“Average” and “base line” are not synonyms and any argument assuming they are is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, let’s leave hypotheticals out of it and talk about the evidence alone, shall we?
Yours seems based on an assumption that “average” and “base line” mean essentially the same thing. They don’t.
He has a lot to due with intelligence. I will believe anything that is logical and verifiable directly or indirectly. All information is second hand information. Even scientist rely on secondhand information. It is the evaluation of information that sets us apart.
A serial rapist or A serial killer is a single sick person, and I can’t know their motivations.
But faking the moon landings would have required thousands of people to cooperate,to invest a lot of hard work with a close group of co-workers andfriends,for a long time… and then every single one of them would have to keep silent about it for the next half century.
Sure, you can hire a thousand actors, and pay them a lot of money to join in the hoax.That might work for a few years.
But logic says that out of a thousand people, over a period of 50 years, somebody will change his mind and decide to share the truth with us. That person would become famous, and gain a huge amount of fame and fortune. They’d have a lot of motivation ( like your bank robber analogy).
We should have heard a few confessions by now.
Average is essentially a measure of probability. Instantaneous measurements mean nothing because nothing we do is instantaneous. If you were to measure radiation over the period of exposure then it is the average you are measuring. Dosimetry measure an average. What is the point you want to make?
You only have to convince the unwilling. The gullible and the willing do not need convincing. On the contrary, they will fill in the blanks for you.
When I say baseline I am referring to the fact that GCR is present everyplace in the solar system except on earth and low earth orbit. Not that it is synonymous with average but in actuality it might as well be.
Your word salads are short a few croutons.
Anyway, if I ever get a chance to meet Buzz Aldrin, I’ll thank him for his service on the moon and for punching Bart Sibrel.
No, in actuality, base line is not synonymous with average, unless the level is constant everywhere and you have conceded that we have no reason to assume it is.
Every argument you have stemming from assuming equivalence between “base line” and “average” is based on a flawed premise, so the conclusions you draw are suspect. You can slather on the verbiage all you want but until you address this critical flaw, you are flailing blindly.
There is no evidence that GCR radiation has ever been lower than 1 mrem/hr in the last century. We are unable to shield GCR today and we have never been able to shield it. There is only two places in the solar system where it can be shielded, earth and low earth orbit. These are the facts. Do you dispute these facts?
I question if they are facts. In any case, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the astronauts were exposed to a consistent 1 mrem/hr over their entire lunar transit. Would this kill them?
No, it would not kill them. That is not the point. The point is it is the lowest radiation they are exposed to. Lunar orbit, the lunar surface and the VAB are all higher radiation areas. It is not possible to transit to the moon and receive less radiation than background GCR.
Your cite says otherwise.
I lack confidence you have done the math correctly to demonstrate that this is the case. Show your work.
I have shown you that GCR radiation in cislunar space is 1 mrem/hr. which is 24 mgy/day and I have shown you that Apollo 11 mission dosage was ,22 mgy/day. What confuses you about simple math?
The Indian CHANDRAYAAN-1 launched in October of 2008 placed a satellite in orbit around the moon and measured orbital radiation. We can compare the data to the CraTer Satellite data currently in orbit around the moon since 2009. Based on these two independent sources we can deduce that background radiation levels in cislunar space and on the surface of the moon are much to high to support the data from the Apollo missions.
If I could demonstrate a flaw in your reasoning, would you admit the landings are real?
Your grammar is off. Let me fix it:
“You can’t have everything. It can’t be almost True. No amount of evidence can override The Truth. The Truth of the matter is they are incapable of doing in the 21st century that which they succeeded on the first attempt 50 years earlier.”
I mentioned in another thread recently that those purveyors of scientific insight “Mitchell and Webb” had something for every occaision.
So it proves
I’m way ahead of you on this. You mistakenly admit further on that astronauts have gone into LEO (low earth orbit), but never to the moon. You must surely realize that astronauts have never gone into LEO, either. Rockets can’t work in a vacuum because there’s nothing for the engines to push against. You would realize this if you applied exactly the same scientific rigor that you applied to all your other reasoning. The ISS is obviously a hoax.
Anyway, assuming we could somehow invent rockets that really work in outer space, and overcome God’s will that man never leave the flat earth that He created for us 6000 years ago, the NASA Technical Note on Apollo radiation exposure that was already cited documents the dosimentry readings on Apollo missions 7 through 15. For comparison, a CT chest X-ray is about 0.7 rad (7 mGy) (other levels are much higher – a PET/CT scan can be 2.5 rad or more - 25 mGy). All the missions recorded skin doses much less than a typical chest X-ray except Apollo 14, which was about half-way between chest X-ray and a PET scan.
The Van Allen belts have a specific topology and highly variable density through the different regions, and the Apollo craft transited that area in a few hours. The moon is not “radioactive”, except to the extent that shielding is needed in proportion to the duration of lengthy exposures to GCR and SPEs. From this paper, “the annual exposure caused by GCR on the lunar surface is roughly 380 mSv (solar minimum) and 110 mSv (solar maximum). The analysis of worst case scenarios has indicated that SPE may lead to an exposure of about 1 Sv.” That’s annual. Astronauts were only there for a few days. This paper describes the different particle energy ranges.
But as I said, this is all irrelevant because rockets don’t work in space anyway. Cite: my belief. Just like yours, only better.
In fact, the truth is overridden by evidence all the time. Evidence overriding what yesterday was thought to be the truth, is the whole aim of science. When reproducible evidence is presented that goes against the truth, then the truth has changed. Truth that goes against the evidence has a special name - it’s called error.