Radiation

[JayUtah]

So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

Are you willing to embrace the possibility that you're wrong?

[jfb]

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong.  Stay with me.  How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation?  How does that work?

Do you believe the cislunar background radiation is constant and unchanging? 

If not, do you believe that the readings taken during solar cycle 24 should apply without any adjustment to solar cycle 20, which was a more active cycle (with a correspondingly lower GCR flux)? 

You're basically asking how it could have gotten below 50 degrees F in March of 1970 when it didn't get below 68 degrees F in March of 1995.  Why would you expect measurements taken a several decades after the Apollo missions to apply, unless you believed that cislunar background radiation must remain constant? 

Why are dosimeter readings taken decades after the fact relevant to the Apollo missions? 

[bknight]

So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

Are you willing to embrace the possibility that you're wrong?

I believe he has demonstrated that fact to everyone but himself.

[smartcooky]

So is there no one willing to embrace the possibility that they have been deceived?

I'm not even willing to embrace the slightest possibility that we were all deceived? Why? Because we weren't. I know this becasue there are hundreds of indicators that it was a real event... just a few of these are

1. The evidence for the reality of Apollo is so vast and so widespread that it simply could not have been faked.

2. All of the technical drawings, schematics, design diagrams, and written documentation from all the organizations involved including, the subcontractors, are 100% self consistent.

3. Engineers are not stupid. Any engineer working on faked up technology would know that what he was working on would not function. Engineering is a RIGOROUS speciality where it is simply impossible to compartmentalise in such a way that even the low man on the totem pole won't spot a fake immediately. (take your trade...I'll bet you could spot a fake nuclear reactor on a submarine in a heartbeat)

4. The returned samples could only have been formed on the moon... they were simply impossible to fake.

5. The US Government could not keep Watergate or the fact that POTUS was porking a White House usher a secret when only a couple of people know about it, so how on earth do you expect them to keep an Apollo Hoax a secret when almost half a million people were involved. NOT ONE OF THOSE HALF-MILLION HAS BLOWN THE WHISTLE.

6. Filmmaker SG Collins proved that the film broadcasts could not have been faked because the video technology required for such a feat simply did not exist at the time.

7. The Apollo hardware has been photographed on the surface of the moon by lunar orbiting satellites of other countries.

8. Even if we hand wave away all of the above, the cost of maintaining the hoax would not end at the end of the Apollo Programme. It would be an ongoing cost... maintaining the hoax for over 50 years would run into trillions upon trillions of dollars. That money would have to be in someone's budget and questions would be asked.   

[nomuse]

So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

[timfinch]

You are making this more complex than it has to be.  If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it.  If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.  I digress. It is unimportant to me if they faked it.  The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.  If the stated NASA values are correct then it is impossible for the the Apollo mission to have left ELO.  You don't have to prove all of the conditions to prove the deceit, you only have to prove one point.  If that one point is proven then by default all the other points are false.  I.e. if you prove Apollo 11 never left LEO then it follows that all the Apollo missions were faked.  The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space and a lunar landing be accomplished with a mission dose of .22 mgy/day.  If the answer is yes then the is an academic exercise with no value.  If under any and all realistic parameters it can not then it is definitive proof that the moon landing is a hoax. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing.  I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day.  Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day.  When you consider the elevated neutron dosage on the surface of the moon and in lunar orbit it would be hard to imagine a a mission dosage of less than .4 mgy/day.  Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum, and the minimum dosage possible in a VAB transit, the lowest possible lunar transit must be at least .6 mgy/day assuming you were lucky and had not a single SPE to complicate matters.  India launched a lunar mission to the moon (Chandrayaan-1) in 2008 and the 5 day transit recorded a 1.2 millirem/hr transit.  Chandrayaan-1 was in 200 km lunar orbit, where the flux and dose rate measured ~2.8 particles cm-2 s-1 and ~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).   I am not a rocket scientist but I am not an idiot either.  The math does not work for me.  Somebody is lying.  Maybe it is India....

[timfinch]

So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?

[nomuse]

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

...such as plotting the positions of solar-system bodies on a single sheet (which I was doing back in high school, for our Traveller games), and for damn near everything involving sound levels -- dB matches pretty closely the perception of sound -- which I've been working with over the 30-odd something years since.

