Radiation

[benparry]

Understood. But as you've noticed, much of the activity here is sidetalk. None of us have to play the Devil's Advocate in order to dissect and then go beyond Tim's claims. Much of the time, what the HB brings to the table is only a jumping-off point for us to learn from each other (and to have the excuse to hit the books ourselves.)

We are here. Tim's claims are still sitting on the table. What do YOU have to say in response to them?

i am personally happy with the total of the reply. like i say some of the finer details i dont understand but on the whole i am happy. Tim has simplified this too much and has made incorrect comparisions.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Somehow I find it hard to believe that a person who failed to grasp high school maths and physics after having people try to explain to him for over a 100 pages was ever employed in any technical capacity.

Tim is a gentleman [..]

I think you are mistaken there.

[nomuse]

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

I agree that maybe someone else could provide a new analogy, but what is an analogy when we are dealing with matter of fact maths skills? You're a good reasoned sort nomuse, did we not do well at explaining the graph to Tim? What could we do to improve?

Most involved in that protracted discussion tried various ways. I would suggest that the overwhelming evidence that everyone in the forum said it was a log graph.

In some ways it's all academic anyway, as the data tells the story. In some ways it isn't as if we present another graph using the same scale, it seems a pointlessness exercise when the target audience cannot read the graph. We're damned either way.

I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

I was talking about it with a friend over dinner last night. Soon as I told him about the table Tim provided with the SD clearly listed in each column he said open the damned thing up in Excel and do a search term for strings of clustered low values. Or do some real statistics on the numbers.

Graphs are great for spotting patterns. Not so good for numeric breakouts.

[onebigmonkey]

Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record.

I did obliquely by pointing Tim at my website in my sig.

More specifically (and this is diverting way beyond the original premise of the thread), all a hoax believer has to do is explain this photo:



It is my personal copy of a press image, dated the day it was taken. It is taken from a TV broadcast made by a handheld camera way outside Earth orbit, where the person operating the camera described the view. The configuration of ocean and land masses visible is absolutely consistent with the time of that broadcast and the viewpoint of the observer. The view contains a hurricane, a hurricane that only existed in that specific (and quite unusual) configuration on that day. Satellite images taken on the day of broadcast, but not available at the time of the broadcast, confirm every detail in it.

No hoax believer has come up with a remotely convincing account as to how this could have been done without telling outright lies, revealing their complete ignorance of the subject, or just plain old pretending they never saw it.

As soon as Tim stops misunderstanding abscissa and ordinates and how radiation works, maybe he can look at more prosaic and much more easily understood proofs of Apollo's reality.

[Luke Pemberton]

I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

Even then, if we had CRaTER data for July 1969, the dosimeter results from the astronauts would not align. The detectors on CRaTER would be different to the dosimeters for many reasons. It's a ludicrous exercise. About all one can say it that the CRaTER data is actually ball park with the Apollo missions. Go figure, what could that actually mean?

The CRaTER and SOHO data are pointers that refute Ralph Rene's argument that cisluanr space if a raging inferno or radiation where the the astronauts receive hundreds of rem outside the VABs. The CRaTER data neatly shows the the frequency of SPE events. It's a great tool from that point of view.

[Luke Pemberton]

I did obliquely by pointing Tim at my website in my sig.

I saw you make several references to the Chandrayaan photos and reference to your website, which were all duly ignored. There are others who also picked up on his argument that the KREEP rocks are radioactive, which means someone had to go and collect those rocks in the first place. Or the usual hoax believer argument of quoting an anecdote of someone being on the moon, to prove... they weren't on the moon. HB's sure do like talking about anomalies, but logical fallacies are the currency they peddle.

[bknight]

I am with you, in that my main argument on the graph was against using a graph. Why look at pretty pictures when you have numbers? (Unless you are an HB -- they looooove looking at pictures for something they can single out).

Even then, if we had CRaTER data for July 1969, the dosimeter results from the astronauts would not align. The detectors on CRaTER would be different to the dosimeters for many reasons. It's a ludicrous exercise. About all one can say it that the CRaTER data is actually ball park with the Apollo missions. Go figure, what could that actually mean?

The CRaTER and SOHO data are pointers that refute Ralph Rene's argument that cisluanr space if a raging inferno or radiation where the the astronauts receive hundreds of rem outside the VABs. The CRaTER data neatly shows the the frequency of SPE events. It's a great tool from that point of view.

Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

ETA year on dates

[Luke Pemberton]

of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.

There are many aspects of the hoax theory that at first sight appear with merit to the uninitiated. I found the 'photo anomalies' more difficult to explain, but then I am no expert on photography. A few visits to Clavius and Jay's sections on fall off and secondary lighting, and asking a few questions here with members that understand photography, the photos all make sense.

