CR

Thanks for finally producing some figures.

Others have (correctly IMO) pointed out that Apollo 7's orbit would indeed have take it through the SAA several times each day: do you retract your claim that it didn't? If so, how does that affect the rest of your claim?

Also, you state that the difference between the rates of exposure between Apollo 7 and Apollo 11 is miniscule, yet according to your own figures, the exposure rate for Apollo 11 is 50% higher than the rate for Apollo 7. Are you characterising a 50% increase as miniscule, or did you make a simple maths error? Is it impossible that a 50% increase in exposure rate could be accounted for by passage through the VA belts, several days in cislunar space, and a few hours on the lunar surface (given that Apollo 7 would have passed through the SAA several times each day?) If so, please state why, and prove why the increase in exposure rate from Apollo 7 to Apollo 11 must be greater than 50%. (From your own source, Apollo 7 altitude was between 227 and 282 km, and the SAA dips as low as 200km, and the orbital inclination of Apollo 7 clearly overlaps the SAA).

Thanks in advance.

PS If you are successful in your quest, and prove that there is a discrepancy in the measured dose values that can only be accounted for by faking the dosimeter readings, is it your assertion that this proves the Apollo missions to the moon never happened? If so, why do you eliminate the possibility that the dose was significantly higher (but not immediately life-threatening), and the figures were massaged for other reasons: for example, to ensure future missions weren't compromised by safety considerations?

Thanks again.

I think he made it very clear that he didn't even understand his own data (when he finally got around to providing it in his last post). He claimed that Apollo 7 didn't go through the Southern Magnetig anomaly and it clearly did. He went on for pages before that about how lunar missions should have greater radiation measured than LEO missions (without actually providing the data to show his point that they didn't) and when he finally did provide the data in his last post he even admitted that Apollo 11 had 21% more radiation than Apollo 7(although it is really a 50% increase in rate of exposure). His only excuse then was that it wasn't "higher enough" without actually quantifying why it should be higher. The rest of his last post seems to be a big whine-fest. Interesting flameout. It is obvious that he didn't ever have any intention of actually discussing anything. He wanted to be banned from the moment he arrived. What kind of twisted badge of honor is that?

I applaud all those who dealt with him for their restraint and extreme patience. His constant refusal to answer question must have been extremely frustrating.

What about the idea that he was IDW? What was the result of that? Another thought I had was he seemed similar to DavidC/Rocky (although much more stable so probably unlikely).

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

This is terribly awkward, and it is most surprising that I happen to be the
person to whom the message was conveyed, but before CR was banned,
I received the following PM from him. I was waiting to see whether he
would change his mind and post something himself, but I think I had best
post this now:

Private Message: You.re right
Today, 06:22 AM
CONSPIRACY REALIST
Established Member Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 202

You.re right

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I still don't understand the link to the public affairs office.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

CR,

This is just my personal take on how the responsibility for answering
questions works:

In the Conspiracy Theories forum, any assertion that anyone makes
can be brought into question. It makes no difference whether the
assertion is made by the person who started the thread or someone
else. It makes no difference which side of the argument the assertion
was made on.

You did not start this thread, but you made the assertions which
started the thread, and you made assertions in the thread once it
had been started by a moderator. That is what made you responsible
for answering pertinant questions.

Calling this thread "yours" is completely reasonable, since it is your
assertions which the thread started with and your assertions which
were being discussed. But whether the thread was yours or not has
absolutely no influence on whether you were responsible for answering
pertinant questions. That responsibility was the result purely of the
assertions that you made.

I don't know whether telling you this will do you any good, but I have
never in my life seen an adult whine as much as you did here. Not on
any discussion forum and not in face-to-face relations. I have seen
and heard children whine more than you did, but not an adult.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Typical conspiracy theorist. Concede an undeniable error but insist it makes no difference. How can the amount of time spent in the anomaly be statistically insignificant? It's passing through it at the same rate as it passes over everything else, therefore proportionally it is spending as much time in the anomaly as the proportion of its path covered by the anomaly. The image he provided shows that is far from insignificant.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

So the South Atlantic anomaly in the magnetosphere is a non issue with Apollo 7, it didn't come anywhere close to it...

It did; several times a day. Others have pointed out that you simply don't understand ground tracks and many other basic principles of orbital mechanics.

The Southern Atlantic Anomaly stays over the South Atlantic. That's how it got its name. The spacecraft ground track, however, shifts relentlessly westward each time the spacecraft completes an orbit. It will carry the spacecraft through the SAA a number of times each day.

The differences are miniscule, in fact the rates of exposure themselves are miniscule...

On the contrary, they are substantial. As I told you, exposure rate varies, and this sinks the "logic" of your attempt to prove Apollo 11 was really only in Earth orbit by the lack of a simple increase in exposure over some imaginary baseline. As I promised, the difference between a big number integrated over a short time and a small number integrated over a long time can indeed turn out to be similar.

