Radiation

[Abaddon]

I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

Dang.  5 days before I get a chance to see timfinch's acknowledgement of the error in his initial complaint. 

No one can see it (I hope), but I couldn't even type that and keep a straight face.

What persuades you that tim/ben/alien orifice will ever acknowledge any error? He/she/it/housecat came close in this very thread but promptly ran away.

Nothing, hence my laughter while writing that.  I can see where I wasn't clear regarding the reason for my laughter (could have been gloating, having anatomical disturbances, etc.).  I am sure he will attempt some sort of spin or twist, but the data IS there.  And just for further clarity, the line I used for data is described in the reference thus:

"The lens dose behind 0.22 g/cm2 Al is an excellent proxy for the combined dose from the D1-D2 detector [Spence et al., 2010] of the CRaTER instrument.  Calculation of the dose is detailed in Appendix A."

Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!

[nomuse]

I think I would have enjoyed talking with the good doctor in person. He seemed a pleasant, interesting, and well-read fellow. Aside from his obsession with poop.

Tim, however (and here I do what I said I would not) has a troubling resemblance to an IDW that finally learned how to spell. The same false-sounding folksiness, the arrogance preening and superciliousness, the obsession with (but not understanding of) the term "exponential." The profanity (which showed briefly at CosmoQuest, in a way that suggested it was being kept under tight control otherwise). Even specific phraseology.

I did not, however, find him interesting to argue with.

[Luke Pemberton]

I know timfinch has problems reading them, but I did find this graph (figure Number 2) that conclusively shows the lunar surface dose rate for Apollo 11 to be less than 5cGy/year -
http://prediccs.sr.unh.edu/papers/schwadron2011JE003978.pdf

That means less than 50mGy/year and less than 1mGy/week.  This computes to less than .143mGy/day.

So, timfinch, now that you have your requested data, do you concede that your assumptions regarding the dose rates experienced by Apollo 11 were incorrect?

That's a great find. Good work MBDK. I've skimmed it, but will have a good read tomorrow when I have more time and it's a little less near midnight.

[MBDK]

Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!

"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )

[Abaddon]

Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!

"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )

Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.

ETA: Gillian is going to kick me.

[MBDK]

That's a great find. Good work MBDK. I've skimmed it, but will have a good read tomorrow when I have more time and it's a little less near midnight.

Thanks, Luke (if I may be so familiar).  It wasn't easy, and I am sure there is more straightforward info out there, but that's the best I have at this time. Have a great night, and a better tomorrow!

Probably a good time for my temporary exit as well.  Cheers everyone, and thanks for the continuing education!

[bknight]

...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.

[Abaddon]

...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.

Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?

[bknight]

...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.

Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?

Yep, unknown history to me.

[gillianren]

Wait, you actually provided a documented rebuttal? The kind tim insists has never happened? Heaven forfend! That surely has never happened in this thread before!

"forfend".  I actually had to look that one up.  Thanks for the vocab lesson!  Just one more of the benefits I get from this forum.   : )

Hahaha, sorry, sometimes I am wordy.

ETA: Gillian is going to kick me.

It would be a failing as apparently a journalist not to!

[Luke Pemberton]

Thanks, Luke (if I may be so familiar).

First name terms are fine. I'm not stuck up about stuff like that. I like my cricket and rugby, and enjoy a beer and a curry; and on occasions a cigar and brandy. No pretence here.

It wasn't easy...

Which trumps the cut and paste from Wikipedia in the hope of something sticking. That's the difference between your approach and Tim's. You did the hard leg work, and stuck at it until you found that one relevant piece of information. That's good research. Tim just cut and paste anything from Google searches in the hope of sounding erudite. It's a really good paper. There is an abundance of information in there to support every facet of our argument. Modulation of the solar cycle, the changing GCR flux, the variation of dose with solar activity... it's a banker that is now saved to my documents on the subject.

and I am sure there is more straightforward info out there, but that's the best I have at this time.

...but it's not a straightforward problem, that was the point we were making to Tim. Don't undersell yourself. The breadth of the complexity is punctuated beautifully with every graph, every bit of data and every assumption documented in the literature; the link to the paper you posted paints a great picture. Every aspect of ionising radiation is complex, those that have some understanding of the field know this, the hoax community do not.

Have a great night, and a better tomorrow!

Teaching tomorrow, pre-exam revision class. 

[Luke Pemberton]

That's a damn depressing read.

Especially this rebuttal from Grant Hutchinson as Tim tries to understand the AE8/AP8 model, after posting images of its output.

It's a large dataset, not a graph - Grant Hutchinson

[Abaddon]

...
Yeah. we are getting old. Look on the bright side Dr. Socks is dead and we are not. (post cynically coloured by latest wingnut)

I didn't get the memo.

Oh he died. In real life.

ETA: His brother took up the clubs of nonsense after him. You missed all that?

Yep, unknown history to me.

He went under the name "Skinny Splash" as a homage to his brother. He first appeared here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263725&highlight=tekeli&page=2

[cos]

So no one had the capability to track Apollo 11 at the time? Well Jodrell Bank followed Eagle to the lunar surface.

http://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

When I was a student at Manchester University in the early 80's I visited Jodrell Bank and this came up in conversation. So I actually talked to one of the guys that was there that night.  Of course if I was timfinch I'd of asked how much NASA were paying him to be a disinformation agent.  Geesh, do the hoaxers do no research before spouting off.

[jfb]

Okay, it has become crystal clear to me that Tim is simply trolling and angling for a ban as a "dissenting voice"  He's basically nerd sniping at this point - pretending not to understand how to read a simple graph because he knows most of us can't help but correct him. 

He's throwing in just enough personal insults to be douchy but not outright abusive, so LO can't use that as an excuse when the ban hammer eventually comes down. 

While this thread has been valuable for a number of reasons and I certainly don't want to see it locked, I think we can safely ignore Tim from now on and just talk amongst ourselves.  He's going to continue to pretend to be a dense goober conspiratard, and I see no reason to further feed his need to be a jackass.  I'd rather he not be banned outright, just to deny him that notch in his belt.