Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 849

Thread: I'm back with a vengeance and undeniable proof of the Moon Hoax.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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.
    This thread is for those in search of the truth and if your heart felt desire is simply to maintain a fantasy then your departure will not be missed. Move swiftly as to avoid the door knob in the butt. On the other hand if you have legitimate concerns about specifics in my claims then I am more than willing to provide some clarity.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    This is not a one course meal, after you have digested this entree, there is much more to this meal. If you lack the hunger for the full meal deal then spectate from the sidelines. This table is where the big boys eat.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am of the opinion that until technology caught up with NASA there was no need to lie. The ability to decipher the deception did not exist. The current state of technology is such that the disinterested can obtain a detailed examination of the facts.
    I did not ask your opinion what I asked was provide a set of calculations that prove the VARB were the biggest component of the radiation received. Your individual work or a citation from someone else would be sufficient.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I did not ask your opinion what I asked was provide a set of calculations that prove the VARB were the biggest component of the radiation received. Your individual work or a citation from someone else would be sufficient.
    You are getting ahead of yourself mon ami. In time we will wander down that meandering path but as of yet my claim is that background radiation is higher than Apollo 11"s mission dose. Stay on point and stay focused.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,260
    TimFinch,

    Before you get too far down your "meandering path": a warning. You must follow our rules, linked in my signature line below. You must be polite. You must provide direct and timely answers to questions. If you do not, you will find yourself suspended again.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    TimFinch,

    Before you get too far down your "meandering path": a warning. You must follow our rules, linked in my signature line below. You must be polite. You must provide direct and timely answers to questions. If you do not, you will find yourself suspended again.
    I am at a loss to understand how and when I have caused offense. I have responded to every question and I have been polite. Show me the errors of my ways and I will amend my conduct.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I point out that I have made no claims as of yet regarding the proportional constituent of the apollo mission doses but I Will get there eventually.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,882
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am at a loss to understand how and when I have caused offense. I have responded to every question and I have been polite. Show me the errors of my ways and I will amend my conduct.
    Don't call people "mon ami" or similar; maybe you are not being sarcastic, but it comes off that way. Stop with posts that consist entirely of "Is everyone still with me?"; it comes across as condescending. Don't post things like "This table is where the big boys eat."

    Stop trying to direct the conversation to just what you want to talk about. You are the one proposing the conspiracy theory. By our rules, others may ask whatever relevant questions they like, whether you wish to talk about that aspect or not.

    And lastly, do not respond to moderators' official comments unless you are asked to. If you have questions about moderation, PM that moderator (or several), Report the moderator's post, or start a thread in Feedback.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I created this thread and I choose to administer it in a manner that focuses on specific points of interest and I have no desire to prove a hoax. I am here to demonstrate that it is impossible to make a lunar transit with the reported mission doses of the apollo missions. Mon Ami is French for "My friend". How is that offensive?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,866
    Hi Tom Finch, one of the artifacts left on the moon during the manned landing was the (fairly) famous three corner mirror array which has been used to bounce laser light off the moon many times. Do you believe it is there?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    It is my opinion that we are each responsible for acquiring the information necessary to support our positions. I am not a library service that can be used to obtain information that you feel you need. Google is your friend also.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Hi Tom Finch, one of the artifacts left on the moon during the manned landing was the (fairly) famous three corner mirror array which has been used to bounce laser light off the moon many times. Do you believe it is there?
    That would be "Tim Finch". Yes I believe it is there. I simply believe it was not placed there by the hands of a man because I believe we never made a manned lunar landing. I ask you to focus on the points I have elaborated as it is the basis of my assertion.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Is there no one who is interested in pursuing my line of reasoning? Is there anyone with information contrary to that which I have provided?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I point out that I have made no claims as of yet regarding the proportional constituent of the apollo mission doses but I Will get there eventually.
    Quite the contrary in this post

    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    A few points before we start.
    A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
    1. The LEO is the lowest
    2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
    3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
    4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

    The second point that needs to be addressed is the fact that GCR's are modulated by Solar activity or solar wind if you will. The greater the solar wind the less the magnitude of GCR's reaching cislunar space and the moon.

    Now if any one has any problems with these stated facts then let's address them before we go in.

