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

1. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
Australia
Posts
7,394
Originally Posted by TimFinch
I don't know if you ever took a course in statistics and probabilities but Approximately 68% of the data fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Approximately 95% of the data fall within two standard deviations of the mean. Approximately 99.7% of the data fall within three standard deviations of the mean. Have you ever seen or heard of the Mae West curve?Attachment 23174
You were asked if you could provide evidence that the dosages followed a normal/Gaussian distribution. As you have not provided it you cannot then use the conversion from SD to probability that is only valid for normal distributions. Unless you have this evidence but have chosen not to present it you've made a very common error in basic statistics - unfounded assumptions of normalcy.

Edit to add: you may also be mixing median and or mode with mean, for many data sets mean is a terrible way to estimate the probability of a given observation.
Last edited by Shaula; 2018-Apr-25 at 07:01 AM.

2. Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
56
Originally Posted by TimFinch
I don't know if you ever took a course in statistics and probabilities but Approximately 68% of the data fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Approximately 95% of the data fall within two standard deviations of the mean. Approximately 99.7% of the data fall within three standard deviations of the mean. Have you ever seen or heard of the Mae West curve?Attachment 23174
Dealing with radiation, as I have for 32+ years, I know quite a bit about statistics. All statistics have their own parameters, unique to the subject, and as long as there is some deviation in the data, there will always be highs and lows. You have admitted this, and statistically, it counters your claim. Your quoted blurb is irrelevant to the topic, and is an obvious attempt at a smoke screen, since you have no statistics to support your position. The fact remains, that when there is deviation in the data, you cannot use only the average to determine an individual result. So, my statement stands unblemished:

Since you cannot expect every mission to be "average", your claim that Apollo 11's exposure should have been at least as high as the average from the document is unfounded.

3. Join Date
Nov 2010
Posts
56
TimFinch, as an example of the statistical absurdity in your claim, the 2017 average number of people per family in the United States was 3.14. Yet NOWHERE will you find a family with EXACTLY 3.14 people in it. Also, statistically speaking, you cannot claim that every family should have at least 3.14 people in it. Your logical failure is indeed on full display here.

Since you cannot expect every mission to be "average", your claim that Apollo 11's exposure should have been at least as high as the average from the document is unfounded.

4. I guess in timfinch's world, everyone has exactly 100 IQ, no more, no less?

5. Member
Join Date
Oct 2012
Posts
31
Originally Posted by TimFinch
That is what an average is. What are you insinuating? Is it that you believe averages are unreliable methods of predicting probabilities?
I am insinuating

a) That you do not understand how averages work and what assumptions have to be satisfied in order for them to be applied appropriately and

b) You do not know whether your assumption's have been met.

Before you ask, I taught statistics at undergraduate level, so yeah - I know more about it than you?

6. Originally Posted by TimFinch
So what you should take away from this is you have a 68% chance that you will be within one standard deviation of the average. The average is a magnitude higher than the median on the CraTer data.
1. Please justify why you think solar cycle 24 data can be applied to solar cycle 20.
2. Please justify why you think an average of 22mgcy in solar cycle 24 can be assumed to be the minimum in solar cycle 20.

7. Originally Posted by TimFinch
The problem, sticking with the analogy, is you claim to have driven your stock chevy truck 3000 miles on a gallon of gas. There are many ways you could have gotten 3000 miles away but driving a chevy truck on a gallon of gas is not one of them. You cite the fact that you are 3000 miles as proof but it would require more than you being 3000 miles away to be adequate proof. Even you being there with the truck is not proof. You could have loaded the chevy onto a trailer and had it towed 3000 miles.
So following this analogy, the astronauts went to the Moon, but used non-disclosed technology to deal with the radiation. Got it. Astronauts went to the Moon.

It is not that the radiation is impassable. I contend you cannot do it a .22 mgy/day.
Incomplete sentence is incomplete so it still not clear what the problem is. The radiation is not impassable.

