Radiation

[timfinch]

You are all talk and no data.  Do you not know shame?

[jfb]

I don't want to be the one to gloat but I see no one accepted my challenge to put their data where their mouth is.[

Lie. You simply didn't read anything.

Come on, send the loud mouth packing.  Put him in his place.  Teach him humility.  Produce the data!

Yes that is what you really want. Then you can pretend that you were banned for whatever reason you invent out of your butt. Personally, I hope you are not banned. Your crankery is amusing and shows others the wingnuttery of Apollo Hoax nuts. So crack on in my book, you are a laugh a minute.

What I really want is to be proven wrong.  It is lonely being the smartest man in any group.

You made an argument that, based on the CRaTER data, it was impossible for the cislunar background radiation to fall below .22 mGy/day.  I presented two plots that showed extended periods of time where readings from the CRaTER sensors fell below that threshold.

Let’s set aside whether or not the CRaTER data are relevant to the Apollo missions; you made an argument based on that data, and I showed that your interpretation of that data was not correct.  You have a problem interpreting data.  I won’t speculate as to why (at least, not any more than I have so far).

[Abaddon]

You are all talk and no data.  Do you not know shame?

LOL you funny.

You have been provided with all of that and you ignore it. At this point you are an object of outright mockery. I sincerely hope that the owner does not ban you. The comedy is precious.

[MBDK]

We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?

You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?

I actually believe you know the differences, as well as the fact that the data you presented actually proves your original premise to be incorrect.  Still, for the fun of it all, I have no problem using averages where appropriate, but to use them as a baseline for a precise time frame, is fundamentally flawed, logically and mathematically. And speaking of average, the average doses provided in the chart of the Apollo missions are just that - averages.  The individual doses were as much as 20% different.  But, once more, that's how such things work.

[nomuse]

Long cut-and-paste omitted.

Oh, dear, dear. Do you not understand how bad it looks when you do this? When others in the thread are able to write extempore, summarizing an understanding in a way that makes it obvious they have years of study behind them, and you -- unable to even follow a statement with a citation -- can only paste in blocks of hastily-uncovered text?

[timfinch]

Long cut-and-paste omitted.

Oh, dear, dear. Do you not understand how bad it looks when you do this? When others in the thread are able to write extempore, summarizing an understanding in a way that makes it obvious they have years of study behind them, and you -- unable to even follow a statement with a citation -- can only paste in blocks of hastily-uncovered text?

Impress me with the data and not your rhetoric.  It merely takes a single data point to have me running with my tail between my legs.  Either you have the data or you don't but guess what, neither does NASA because it would be damning.

[nomuse]

Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.

[timfinch]

Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.

I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.

[timfinch]

A single data point is all I am asking.  It is not like I am asking you to pull credible data from your butthole.  Just link me to a NASA Document.

[nomuse]

Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.

I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.

Oh, dear boy, you think I'm going to post one? After the last dozen, posted by people who have already spent the time to do the work, have been ignored?

Or it is you still don't understand how graphs work?

[nomuse]

I demand someone link me with an official NASA document which explains the Moon isn't made of antimatter. Nothing? Bueller? Then the Moon Landings are an obvious fake.

[timfinch]

As much substance as smoke. You bandy your opinion around like a sledge hammer but as soon as something real and hard is asked for you have nothing.  Not even a single data point to satisfy an inquiring mind.

[AtomicDog]

What are alpha particles, Tim?

[LunarOrbit]

Tim,

It's clear that you're just trolling (ie. trying to provoke anger by refusing to acknowledge responses to your questions/claims), so I have issued a warning. That places you on the "watched" list. Continuing this behaviour may result in another warning, which will place you under moderation, requiring my approval before your posts can appear in the forum. A third warning may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you're more than welcome to. But if you're only here to troll then you might as well just leave now.

[timfinch]

Tim,

It's clear that you're just trolling (ie. trying to provoke anger by refusing to acknowledge responses to your questions/claims), so I have issued a warning. That places you on the "watched" list. Continuing this behaviour may result in another warning, which will place you under moderation, requiring my approval before your posts can appear in the forum. A third warning may result in a temporary or permanent ban.

If you want to have a serious discussion then you're more than welcome to. But if you're only here to troll then you might as well just leave now.

I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.