It is a carrot and just like the jackass you will follow it down the path of oblivion. Any grade school child would tell you the first logical step to Mars would be a Moon base. It would provide the environment to perfect the technology and a launch platform that would require less rocket fuel.
Why do you believe scientists when they tell you there’s radiation in space, but not on the moon landings?
It is getting late and I must get my beauty rest. Should any of you find 21st century data that validate the possibility of transiting the Van Allen belts at less than .1 mgy please let me know. I want to believe but doing so in the present environment would cause terminal cognitive dissonance.
Your contention is that the GCR readings would be constant everywhere in the solar system?
You know, I’m starting to suspect his mind was already made up.
Your question lacks merit but I am gracious. Radiation is demonstrably provable. The lunar landings are impossible. If you prove to me that you can transit the VAB and receive less than 0 radiation in an thin aluminum craft then I will abandon my skepticism and get on-board with the rest of the sheeple.
We have verified the presence of GCR throughout the solar system and have sent probes beyond the solar system and have every indication they exist throughout the universe.
Remember Bryan EKers that I said GCR fluctuates with solar activity and therefore it is not a constant.
I don’t know what “receive less than 0 radiation” means but yeah there’s plenty of evidence. Live video and photographs, samples, the fact the craft was tracked by the world’s space agencies, and so on. If it’s an explanation you want then there is plenty of material about how NASA dealt with the van allen problem (TL;DR: just minimize time through inner belt and shielding protected from outer belt).
Plus where are the actual astrophysicists questioning Apollo? If I go to study astrophysics at Uni, is there a point in the course where they say “OK, lock the door, we need to let you in on something…”
You should work on your logic skills.
If you rob a bank, it’s because you want money. So, yes, it’s logical that you might rob it again when you want MORE money. You gain something each time.
But your suposed liars who faked the moon landings ALREADY had gained everything they wanted the first time: they had produced the perfect show, with the whole world watching in admiration.
They had no logical reason to film a sequel, and then another , and then another.
In fact, the more sequels they made, the less success they had at holding the public’s attention. It became routine, and even a bit boring.( Everybody remembers Neil Armstrong’s first step. Nobody remembers the next couple of moon landings, or the names of the other astronauts.)
So why would the hoaxers put so much work into doing something from which they had nothing to gain?
It’s not logical.
All you’ve demonstrated, so far, is that there is no limit to YOUR gullibility !
Why would we want to dissuade you from your delusions? They pretty obviously mean a lot to you. You don’t need acknowledgement from the likes of us, as long as you find them comforting. Cling to them if they help your world make sense, you Surely don’t need confirmation from us to cement your certainty.
Just be happy! You got it all figured out, why do you need to hear from us at all?
It’s apparently not much of a hazard, either, given the weight of evidence that astronauts actually landed on the moon and safely returned to Earth. I suppose if we had a sample size of more than 24 Apollo astronauts, we could detect a statistically significant increased risk of cancer, but I gather it was worth it.
If GCR is .24 mgy/day and Apollo 11 recieved .22 mgy/day then it would have to have received negative radiation in the VAB. This may be to complicated for you. Keep this important point in mind as you consider your response. The only place in the solar system less than .24 mgy/day is earth and low earth orbit. Everywhere else is at least .24 mgy/day.
So those astronauts are pretending to be dead?
And how, exactly, does NASA go about recruiting all of these ethically challenged scientists and engineers? There are several thousand people working at NASA, and tens of thousands if you go back over the scope of its entire history.
So, how much is there?
You’ve said GCR isn’t constant. The document you’ve cited says 1.0 mr/hr is an average, not a minimum (you even quoted this in post 54). So Apollo 11 got lucky (and/or had a well-chosen trajectory) and got a less-than-average daily exposure.
If this is all you have, then you have nothing.
I might ask that question to a serial rapist or serial killer. I am sure that if you knew their motivations then their reasonings would be obvious also. You assume you know why they lied in the first place.
You’re assuming that they lied in the first place and, as best I tell, on rather shaky evidence.
Remember 1969 was the year of a Solar peak. Subsequent missions would have been exposed to higher GCR levels and all of them would have to have been lucky also. Also keep in mind this average you speak of is essentially a base line and does not include the VAB transit or the lunar surface and lunar orbit both which are higher than GCR. There is no way you can make the math work out.
You might be surprised.
Radiation is demonstrably provable, but Mijin specifically asked about radiation in space. Unless you’ve been there and taken your own readings, you’re accepting the word of some scientist who has studied it. Why do you accept their statements about the amount of radiation in space, but disregard their statements that the risk was managed and the moon landings took place?
They lied and the evidence is before you. If you really think about it, you defend the lie not because you have personally verified the information rather you defend your indoctrination. You have been taught this your whole life and there is nothing that will move you from your position. Even if NASA admitted the deception you would then become a conspiracy theorist.