Radiation

[Obviousman]

Tim, for the umpteenth time, why will you not take five minutes out of your day to download the data set and simply plot the graph on a log scale and see for yourself?

I believe it may be because they realise they have made a calamitous error and their ego will not allow them substantiate this. They'll continue to move the focus of discussion, skirt pertinent facts, anything to admit they are mistaken.

[Luke Pemberton]

For Tim. I've plotted data with the y-axis (ordinate) using a linear scale. Note how my y = 10ⁿ to show you the idea of using log scales when data has a very large dynamic range (as Jason pointed out).

[Luke Pemberton]

For Tim.

Same data on a log scale. Note how I have not taken a log of the actual data, just drawn my axes with a primary division that increases in increments by a factor of 10¹.

I repeat, I have not taken a log of the data points, just scaled the y-axis to reflect the range of my data. Can you see how the log scale shows the data at smaller values more clearly compared to the linear scale.

[Luke Pemberton]

Now lets take a different data set on a linear scale. This time I have only looked at data from 10 - 110 so we can focus on the minor grid markings when introduced in a log scale.

[Luke Pemberton]

Now let's add those pesky minor units on a log scale. Same data as previous post, note I have not taken a log of the data, just adjusted my y-axis scale on a log.

So same data, but plotted on graphs that have been scaled in different ways. You can verify that the original data still had its integrity, namely that it has the same values when read off a y-scale in either of the graphical representations.

So you need to do this with the CRaTER data. Should take you, erm, 5 minutes.

LO: There might look as though there are some Shenanigans with edits and deletions there. I managed to reply to myself rather than edit, edited my reply to myself, then thought I had deleted my original message after removing the quotes in my edited reply, realised I had not, so edited my original message and removed my edited reply  . If that makes sense?

[bknight]

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....

And browsing the summary points of the paper linked by one bigmonkey, page 5:

dose rate in the inner radiation belt, ~1.3×104 μGy h-1.

I have no problems with this data, but tim you must remember that the transit time through the belts is in a few hours, not days.  Further did the vehicle travel the same transit trajectory that Apollo "generally" used?

[onebigmonkey]

To be fair there I think the 5 day transit time referred to is specifically that between leaving Earth orbit and lunar orbit capture.

[MBDK]

I predict he will continue along in the same vein (or should I say "vain") and re-arrange his verbage just to say the same things over and over all the while ignoring all the facts and reasoning that disprove his assertions.  He is just trying to yank our chains, but I am sure everyone realizes that.  One thing he doesn't understand is that we (if I am not being too presumptuous) find his antics amusing once he has shown himself to be deliberately unreasonable.

Oh, if I could only predict the lottery as well.......(of course, even a one number lottery is more complex than tiny tim).

[Jason Thompson]

Everything I read indicates the lowest recorded GCR level is 2.0 mgy/day at solar maximum,

Except the data you brought along to the discussion in the CraTer data set, which manifestly has huge sections of GCR detection of less than 0.2mGy/day. In fact pretty much the whole of the data for 2013 in that set lies below that line. But of course you can't bring yourself to look at the actual numbers instead of trying to zoom in on a tiny graph.

[tikkitakki]

~11 µGy h-1 (2.645 mgy/day).

11 µGy/h is 0.264 mGy/day

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Really? How many people are needed to make and operate 9 unmanned command modules and 8 unmanned lunar modules (generously assuming that only Apollos 8 and 10-17 were faked in that way). How many people are needed to build and operate the soundstages used to fake the surface activities (leaving aside the physical difficulties of creating such soundstages that could withstand being evacuated). You already have 24 astronauts who went to the Moon who, if those missions were faked, know so. How did the remaining 26 or so people pull off everything else?

[bknight]

Now let's add those pesky minor units on a log scale. Same data as previous post, note I have not taken a log of the data, just adjusted my y-axis scale on a log.

So same data, but plotted on graphs that have been scaled in different ways. You can verify that the original data still had its integrity, namely that it has the same values when read off a y-scale in either of the graphical representations.

So you need to do this with the CRaTER data. Should take you, erm, 5 minutes.

LO: There might look as though there are some Shenanigans with edits and deletions there. I managed to reply to myself rather than edit, edited my reply to myself, then thought I had deleted my original message after removing the quotes in my edited reply, realised I had not, so edited my original message and removed my edited reply  . If that makes sense?

Luke would you plese post a link to the CRaTER data that you have graphed (again?)?

[LunarOrbit]

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.

Yeah, there's nothing complex about that! 

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.

Who developed this alleged unmanned lander? When and where was it tested? Do you have photographs or film of it? When was it launched? Why hasn't anyone else verified the radiation data since then? Your "theory" raises more questions than it answers.

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

Or... maybe you just don't understand the data. Isn't that the more reasonable explanation than the idea that thousands of professional scientists and engineers have either been wrong, or have conspired to lie about Apollo for the last 50 years?

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.

And you are far from proving that point. Very far.

The fundamental question that begs to be answered is can a transit through the VAB, cislunar space...

Why would NASA lie about the radiation if they can't prevent other people from studying it themselves and exposing NASA's lie? Why would NASA lie if they knew they were 100% guaranteed to get caught?

They can't control the radiation, and they can't stop other people from studying it for the rest of time. They can't stop other people from going to the Moon (or discovering it's impossible to do) for the rest of time. That means the hoax would be guaranteed to fail. Lying when you know you'll get caught is beyond stupid. The hoax theory fails the logic test, plain and simple.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke would you plese post a link to the CRaTER data that you have graphed (again?)?

This is the GCR data:

http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/craterProducts/doserates/doserates_nospe.txt

[Luke Pemberton]

Hi Tim

I've now done a small piece of analysis for Apollo 10-17, which took me 5 minutes.

• I have computed the percentage of times when all 6 CRaTER detectors on a single day give a dose less than the Apollo dose.
• I have computed the percentage of times when any one of the given CRaTER detectors gives a dose less than the Apollo dose.

Do you want to see the resutls?