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 demonstrated 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?
It's quite easy to understand how confused YOU are. You cannot fathom that LEO receives far less GCRs than cislunar space, and since the LEO data is included in the data you use, you have a glaring omission in your deterministic process.
An analogy to your confusion would be something like saying you went on an 8 day trip through the desert and the daily temperature average outside your car was 90 degrees. Then you note that the daily average temperature was recorded as 100 degrees by the weather stations you encountered after day 2 of the journey, and for a few hours you passed by some highly reflective background that increased the temperature beyond 100 degrees, but you are not sure by how much. So, you argue that the average daily temperature HAS to be >100 degrees. Yet back in the first two days of the trip, the area was overcast and temperatures had plunged to 50 degrees during that time. To get the 8 day average you HAVE to include those days into your data fields. So, 2 x 50 + 6 x 100 = 700. 700/8 = 87.5. Meow the difference between 87.5 and the recorded 90 average can be concluded to be from the few hours of highly reflective background travel.
There is no reason to expect differently from the available data. The same goes for the Apollo missions.