Again typical. Assume you are the only smart person in the room -- it is sure to make conversation go so much slower as you insist on lecturing on the basics while others are trying to move on to step #2 -- you know, the step where you started making errors.

[nomuse]

So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?

That's your gloss. Not anyone else's.

I've never heard this effect described as high-energy cosmic rays creating unstable isotopes which then sit around being "radioactive" for years. That's just a really weird way of looking at it. Better to think of it as analogous to bremsstrahlung. Or the shower of pions that occurs high in our atmosphere when primary cosmic rays arrive there. There's a better explanation upthread (sorry, too tired to scroll back up and credit it properly).

But then, you are the guy who insists on lumping all ionizing radiation under the name "GCR" for ease of calculation. It really grates when you take something like this secondary neutron radiation and lump it in as a bigger number for GCR. Even I know better than that.

[timfinch]

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

...such as plotting the positions of solar-system bodies on a single sheet (which I was doing back in high school, for our Traveller games), and for damn near everything involving sound levels -- dB matches pretty closely the perception of sound -- which I've been working with over the 30-odd something years since.

Again typical. Assume you are the only smart person in the room -- it is sure to make conversation go so much slower as you insist on lecturing on the basics while others are trying to move on to step #2 -- you know, the step where you started making errors.

You can't blame me if people don't know the difference between an exponential graph and a logarithmic graph.  I am forced to work with what I am presented.

[timfinch]

So that we now understand that moon dust is radioactive.  Let's consider the implications of that finding.  There is nothing in a spacesuit to shield the neutron flux of the lunar surface.  The radioactivity of the regolith is a distinct health hazard and a decontamination chamber would have been required to keep from contaming the crew quarters.  The spacesuits would still have a tell tale radiation signature that could prove or disprove a lunar landing.   Why has no one ever mentioned that moon dust is radioactive?  Why wouldn't that be public knowledge?  Why am I the only one outside of NASA's secret Cabal privy to this information?

Again, my printed book, printed and publicly available to a world-wide audience, refutes you.

Conspiracy believers ALWAYS think that because information is new to them, it must be new to everyone else as well.

Your book points out moon dust is radioactive?

That's your gloss. Not anyone else's.

I've never heard this effect described as high-energy cosmic rays creating unstable isotopes which then sit around being "radioactive" for years. That's just a really weird way of looking at it. Better to think of it as analogous to bremsstrahlung. Or the shower of pions that occurs high in our atmosphere when primary cosmic rays arrive there. There's a better explanation upthread (sorry, too tired to scroll back up and credit it properly).

But then, you are the guy who insists on lumping all ionizing radiation under the name "GCR" for ease of calculation. It really grates when you take something like this secondary neutron radiation and lump it in as a bigger number for GCR. Even I know better than that.

Bremsstrahlung is the release of electromagnetic energy (i.e. photons) while radioactivity is the decay of an unstable isotope into a stable one.  So your book doesn't claim moon dust is radioactive?

[smartcooky]

You are making this more complex than it has to be.  If you consider the fact that the only thing that had to be faked is the manned portion of it.  If an unmanned lander had been sent to the moon while the astronauts faked their portion then the deception would have involved less than fifty people.

If it was as simple as you claim, why didn't the Soviets fake themselves with a hoax and "get there" first. They actually had a huge advantage, given their space program was run in secret, while the US space program was in the full glare of publicity; failures and all?

The only thing that is important is the fact that there is an incongruency in the data.

No, the only thing that is important is that YOU don't have the necessary expertise to understand that the incongruities you claim are there simply do not exist. FFS, you don't even understand how a logarithmic scale works (oh yes, you can parrot the words you found in Wikipedia, but it is clear that you have no understanding of what they mean).

I, personally have scoured the internet looking for any record of GCR level low enough to compensate for the transit through the VAB and the lunar landing.  I can find nothing that would allow a combined dosage of .22 mgy/day.  Everything I read indicates that the VAB passage alone would bring the mission dosage above .2 mgy/day.

And yet, the answer is right there in front of you, in the data YOU linked!

[smartcooky]

timfinch clearly does not understand that "radiation" and "radioactivity" are not the same thing.

[timfinch]

This is a logarithmic scale.  Notice how the scale is not linear.  Let that sink in for a moment.  It is logarithmic.  Go figure.

[timfinch]

Radiation is the transfer of energy by particle are photons and radioactive is the decay of unstable isotopes.