

Correct, you didn't include LEO doses, as they were all part of the total mission dose.  The total mission dose divided by the number of days in the mission gives the average dose per day, which your asserion is based on.  Therefor your conlcusion that they are not included is a glaring error on your part.

Note:  Edited for spelling.

[JayUtah]

Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

How many global hoaxes have you concocted?

[timfinch]

Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

Is that really the best you can do? You came here arguing about radiation and spacecraft. There are xperts in those subjects here talking to you. You have yet to prove there is a global hoax. Prove that, then we can discuss expertise in global hoaxes.

If a thing can't be then it isn't.  There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.  Now, either the measuring equipment didn't operate properly or it didn't leave ELO but that reading cannot be correct.

[timfinch]

Unless some people concocted and enacted a global hoaxes then they are not experts on global hoaxes.

How many global hoaxes have you concocted?

"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.  I claim the radiation exposure documented for Apollo 11 cannot be correct and it is indicative of a hoax or ineptitude one or the other.  You choose.

[Jason Thompson]

If a thing can't be then it isn't.  There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.  Now, either the measuring equipment didn't operate properly or it didn't leave ELO but that reading cannot be correct.

Or you are simply wrong in your conclusion. Given that the alternative requires decades of complicity and vast swathes of other, more knowledgable professionals to be wrong or lying, the balance of probability still favours you being the one in error.

[jfb]

The only explanation that I can deduce for such a low mission dosage is either it was faked or the equipment was archaic and incapable of measuring accurately exposure in the VAB and cislunar space.

Now explain why 'or I am wrong' is not one of your possible explanations that deserves examination.

I am not the collector of data or the tester of parameters.  I cannot be wrong because I didn't do any of it.  I only pointed out the incongruency in what NASA reported.  Blame NASA, not me.

Going back to a question I asked earlier - why is it not possible that the radiation environment actually was different during the Apollo missions vs. MSL?

I am quite sure it is.  The range of possibilities limit the probabilities.  The minimum GCR background recorded occurred at Solar peak  and set the lower limit of GCR.  Apollo 11 mission dosages do not reflect even this low of an exposure.

Which solar peak?

[JayUtah]

If a thing can't be then it isn't.

But "I can't figure out how it happened" is not the same as "can't happen."

There is absolutely no way Apollo 11 transited the VAB, Cislunar space and landed on the moon and only received .22 mgy/day radiation exposure.  No way.

As I explained before, there is a way but you don't like it because it means you have to admit you don't know enough about the problem to understand how it could happen.  Eliminating possibilities just because they're distasteful to you isn't good thinking.

[timfinch]

Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show such a level as depicted by Apollo 11 is reasonable.  Any takers?  Anyone willing to go out on a limb and shut the brash arrogant ex-Navy electrician up?

[JayUtah]

"0" but I do not claim such knowledge.

Then you shouldn't have any problem conceding that you are not an expert on global conspiracies.

But then there's a problem.  You told us if people found out this terrible secret, it would be the end of life as we know it.  You told us that people would easily lie to protect this secret, because you so totally would.  You chided us for not properly stopping to consider the vast implications of what you were proposing.  When we asked you why you are supposedly right and all those professionals and academics are wrong in their judgment, you told us they were part of a vast conspiracy to protect the truth.  So it seems you are claiming to be an expert on global conspiracies.  That's what would be required to make the sorts of judgments you've made in this thread.

[Jason Thompson]

Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show such a level as depicted by Apollo 11 is reasonable.  Any takers?  Anyone willing to go out on a limb and shut the brash arrogant ex-Navy electrician up?

Once again, not our burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to support it. You've been shown repeatedly where the oversimplifications and plain errors are, but you are refusing to address them.

That Apollo happened as per the historical record is the default position until proven otherwise. The evidence in its favour is massive, and will not collapse on the basis of one factor as you wish it to. Your theory is it was faked. That theory has to fit all the observed evdience better than the conclusion it was genuine. That's how actual science and reasoning works.