    Then again in this post

    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I am going to assume that all have no problem accepting the following facts, because I will be referring back to them:

    A lunar transit requires transiting 4 radiation areas' The order of magnitude is as follows:
    1. The LEO is the lowest
    2. Cislunar space is the second lowest
    3. Lunar orbit and the lunar surface are the third highest
    4. finally, the Van Allen Belts are by far the highest.

    The second point that needs to be addressed is the fact that GCR's are modulated by Solar activity or solar wind if you will. The greater the solar wind the less the magnitude of GCR's reaching cislunar space and the moon.

    Now if any one has any problems with these stated facts then let's address them before we go in.
    In both posts you have stated the radiation received during transit through the VARB was the highest of the four "areas" you suggested.

    Now again I ask you to provide calculations that prove this assertion. Either your own or cite where someone else calculated the amount of radiation received transiting the VARB, and I'll add either manned or unmanned since no one else has transited the VARB except A8, A10-17.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Quite the contrary in this post




    Then again in this post



    In both posts you have stated the radiation received during transit through the VARB was the highest of the four "areas" you suggested.

    Now again I ask you to provide calculations that prove this assertion. Either your own or cite where someone else calculated the amount of radiation received transiting the VARB, and I'll add either manned or unmanned since no one else has transited the VARB except A8, A10-17.
    There is absolutely no one in the world that will dispute the radiation in the VAB is the highest of the Lunar transit. I will provide the CRSS color coded representation as supporting evidence of my assertionClick image for larger version. 

Name:	Van Allen belt color coded dosage.gif 
Views:	70 
Size:	93.3 KB 
ID:	23134

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I of course believe if you supplied calculations to the contrary that I would consider that very interesting and would give it my full attention.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Now that adequate time has been allowed to view and embrace the data from the two CraTer Data logarithmic tables, it is time that I add a third table from that data. I sorted the readings of the D1 and D2 detectors numerically in the same way the median is obtained. It can be seen in the graph that dose rates increase in a fairly linear progression. If we were measuring GCR radiation alone then this line would be flat but because we are measuring combined Solar and GCR radiation it can be seen that the Solar component of total background radiation is dominant. It is a intuitive certainty that overall background radiation goes up with Solar activity even though GCR radiation goes down. That is to say that if you venture into space as Apollo 11 did at solar peak then you can expect background radiation to be at their highest.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sorted CraTer data.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	102.8 KB 
ID:	23135
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-12 at 06:53 PM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I of course believe if you supplied calculations to the contrary that I would consider that very interesting and would give it my full attention.
    You were supplied a calculation which you either hand waved away or ignored at apollohoax.net

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821...VABraddose.htm

    Bob Braeunig concluded his long calculation with the following quote

    Based on my analysis of electrons, protons, and bremsstrahlung, the predicted total dose received by the Apollo 11 astronauts as a consequence of their transits of the Van Allen radiation belts was only about 32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV). This shows that the Apollo trajectories though the VARB were not only survivable, but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential. Of course the VARB were not the only source of radiation to which the crews were exposed. To record the actual skin doses, the astronauts worn dosimeters. These dosimeter measurements for all the Apollo missions are summarized in Table 8 (Apollo 7 and 9 were Earth orbit missions).
    Note the phrase but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential, not the highest.

    Do you accept these calculations and agree that you are mistaken concerning radiation received during transit of the VARB.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I remind you that I have posted the CraTer data which is a compilation of both solar radiation and Galactic Cosmic Radiation from cislunar space. I have provided the CSSR radiation map of the VAB wich is undeniable proof that the VAB is indeed a greater source of radiation than the other three. It can even be seen that even the lowest radiation in the VAB is at least three times as high as the median radiation in cislunar space.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,260
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I created this thread and I choose to administer it in a manner that focuses on specific points of interest and I have no desire to prove a hoax. I am here to demonstrate that it is impossible to make a lunar transit with the reported mission doses of the apollo missions. Mon Ami is French for "My friend". How is that offensive?
    No, you will not administer the thread in the manner that you wish. Moderators administer threads. Members are explicitly prohibited from engaging in moderation themselves. You can participate in the thread according to our rules or we can close the thread.

    Everyone else: please keep things polite and on topic. Do not treat this thread like Fun and Games by posting jokes, GIFs, memes, etc.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    You were supplied a calculation which you either hand waved away or ignored at apollohoax.net

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821...VABraddose.htm

    Bob Braeunig concluded his long calculation with the following quote



    Note the phrase but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential, not the highest.