8. Join Date
Apr 2018
Location
UK
Posts
9
So to read this straight, what Tim is implying that NASA faked the Moon Landings but used true radiation data which would make the Moon landings impossible, but only today with his sharp insight has this been discovered? One further question, has Tim finally realised that a 2 dimensional straight line cannot be transposed directly in 3 dimensional space? Or is he still insisting that Apollo and Orion followed the same path through the VAB's?

9. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2015
Location
Houston
Posts
1,741
Originally Posted by bknight
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.
In case the moment has slipped your attention, I will ask you again. Now again I ask you to provide calculations that prove this assertion, that the VARB constituted a largest portion of the radiation that the Apollo crews received.

10. Originally Posted by TimFinch
It is a reflection of the determination to prevail against the naysayers who despite evidence to the contrary hold rigid to a position not based on research and study but rely on the fact that they saw it on TV so it must be real.
Or because they are an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist, actually work in the space industry, have the knowledge, and have researched things and make a well-founded conclusion that there is no hoax. Those people exist. Even on this board. People who have worked on space missions, manhandled space shuttles, calculated rocket performance and so on. It's not you against people who saw something on TV. It's not even you against the people I just described. It's not you against anything or anyone. It's the facts. The correct, worked-out facts. That's why people ask for calculations. In the end it doesn't matter what anyone knows or claims, it's just the facts. And until you show a correct calculation on the radiation levels, your claim is not a fact.

11. Join Date
Apr 2018
Location
UK
Posts
9
Originally Posted by bknight
In case the moment has slipped your attention, I will ask you again. Now again I ask you to provide calculations that prove this assertion, that the VARB constituted a largest portion of the radiation that the Apollo crews received.
Indeed, the VARB's are the easiest to guard against being particle in nature, indeed extra radiation shielding would have made the problem even worse due to the effects of Bremsstrahlung radiation something Tim should be aware of regarding his background.

12. Join Date
Apr 2018
Posts
2
Hi everyone. I also followed Tim here from ApolloHoax, though my account there hasn't yet been activated.

The resounding exclamation point to the multitude of Tim's failures to understand all that's involved was provided near the end of the thread on that site.

He cites this NASA paper to support his claim that the minimum GCR dose per day is .24 mGy/day. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

Moving right past the issue that "average" and "minimum" mean two entirely different things, and that more information is required to convert rem to Gy, the average in the paper is derived from the Apollo dosimeters themselves.

Do you understand Tim, that you are attempting to prove the Apollo radiation data is false by using the Apollo radiation data? More than your inability to understand graphs, mathematical terms, or the complexities of radiation, this attempt to disprove a data set based on the truth of that very data set demonstrates Gillian's point that YOU are the problem you are seeing in the numbers. You are absolutely correct that something is wrong. Your comprehension is that something however, not any of the actual facts of the Apollo missions.

Either that or, as has been suggested, you are a dedicated troll who enjoys this kind of attention. If you're just a troll, then congratulations. You've managed to waste a whole bunch of people's time in some quiet corners of the internet where people enjoy talking about their interests. I'm not sure what the value is in that, but some people juggle geese I guess.

13. Originally Posted by Apollo Enthusiast
Either that or, as has been suggested, you are a dedicated troll who enjoys this kind of attention.
Welcome to our new members from ApolloHoax. If you haven’t already done so, please read our rules, linked in my signature line below. Primary among them is to be polite and the quoted statement falls well short there. Also, please confine the argument to claims made here and leave what ‘happened Vegas’, in Las Vegas.

14. Newbie
Join Date
Apr 2018
Location
Denmark
Posts
2
Tim, why are YOU smarter than everybody else? Why are YOU the only one who has discovered this? Why is it impossible that YOU are wrong?

15. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Shaula
You were asked if you could provide evidence that the dosages followed a normal/Gaussian distribution. As you have not provided it you cannot then use the conversion from SD to probability that is only valid for normal distributions. Unless you have this evidence but have chosen not to present it you've made a very common error in basic statistics - unfounded assumptions of normalcy.

Edit to add: you may also be mixing median and or mode with mean, for many data sets mean is a terrible way to estimate the probability of a given observation.
An unfounded assumption of normalcy? To not do so would be criminal. If you have such proof of a deviation from normalcy then provide it and end this discussion about standard deviations from the mean and not the median.

16. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Bryanpoprobson
Indeed, the VARB's are the easiest to guard against being particle in nature, indeed extra radiation shielding would have made the problem even worse due to the effects of Bremsstrahlung radiation something Tim should be aware of regarding his background.
If that were the case the ISS and the Space shuttle would not have to turn off equipment and seek additional shielding when passing through the comparatively low flux of the SAA. I am sure you are aware that where the Apollo relied on the superstructure for radiation shielding both the ISS and Space Shuttle had dedicated radiation shielding. I am sure you are aware that their shielding was not capable of halting radiation only attenuating it. Imagine what would happen should the ISS move into the center of the proton flux region.

17. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Nicolas
Or because they are an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist, actually work in the space industry, have the knowledge, and have researched things and make a well-founded conclusion that there is no hoax. Those people exist. Even on this board. People who have worked on space missions, manhandled space shuttles, calculated rocket performance and so on. It's not you against people who saw something on TV. It's not even you against the people I just described. It's not you against anything or anyone. It's the facts. The correct, worked-out facts. That's why people ask for calculations. In the end it doesn't matter what anyone knows or claims, it's just the facts. And until you show a correct calculation on the radiation levels, your claim is not a fact.
Why re-invent the wagon wheel? I am not an astrophysicist but the author of this paper is and he provides all the necessary calculations to satisfy the that insatiable need for math. Take a oment to review his work and then come to the dark side, Luke. https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Mars_Missions

18. This is a bit of a futile exercise, but given that Tim Finch seems to want to use Apollo data to try to disprove the Apollo flights took place, here goes.

We can use the paper already cited by Tim Finch, NASA Technical Note D-7080. Cosmic ray dose rates in cislunar space and on the lunar surface are quoted as “1.0 mr/hr” and “0.6 mr/hr” respectively. The abbreviated unit is non-standard, but we can be certain that it represents mrad, rather than mrem, because:
a) The word “dose” is used, rather than “equivalent dose”
b) Rads are elsewhere used throughout the text of the report
c) The abbreviation was given in full when this report was incorporated into the publication SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo

This is handy, because we can now compare data directly, without mixing doses with equivalent doses.

As has already been pointed out on another thread, NASA Technical Report 2002/210777 informs us that:
For the deep-space Apollo missions, the GCR dominated organ doses with a small contribution from passage through the trapped belts.
So those figures for cosmic rays of 1.0 mrad/hr in cislunar space and 0.6 mrad/hr on the lunar surface give us the major dose received by Apollo astronauts. As has been previously stated, the lunar surface dose rate is approximately half of the cislunar dose rate because of the shadowing effect of the moon. This effect is still present in Low Lunar Orbit, albeit to a slightly lesser extent (the moon spans 140 degrees rather than 180 degrees from Apollo’s altitude of 110km). So 0.6 mrad/hr is also a reasonable estimate for LLO radiation exposure within the Command Module, as well as surface exposure in the LM and during EVA.

Although Apollo 11 spent only a short time in LEO, we can use Figure 2 of TN D-7080 to give us a ball-park figure for the dose rate in Apollo’s inclined orbit. Call it 10 mrad/dy, or ~0.4mrad/hr, which errs on the side of an overestimate.

And we need a figure for passage through the Van Allen belts. I’ll use Braeunig’s figure, which has already been quoted on this thread - 16 mrad, from the relatively small number of high-energy protons unscreened by the CM capsule wall. That needs to be laid on top of our other dose rates.

Now, checking NASA’s Apollo 11 Timeline, I get the following figures for Apollo 11’s trajectory:

(Cislunar dose is going to be a slight over-estimate, since there will be significant shadowing at both ends of the trajectory.)

Total estimated Apollo 11 mission dose = 1+73+35.7+59.5+16 = 185.2 mrad, or 0.185 rad.

Compare that to Table 1 in TN D-7080:

So that all looks pretty much on the nose.

Grant Hutchison
Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-Apr-25 at 03:27 PM.

19. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by bknight
In case the moment has slipped your attention, I will ask you again. Now again I ask you to provide calculations that prove this assertion, that the VARB constituted a largest portion of the radiation that the Apollo crews received.
It did not slip my attention. There are no calculations. There are AE8 AP8 and the more recent AE9 and AP9 Van Allen Flux Maps that clearly show the Flux in the VAB is orders of magnitude above cislunar space. Here is an equation for that VAB Flux = orders of magnitude * Cislunar space flux.

20. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
1. Please justify why you think solar cycle 24 data can be applied to solar cycle 20.
2. Please justify why you think an average of 22mgcy in solar cycle 24 can be assumed to be the minimum in solar cycle 20.
There can be parallels drawn from data observation across the cycles. relationships and trends can be identified. It is not necessary to generalize when specific data is available. Nasa has stated during solar cycle 20 the GCR background radiation was 1 mrem/hr. Mrem is a biological equivalent. I need no more to validate the hoax.

21. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Glom
So following this analogy, the astronauts went to the Moon, but used non-disclosed technology to deal with the radiation. Got it. Astronauts went to the Moon.

Incomplete sentence is incomplete so it still not clear what the problem is. The radiation is not impassable.
The problem is the numbers do not add up. If background radiation is higher than mission dose how can a VAB transit and a lunar landing have occurred. How is the discrepancy in dose explained? That is the problem.

22. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
This is a bit of a futile exercise, but given that Tim Finch seems to want to use Apollo data to try to disprove the Apollo flights took place, here goes.

We can use the paper already cited by Tim Finch, NASA Technical Note D-7080. Cosmic ray dose rates in cislunar space and on the lunar surface are quoted as “1.0 mr/hr” and “0.6 mr/hr” respectively. The abbreviated unit is non-standard, but we can be certain that it represents mrad, rather than mrem, because:
a) The word “dose” is used, rather than “equivalent dose”
b) Rads are elsewhere used throughout the text of the report
c) The abbreviation was given in full when this report was incorporated into the publication SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo

This is handy, because we can now compare data directly, without mixing doses with equivalent doses.

As has already been pointed out on another thread, NASA Technical Report 2002/210777 informs us that:

So those figures for cosmic rays of 1.0 mrad/hr in cislunar space and 0.6 mrad/hr on the lunar surface give us the major dose received by Apollo astronauts. As has been previously stated, the lunar surface dose rate is approximately half of the cislunar dose rate because of the shadowing effect of the moon. This effect is still present in Low Lunar Orbit, albeit to a slightly lesser extent (the moon spans 140 degrees rather than 180 degrees from Apollo’s altitude of 110km). So 0.6 mrad/hr is also a reasonable estimate for LLO radiation exposure within the Command Module, as well as surface exposure in the LM and during EVA.

Although Apollo 11 spent only a short time in LEO, we can use Figure 2 of TN D-7080 to give us a ball-park figure for the dose rate in Apollo’s inclined orbit. Call it 10 mrad/dy, or ~0.4mrad/hr, which errs on the side of an overestimate.

And we need a figure for passage through the Van Allen belts. I’ll use Braeunig’s figure, which has already been quoted on this thread - 16 mrad, from the relatively small number of high-energy protons unscreened by the CM capsule wall. That needs to be laid on top of our other dose rates.

Now, checking NASA’s Apollo 11 Timeline, I get the following figures for Apollo 11’s trajectory:

(Cislunar dose is going to be a slight over-estimate, since there will be significant shadowing at both ends of the trajectory.)

Total estimated Apollo 11 mission dose = 1+73+35.7+59.5+16 = 185.2 mrad, or 0.185 rad.

Compare that to Table 1 in TN D-7080:

So that all looks pretty much on the nose.

Grant Hutchison
Grant how can you explain that 2/3rds of the ISS radiation is from the SAA and that it is so intense that the crew has to remain in shielded areas with far greater shielding than the Apollo during these passages. How can you explain away the fact that the SAA is at 5 magnitudes less than the areas of transited by Apollo 11. The ISS crew would not make that transit. They could not withstand an increase in elevation of 100 miles let alone the 3700 miles necessary to transit the VAB.

23. Originally Posted by TimFinch
Grant how can you explain that 2/3rds of the ISS radiation is from the SAA and that it is so intense that the crew has to remain in shielded areas with far greater shielding than the Apollo during these passages. How can you explain away the fact that the SAA is at 5 magnitudes less than the areas of transited by Apollo 11. The ISS crew would not make that transit. They could not withstand an increase in elevation of 100 miles let alone the 3700 miles necessary to transit the VAB.
1) The ISS is in a high inclination orbit (~50 degrees) and so samples the SAA pretty much directly.
2) The ISS crew are making repeated passes through the SAA over a mission duration of 6 months; Apollo made two quick passes through the VAB.

You're confusing flux with dose - you can pass quickly through a high flux region and receive a low dose (Apollo); you can spend a long time in a low flux region and receive a high dose (ISS). Since there are constraints on dose, not flux, the ISS crew need to take greater precautions.
This is why people are asking you for dose calculations, and won't accept your handwaving arguments from flux, and keep telling you that you're completely missing the point.

Grant Hutchison

24. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer. If the shielding of the Apollo craft was adequate to transit the VAB why is it not adequate to transit the SAA which is orders of magnitude less than the VAB. Use caluculations, illustrations, expert testimony or whatever resources are at hand. This could help me come to terms with my inability to understand your reticence.

25. Can you post (again, in case I missed it) your source for SAA radiation and the ISS's path+actions in there?

26. Originally Posted by TimFinch
It is a simple question deserving only a simple answer. If the shielding of the Apollo craft was adequate to transit the VAB why is it not adequate to transit the SAA which is orders of magnitude less than the VAB. Use caluculations, illustrations, expert testimony or whatever resources are at hand. This could help me come to terms with my inability to understand your reticence.
Why can I pass my finger through a candle's 200°C flame without being burned, but can't I remain under 50°C water for 5 minutes without getting burns?

27. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by grant hutchison
1) The ISS is in a high inclination orbit (~50 degrees) and so samples the SAA pretty much directly.
2) The ISS crew are making repeated passes through the SAA over a mission duration of 6 months; Apollo made two quick passes through the VAB.

You're confusing flux with dose - you can pass quickly through a high flux region and receive a low dose (Apollo); you can spend a long time in a low flux region and receive a high dose (ISS). Since there are constraints on dose, not flux, the ISS crew need to take greater precautions.
This is why people are asking you for dose calculations, and won't accept your handwaving arguments from flux, and keep telling you that you're completely missing the point.

Grant Hutchison
Dose is a function of flux * time. The ISS spends 15% of it's time in the SAA, during this time the crew is shielded by additional shielded compartments. These shielded compartments are much more advanced than anything found on the Apollo and even they are incapable of attenuating the SAA radiation by 50%. 50% of 10^1 flux is insignificant compared to 10^6 to 10^8 flux. The math binds and constrains you.

28. Join Date
Apr 2018
Posts
2
Originally Posted by TimFinch
Nasa has stated during solar cycle 20 the GCR background radiation was 1 mrem/hr. Mrem is a biological equivalent. I need no more to validate the hoax.
Once again Tim, that 1 mrem/hr that you quote is the result of adding up the mission doses of Apollos 7-15 and dividing by the total hours of those missions. You are trying to use the very data that you are questioning to support your question. You are literally telling us that Apollo 11's .22 mGy/day is impossible because it is lower than the average daily dose of Apollos 7-15. Do you understand why that doesn't work?

29. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Nicolas
Can you post (again, in case I missed it) your source for SAA radiation and the ISS's path+actions in there?
This illustration should answer any and all of your questions in regard to this matter.

30. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2017
Posts
447
Originally Posted by Nicolas
Why can I pass my finger through a candle's 200°C flame without being burned, but can't I remain under 50°C water for 5 minutes without getting burns?
Time?

#### Posting Permissions

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