My only intent in posting this free resource is to illustrate that no shielding used in the Apollo spacecraft could have been 100% effective or even near so in attenuating the protons of the energy levels in question...

But what your diagram clearly shows, and what is painfully obvious to astrophysicists and engineers, and what you don't seem to realize, is that high-energy protons occur at orders of magnitude less flux than the lower-energy particles against which shielding is effective. A clearer depiction of the relationship between flux and energy is given in the publication I cited earlier.

No spacecraft is radiation-proof. No one but you claims that the spacecraft was "100% effective" at shielding against radiation. You simply don't understand the nuances of the properties that apply to your data, nor the principle of effective attenuation.

And despite all your handwaving, effective shielding is employed every day for spacecraft operating in the magnetosphere.

While accurate calculations cannot be made illustrating the exposure levels of the EVA astronauts when exposed to the radioactive elements of the lunar surface because of the total lack of qualitative data describing the effectiveness of the space suits in attenuating the radiation present on the lunar surface[again, no such test data exists] , it can be ASSUMED without doubt that this would add considerably to the total dosimeter readings...

No, you're just begging the question.

You referred to a paper describing the presence of radioisotopic materials in the lunar surface. That paper did not include any measurement or estimate of the biological effects of that radioactivity. And you evaded the request to provide it. You most certainly do not get to assume that the associated dose is biologically significant.

Domestic smoke detectors use unshielded radioisotopes to detect the presence of a solid aerosol. These do not materially affect us because their contribution to our household radiological environment is small. Hence you cannot simply point to the presence of a radioisotope and pretend that proves a hazard.

I cannot be criticized for not being able to do the impossible, not unless the purpose is to obfuscate and discredit me personally...

You only claim it is impossible because you do not know how to do it.

I have been banned for refusing to complicate the issue and open myself up to all sorts of debunking tactics...

You have been banned for refusing to consider all the factors that apply to your case. If you plan to contradict the accepted understanding of the world's scientific community, you have to come up with something better than amateur handwaving oversimplifications.

We have NO data from NASA quantifying the effectiveness of the radiation shielding of the spacecraft or the spacesuits when subjected to testing. We have NO data describing in detail the radiation levels the astronauts were exposed to in space (ie detailed space weather analysis or external sensor readings) ... Where is it? Jay?

I gave you a reference for it and reminded you twice that I had done so. You simply declined to read it, because then you would have to incorporate its findings into your claims. It's far easier to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the data doesn't exist, so you have an excuse for not further revealing your incompetence in this type of science.

I again request ... a formal apology form Phil Plait and Jay Wesley...

You can't even get my name right. Unfortunately your obsession with me personally is not sufficient grounds for "punitive action." Obviously I will not apologize to you.

This forum IS NOT how real scientific debate is engaged in...

But you are not a scientist, so your judgment is not especially informed on this point. In fact, you complained against the many-against-one approach; but that is exactly how scientific debate occurs. You repeatedly demanded that your opponents be hobbled so you could make your point.

You demanded that only one person be allowed to respond to you, so that criticism against you would be limited to only one person's knowledge.

You implied that only oversimplified arguments ought to be allowed so that you would not be exposed to "debunking tactics."

You complained incessantly about how unfair the rules are to you. But these are merely transparent efforts to manipulate the rules in your favor and to absolve you from the responsibility to provide actual data, informed analysis, and sound logic.

I will lodge a formal complaint with NASA's administrators regarding the conduct of NASA proponents on Phil Plait's forum.

Good luck with that.

I never claimed it was possible to make calculations in the absence of data, ON THE CONTRARY, nor that I could accurately quantify my conclusions using precise calculations.. Jay, on the other hand said it was possible, and yet refused to do so...

No. I pointed out the natural difference between analytical estimation and empirical measurement. You wrongly took that to mean I argued that estimation was useless, contradicting what I had actually said in the same post.

You had previously argued for an analytical estimate. You backpedalled away from it only when you realized you would be on the hook to provided, and you didn't know how. I described all the tools you would need in order to make that estimate. But you don't know how to solve the problem, so you just pretended that no one could solve it and then tried to reverse your position that such an estimate was essential to your case.

Casual readers here not familiar with the situation will believe it is I who initiated the thread and therefor it is my responsibility to answer any and all questions...

You said you could prove the Moon landings were faked. You were invited to do so, and you have failed. It's that simple.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I would say that is close, but not exactly correct.

When people start making ATM or CT claims in non-ATM/CT parts of the forum, the moderators will either tell them to stop and/or will assume they are asserting those claims and move them either into ATM or CT as appropriate.

Once moved to ATM/CT, the asserter of those ATM/CT claims must follow the rules and defend those claims. But not every asserter of any claim is required to defend them; asserters of the mainstream position are not (though they often do present evidence to defend them).