    Do you accept these calculations and agree that you are mistaken concerning radiation received during transit of the VARB.
    I reject these calculations in their entirety. They are a poorly masqueraded attempt to distract. Table 2 of that article list the transit times as follows: Outbound VARB Transit =214 minutes & Inbound VARB Transit =140 minutes. Realizing the VAB span some 37 thousands miles it can be seen in Apollo 11 logs the rate of deceleration was such that the Apollo craft transited the VAB at an average speed of less than 8684 mph. It is not possible that they spent less than 4.5 hours transiting the VAB. Braeuning states that the entire VAB exposursure was from high energy protons and that there was no electron contribution to radiation exposure. Which is ridiculous at any level of consideration. I reject this article as a poor attempt at misdirection.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-12 at 07:43 PM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I insist it is my right to administer this thread. You have a right to moderate it but I retain the sole right to determine the direction of it. Ban me if you must but I will not acquiesce to your attempts to silence or mute my dialogue.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    It can aslo be demonstrated that the size of the VAB fluctuates with solar activity increasing as solar activity increases and decreasing as it subsides. It is a logical step to conclude if a mission was conducted at solar maximum then as a consequence the VAB would be larger than if the same mission had been conducted during solar minimum.
    Last edited by TimFinch; 2018-Apr-12 at 08:01 PM.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    I remind you that I have posted the CraTer data which is a compilation of both solar radiation and Galactic Cosmic Radiation from cislunar space. I have provided the CSSR radiation map of the VAB wich is undeniable proof that the VAB is indeed a greater source of radiation than the other three. It can even be seen that even the lowest radiation in the VAB is at least three times as high as the median radiation in cislunar space.
    My bolding.

    This is, infract incorrect. The CRaTER data recorders are on board the LRO launched on 18 Jun 2009 (DOY 168), entered the initial orbits of the moon on 23 Jun 2009 (DOY 174) and did not start storing data until 26 Jun 2009 (DOY 177)

    http://crater-web.sr.unh.edu/data/cr..._allevents.txt

    So, no cislunar radiation was stored by the instruments.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447
    I point out to you that the Crater Telescope is comprised of six detectors. 4 of which are looking away from the moon into cislunar space and two which point toward the moon.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,260
    ​Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

    Edit to Add:

    OP suspended for refusing to follow the rules in spite of warnings not to do so.

    TimFinch,

    If you wish to resume this discussion upon your return, report this post to ask that the thread be reopened.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    447

    A second attempt at bringing the truth of the Moon hoax to the masses

    This article: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	02.png 
Views:	90 
Size:	91.4 KB 
ID:	23169 clearly states that during the Apollo missions the background GCR radiation at maximum solar activity was 1 mrem/hr and was six times that at solar minimum. This value is greater than the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) proving that the mission never transited the VAB or reached the lunar surface. Mission dose has to be higher than background radiation of cislunar space.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,882
    I've merged the new thread with TimFinch's old one and reopened the old thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    This article: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	02.png 
Views:	90 
Size:	91.4 KB 
ID:	23169 clearly states that during the Apollo missions the background GCR radiation at maximum solar activity was 1 mrem/hr and was six times that at solar minimum. This value is greater than the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) proving that the mission never transited the VAB or reached the lunar surface. Mission dose has to be higher than background radiation of cislunar space.
    My bold. I do not see any such statement in that page that is imaged in post 57. Please show us where you got that number.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,351
    Quote Originally Posted by TimFinch View Post
    This article: clearly states that during the Apollo missions the background GCR radiation at maximum solar activity was 1 mrem/hr and was six times that at solar minimum. This value is greater than the reported mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) proving that the mission never transited the VAB or reached the lunar surface. Mission dose has to be higher than background radiation of cislunar space.
    The document doesn't appear to support what you are saying here. It doesn't give a dose in grays but in rads. And, I'm not very familiar with these units but I don't think there is a straightforward comparison/conversion between rems and rads/grays. ETA: But perhaps you can explain how you are comparing these?

    But if you think this document is a reliable source of information, then we should note what the summary says:
    Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 to 1 5 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions.
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
    Last edited by Strange; 2018-Apr-23 at 10:46 PM. Reason: question

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •