Radiation

[timfinch]

"Because I said so" is the resort most often used when you have exhausted all reasonable attempts to explain something to someone who is simply incapable of, or refusing to, accept rational argument and explanation of the facts. It was not the starting point used by anyone here. It is pretty much the standpoint you have employed from the start and its use is entirely inappropriate given your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to examine.

The facts are that Apollo went to the moon. Every piece of evidence supports that. You have absolutely nothing that contradicts it no matter how many times you claim you do. All you have is a small collection of numbers collected from dosimeters worn next to the skin inside a structure that (regardless of whether you believe this) will intercept radiation. The numbers you report are adjusted from the original raw figures, which are higher. If you put some effort in you might even find those numbers.

You do not have adequate data on which to draw the unreasonably firm conclusions that you espouse, and your claim that it invalidates everything else in the Apollo record is incorrect. You need to look at the point you actually make yourself: there is an overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence supporting Apollo, how can it be possible if you are correct? You might just have to grasp the reality that you are wrong.

China, India and Japan have all taken images at the Apollo sites showing human activity. Not hardware, not physical objects, but the activity around them. Your a priori conclusions based on faulty assumptions cannot explain that.

You are starting at the conclusion which is from the opposite end that draws my attention.  What human activities do you speak of and which of these activities could not be easily replicated by machines?  I do not contend that man did not go to the moon.  I contend that no man has ever ventured beyond the VAB.  The equipment of man has been to the moon many times and by many nations.

[timfinch]

I have proven that Robert Braeunig has deceived you.  I have proven that there is no low radiation path through the VAB.  I have proven that the background radiation is as high as the reported mission dose of Apollo 11.  I have proven that the lunar soil is radioactive and I have proven that the moon itself is a source of radiation.  I have proven that a transit through the VAB is at a radiation level that is the significant component of a lunar transit.  What remains to be proven to convince you that the lunar landing could not have occurred?

[Jason Thompson]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.

[timfinch]

To do list

1.  Prove that the VAB can be transited with less than 1.5 mgy total dose in a two way trip.
2.  Prove that an 0 mgy/day background radiation  is possible if a 1.5 mgy or greater VAB transit is the minimum transit possible.
3.  Prove the lunar surface is not radioactive
4.  Prove it is safe to smell and taste lunar dust.
5.  Prove that intellectual integrity is not a unicorn.

[nomuse]

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA...

Please describe what a polar orbit is.

Wait, wait (raises hand) I've seen this one!

[raven]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

[timfinch]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

[nomuse]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?

[timfinch]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

[Jason Thompson]

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.

You've been shown videos and models to explain that point. Quit with the obfuscation.

You claimed that two orbits with the same inclination had the same flight path through the belts, entered and left the belts at the same place, and so on. You have been shown why this is not true. Deal with that.

[timfinch]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?

Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

[nomuse]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

So why is that one right, but this one isn't? The latter uses the number NASA published for Apollo's trajectory, which, if they'd been lying, any nation or group capable of tracking Apollo would have been able to call them on it. What is the source for your picture, exactly? I am not being sarcastic. How have you verified that is accurate. beyond 'it seems to me to agree with my claims'.

I simply added clarity to the accepted portrayal of the VAB.  If it is not right then it is because NASA is not right.  I simply used their information in the proper perspective to give a clear picture of the truth.

"Perspective." Interesting word to use for flattening 3D data into 2D by hand-waving away everything that doesn't fit a simplistic transformation.

[Jason Thompson]

Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

But you invented a whole new kind of graph which simply does not exist, all because you think there are minor graduations on an axis that it has been shown are not actually there.

And while we're on the subject of that data set, if I take note of my speedometer every ten minutes for an hour and get readings of 35, 38, 28, 32, 39 and 25mph, what is my speed over that hour? Did yu add them or average them? If the former, wy? Of the latter, why do you think you should add up radiation dose rates measured over one day to get an overall daily dose rate?

[timfinch]

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.

You've been shown videos and models to explain that point. Quit with the obfuscation.

You claimed that two orbits with the same inclination had the same flight path through the belts, entered and left the belts at the same place, and so on. You have been shown why this is not true. Deal with that.

You exaggerate.  I contend that each entered the VAB at the same inclination and as such there is commonality and one can extrapolate exposure because of that commonality.  The elliptical orbits were obviously different but the plane of the elliptical orbits were identical.

[nomuse]

So to recap.  This is an accurate 2d representation of both the Orion EFT and the Apollo path into the VAB.  We don't have to debate this point any longer.  Right?

The only one labouring this point is you, because you still refuse to accept or understand that a 2D representation does not have enough information to draw the conclusions you want to draw. You have been shown why this is not the case.

I am not the one who used a 2d illustration to show that the radiation of the VAB had been skirted.  I am not the villain here.  I am the bringer of the light and truth.
Renounce the lies and the deceptions and own the truth.

The "truth" of someone who is willing to lie about how graphs work?

Maybe you should review the thread.  You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding.  Everything I have said about a logarithmic graph is true and I am willing and capable of defending.  Cite a specific point and I will address it.

What you say NOW is more-or-less aligned with reality. Somehow, though, you went from clearly wrong to probably right without ever passing the "owning up to your mistake" part of intellectual integrity. You insulted half the people in this thread when they didn't follow you down the rabbit hole of your wacky hybrid graph, then turned around and insulted them again by pretending it was them that didn't get it earlier.