Radiation

[timfinch]

I created a second graph as it seems a correction factor is required to be added to the D1 & D2 detector readouts to compensate for inherent inaccuracies in detection.  This second graph provides a larger separation between median radiation dose and Apollo 11 baseline.

[bknight]

I can see I was sorely missed.  Providence has smiled on you all for I am back.  If you are not aware Cosmoquest booted me the first day.  It seems they have a policy against proving the Moon Landings were a hoax.  Who knew?  I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.  This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.  Check out the Cosmoquest debacle and tell me what you think.  They not only booted me, they closed the thread.  What's up with that?

No you were suspended for arguing with the mods

[timfinch]

I could halfway go along with that premise except for the glaring fact that they closed the thread.  Why would they do that if I were the problem and not the subject matter.

[timfinch]

I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

[timfinch]

It would be easier to convince me of the moon landing than it would be to convince me these forums are not some government front designed to intercept and prevent the widespread distribution of truth.

[timfinch]

This is why the thread was closed:

*******And I completely disagree with that approach. The evidence for the landings is so overwhelming that this exercise is, IMO, ridiculous. And the last time you were here, whenever other evidence was presented (such as lunar samples) you dismissed them with handwaving.

Beyond that, I have no interest in playing this game. You want to believe one of the human race's greatest achievements was a hoax, and nothing will convince you otherwise, have fun.*******

[timfinch]

This is nothing like I expected.  I expected to return as a hero with my fans gathered around tugging my sleeves asking for more and more of my valuable insight.  It has been 4 hours and only one response.  Humility is such a bitter pill to swallow.

[timfinch]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

[onebigmonkey]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Pretty much the opposite.

Here's your source:

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1311&context=physics_facpub

Exploration missions near solar maximum may be preferable in order to limit the galactic cosmic ray
radiation hazard

How many days in space would it take in space before an astronaut exceeded modern limits on dosage?

[timfinch]

I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.

[Obviousman]

I didn't so much as argue with the moderator as I refused to agree with his Nazi -like attempts to administer the thread that I created.  There ploy is to distract and obfuscate with inane questions and ploys to distract.  When I refused to engage the attempts they ran me out on the rail.

That YOU created? I thought the OP was benparry?

[onebigmonkey]

I am at a loss to understand what does it matter how long one must be in space to reach his limit.  I have never claimed space exploration was impossible.  I simply claim that it cost more than we claimed we spent.  It is simple and you can not obscure the simple fact.  Background radiation is too high to to make a lunar transit and not have gotten more than .22 mgy/day.  It didn't happen, it can't happen and therefore the moon hoax is proven.  I believe the Mars planners believe a six month trip will cost 66 msv for the effort so you can spend longer than six months if you are into Russian Roulette and one to take your chances with SPE's.

And everyone else is at a loss as to how you can continually misinterpret the information you are trying to provide as a support for your argument. You have supplied no information that contradicts the figures recorded by Apollo, however many times you claim it does. Radiation levels recorded by Apollo are an irrelevant sideshow, there are much simpler proofs that require far more complex explanations to dismiss.

You are pinning your hopes on an instrument in lunar orbit that has repeatedly photographed evidence of human activity that is completely in accordance with both the historical record and the observations of other spacecraft.

[Jason Thompson]

Some of you thought that because you saw prolonged stretches of data below the Apollo threshold that a transit was possible.  You would need a stretch of over 240 consecutive measurements to equal a 10 day mission.

Stop trying to educate us on the obvious. When we see prolonged periods we're talking months in duration, a fact that has already been pointed out. Here are graphs for 2012 and 2013. The orange line is yur magic 0.22mGy/day threshold.

[Jason Thompson]

I also noticed there was movement on the Logarithmic graph and now we all see the purpose and need for the logarithmic minor graduations.

And still you refuse to acknowledge that even with those minor graduations the data is on a log scale I see.
 

This is good news because we we all have to decipher the data from logarithmic graphs moving forward if we are to keep up.

We can all already do this. I keep telling you I do it for a living.

[Jason Thompson]

One last graph before I go to bed.  This is a very interesting one.  It plots GCR with SPE  ans Solar activity.  It makes loud and bold statements that scream Lunar Hoax.

Quite the reverse. It shows ACE and CraTER data matching a model that extrapolates back over the period of Apollo and shows an estimated lunar surface dose rate of around 5cGy/year over the period during which Apollo occurred. That's about 0.14mGy/day. How exactly does a lower daily lunar surface dose rate scream hoax? HOw does that match your claim that the surface is more radioactive?

You still misinterpret and misrepresent data that categorically does not support your argment. You still want to oversimplify the entire situation and you still don't actually understand the subject enough or you wouldn't keep making ridiculous errors in terminology. Why are you actually here if not to troll us?