The radiation arguments are more compelling for those less technically adept, but that's partly due to the 'radiation is bad Mmmmm-kay' approach that the HB's use. It takes time to sift through the material and understand the context. A little knowledge of physics helps, but it's not necessary.

The complexity of the technical side is overwhelming, and it's how I feel the HB's gained a foothold with their arguments. It's also worth remembering that HB's such as Ralph Rene had no grasp of physics themselves, so his own arguments were based upon his own misconceptions of the physical world. Now imagine peddling those ideas to those with a similar grasp of science. Those arguments can stick. Why are there dyed in the wool HB's? I won't speculate. I guess there are casual believers, and then there are those that are predisposed for whatever reason to have hard beliefs that cannot be shaken.

It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet. Their involvement in aerospace projects is more than anecdotal, it relies on an understanding of the scale of the project involved from a professional vantage point; so I tend to believe them. Jay was trained and worked with Apollo era engineers (if I recall). He's held parts of Apollo hardware in his hand. He can testify that it was not faked and those parts of the hardware work as advertised. Those arguments, when one digests them fully, are more compelling than the arguments that reside in the technical minutiae.

Smartcooky and ka9q are worth a good listen, as they understand the communications aspect of Apollo. Onebigmonkey has produced an excellent website on the photographic record of the missions. We have scientists here who can confirm the ACG and its code worked as advertised. I could go on: Dwight, sts60 and Bob B.

I'm sorry to those that I missed from the list. There are many others that contribute here... ask a question and its answered. Be ready to listen, and those areas  that seem counter intuitive or are called as foul are explained with reason.

The knowledge here from non-credentialed members is incredible too, and they should not go without mention. The Apollo enthusiasts that reside here are a force to be reckoned with, and should be held in high regard for their encyclopedic knowledge of the missions and the technologies that made them possible.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

I wasn't being very clear. Even if we had CRaTER-like data. Yes, I am aware that there is no CRaTER data for 1969, but if we could imagined that data was available, you could not compare it to the dosimeters directly. There would alway be differences.

[bknight]

Luke
I don't think this is exactly correct,  LRO was launched on June 18 2009 on a four day mission to the Moon.  That would put it in orbit on the 22nd 2009.  The data in the file linked started on the 26th 2009, so no cislunar data is recorded in this file, although it ay have been saved in a different file.  I didn't think to look up the launch date and the corresponding trip out bound.

I wasn't being very clear. Even if we had CRaTER-like data. Yes, I am aware that there is no CRaTER data for 1969, but if we could imagined that data was available, you could not compare it to the dosimeters directly. There would alway be differences.

Yes, the dosimeters were a total mission received, then divided by the mission length gives one the average of .24 as represented in to Apollo radiation tables. The data would give a close approximation of that value, but as all of us have pointed out, the individual data points must be used not a graph.

[Luke Pemberton]

Yes, the dosimeters were a total mission received, then divided by the mission length gives one the average of .24 as represented in to Apollo radiation tables. The data would give a close approximation of that value, but as all of us have pointed out, the individual data points must be used not a graph.

Quite, and as Jason pointed out, there are doses in the table that sit comfortably above the values recorded by CRaTER; but Tim did not dwell on that point when it was raised. There are many reasons we cannot make the comparison.

[gillianren]

It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.

Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.

[Luke Pemberton]

Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.

That's OK. I'm not going to refuse learning from your contributions because you don't have a y-chromosome. 

...and he shouldn't be comparing the numbers as he thinks, as his comparison doesn't account for the complexity of the problem. However, I think that is implied in your words that I bolded.

[bknight]

It's why I like Gillian's approach with her skills in film, history and understanding of psychology, or talking to the engineers here who can tell you that a hoax that size could never be kept quiet.

Thank you kindly.  Tim's claim that it must have been figured out how to fake it because the numbers tell him it's wrong is infuriating to me, because he's doing it exactly backward.  The obvious answer there, given that the rest of it cannot be faked, is that he doesn't understand the numbers as well as he thinks he does.  But he will never admit that, so in his mind, the hoax is the obvious answer.

I lean toward that assessment, as he has been shown points that invalidate his belief and he won't accept and move on as he puts it.

[Luke Pemberton]

I lean toward that assessment, as he has been shown points that invalidate his belief and he won't accept and move on as he puts it.

I agree, and despite a handful of people telling him that his initial premise is wrong as he did not read the graph properly, he still cannot accept this point or look at the data. There are many threads of the argument that he does not accept. I've noticed how he abandons part of the argument, then brings it back into the fray as though we have forgotten. Jay often calls the behavioural traits of their argument the 'nature of conspiracism.'  I need to remember this more when I get frustrated by their nonsense.