Radiation

[timfinch]

"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.

If you say so....

[JayUtah]

Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show...

No, you don't get to dictate how your critics must refute you.  You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.  You've been shown the errors in your line of reasoning.  Your argument fails for those reasons irrespective of any potential counterclaims.

[JayUtah]

If you say so....

It's not about what I say, it's about what you said.  Do you agree that you -- not having met your own criteria for knowing about global conspiracies -- have no basis for the statements you made alleging a global conspiracy?  And if your "global conspiracy" excuse is no longer valid for explaining why all qualified people disagree with you, do you agree that their superior knowledge, experience, and judgment is evidence against your argument?

[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.

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.

You don't get it do you?  What I am saying is if you discounted contributions from all sources and used only the contribution from GCR's of cislunar space then all lunar missions as a minimum must have at least a mission does as high as cislunar space.  They do not and that indicates they never left LEO.  Is that difficult to understand?

[timfinch]

If you say so....

It's not about what I say, it's about what you said.  Do you agree that you -- not having met your own criteria for knowing about global conspiracies -- have no basis for the statements you made alleging a global conspiracy?  And if your "global conspiracy" excuse is no longer valid for explaining why all qualified people disagree with you, do you agree that their superior knowledge, experience, and judgment is evidence against your argument?

No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

[timfinch]

Now you guys could easily shut me up by demonstrating using published documentation to show...

No, you don't get to dictate how your critics must refute you.  You don't get to reverse the burden of proof.  You've been shown the errors in your line of reasoning.  Your argument fails for those reasons irrespective of any potential counterclaims.

You guys are the expert in the field.  It should be a simple matter to demonstrate how Apollo 11's mission dosage is not only possible but probable for the environment.  What is the problem here?

[Jason Thompson]

No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, thereofre Nellie is pink. Perfectly sound logically, but based on a false premise, much like your argument. Logic just enables you to be wrong with authority....

[JayUtah]

You guys are the expert in the field.

That's how we're able to show you the errors in your thinking.

It should be a simple matter to demonstrate how Apollo 11's mission dosage is not only possible but probable for the environment.

We've done that by listing all the various factors you didn't consider before concluding by process of "elimination" that the data are impossible as claimed.  It's now up to you to correct your reasoning to account for them.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that you're demanding more than is necessary to refute your argument.

[JayUtah]

No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

No, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You claim no special skills are required to accuse someone of conspiracy, but special skills are required to refute the accusation.  That's special pleading.

You're also posing a false dilemma.  You're saying the facts must either meet your expectations or else some deception has occurred.  You don't have direct proof for the deception; you just conclude it "must" be the default if the conventional narrative fails your expectations.  Among the options you refuse to consider is whether your expectations are valid.  You have been shown the reasons why your expectation is invalid, but you simply repeat your beliefs and ignore the reasons.

Very often, especially in science, determining the whys and wherefores does require special skills or knowledge.  Especially if one's argument is based on eliminating all the other possibilities, leaving the one alternative, one must have an encyclopedic understanding of those other possibilities in order to refute them individually.  You've disclaimed any special knowledge of astrophysics or space engineering or orbital mechanics or any of the other highly developed fields that pertain to your argument.  It is therefore unreasonable for you to beg the reader to believe you have exhaustively eliminated the alternatives from your uninformed position.  Lest that seem too abstract, you have been presented with examples of alternatives which you simply disregard.

[timfinch]

No.  It is a logical extrapolation from the obvious.  It requires no special skills or knowledge to ascertain that if a thing cannot be then it isn't and if it appears to be then it is because of deception.

All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, thereofre Nellie is pink. Perfectly sound logically, but based on a false premise, much like your argument. Logic just enables you to be wrong with authority....

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

[JayUtah]

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.

[timfinch]

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.

Then you would no problem claiming this premise is false?

[timfinch]

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.

No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.

[Jason Thompson]

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

Don't misrepresent your own premise in order to win an argument. That's disngenuous at best, deceptive at worst. The premise as you have stated it here is sound: all missions will have background GCR levels. Your actual premise that you are basing your conclusion on is a quantification of that GCR that must be true for the concusion to hold. That is where the fault is, and you have been told repeatedly why that quantification is incorrect.

[Jason Thompson]

The premise:  All lunar missions must have as a minimum, a mission dosage that reflects background cislunar GCR radiation.  Show me the fallacy in the premise.  I'm waiting....

That's not your premise.  Your premise is that GCR, as encountered in cislunar space, is essentially a constant.  That premise is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of GCR and of space radiation in general.

No, I have stated that GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle.  It is constant outside of the galaxy but it is affected by solar activity and shielding from planets and moons and even asteroids to a degree.

ANd yet you are taking data from decades after Apollo and stating that the GCR levels reflected in those data must hold true for Apollo. Either it is constant enough for you to do that or it is variable, in which case why do you insist the levels must be at least what they were reorded as decades after the fact?