Now, there is an out for an ATM/CT claimant whose posts are involuntarily moved into a thread they didn't start - they can just say they do not wish to continue the debate under those rules. At that point, the thread will be closed and the are under no obligation to defend it further. CR had that option.

Frankly, none of that was CR's problem. CR had plenty of time to either defend their position or retract it. Instead they choose to play word games, to argue the process rather than the substance, to be blatantly rude.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

It is funny that that "argument" is so often brought up. Obviously, the people who make it have never been at a dissertation defense, or presented a paper at a conference.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

We've all seen that before. Somehow an HB thinks that since they didn't "start" the thread, that they are somehow "immune" from answering questions related to their own assertions.

Makes no sense to me at all...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I've always found it odd that they're not appreciative of having the flaws in their argument pointed out. After all, if they truly believe what they're asserting, having the holes pointed out should be seen as a great opportunity to solidify their case and make it airtight.

There is a website devoted to the misspelling of this one word:

http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

And in fact that may be too lenient.

CR said there was no study of the radiation environment for Apollo, nor the capability of the Apollo spacecraft to survive it. Asserting a negative is, naturally, problematic. But it would be akin to saying, "I'm aware of no study that was done."

Then I come along and say, "But of course there was study." Questions about where one may find that study, how reliable or applicable it is, and so forth would (in my opinion) be fair game. Even if they are not a conspiracy claim and even if it espouses the mainstream view, it is something whose proponent ought to be held accountable to provide and discuss.

And I did in that case. CR simply ignored the document and continued to assert that nothing had been provided.

Or been subject to a design review, a theatrical audition, or presented in any public forum on any topic. A rigorous examination of one's ideas by all comers is simply how life works.

CR's insistence on having only one spokesman address his claims is what tipped me off to the notion that he was Interdimensional Warrior returning for another chance.

It's not odd when you realize that fringe theorists want only the semblance of rigor. They want a process that seems rigorous at cursory glance, but which ultimately fails to test anything meaningful. They are enamored with the idea. They want the idea to prevail, even if that means sneaking it past a meaningless "review."

When I stand before my peers and present an engineering design, I really do want the kind of feedback you advocate. I can't think of everything, and I want several eyes and brains on the project to help me find anything that's going to come back later to bite me in the [anatomy]. Engineers have an overriding need to be right; not just to seem right, but actually to have nailed the underlying phenomena.

When I stand in front of the audition table, it's still a many-on-one proposition: at my theater you have the executive producer, the producer, the dramatic director, the music director, the choreographer, (and for some shows, the fight/stunt coordinator). The goal is still the same: a rigorous test of suitability. But in that case I selfishly want the rules skewed in my favor. The music director is a long time friend of mine, and I be sure he knows I expect him to put in a good word. In addition to giving my best performance, I work the room.

What's the difference? A theatrical audition comes down in all cases to subjective judgment. While there are clearly talented and clearly untalented applications for all posts, the decision between roughly equally qualified applicants comes down to subtle differences in subjective opinion. There is no one universal right or wrong actor to cast in any particular role. Hence it's not inappropriate to sell oneself on the basis of out-of-band data.

But in the world of science and engineering there are right and wrong answers. And if you don't discover them, disaster awaits you. In order to discover them it requires the concentration of the best minds available to attempt to kick as many holes in the proposal as there are. Only after a scientific idea has passed a fairly blistering crucible of well-founded efforts to prove it wrong can it be accepted as our best understanding of what the right answer should be.

Sadly I'm seeing an alarming trend in some forms of engineering to eliminate the design review as unnecessarily emotionally distressing. This is wrong, because it shows not that design reviews are bad but that individual engineers are becoming too emotionally entrenched in their designs. One criticizes a design hypothesis, not its proponent. A skilled engineer cannot afford to take his design personally, even if he may be justifiably proud of his accomplishment. A proper design review is not ad hominem, although it may be highly critical of the idea.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, why should the issue be simple? We argue in other places about how teachers and the media oversimplify things. We know they do. Everyone will tell you about errors someone has made in their field by people who were just trying to make it simple. But you know, this strikes me as even more complicated than most of the things we complain about. Obviously, I don't know that, because I don't understand the math. But why on Earth should the exploration of a complicated issue be simple? And isn't someone trying to keep it simple just making themselves more likely to be wrong?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I am still confused about who it is that is making the claim that the shielding is 100% effective. The quote that you introduced earlier doesn't make this claim. Can you provide a relevant quote and source for this claim? If not, then it looks like a strawman argument by which you mis-represent the position of your opponent.

So the South Atlantic anomaly in the magnetosphere is a non issue with Apollo 7, it didn't come anywhere close to it, as evidenced by the orbital inclination to the equator and the splashdown point. What this means is the Apollo 7 mission remained entirely under the protective influence of the Earths magnetosphere for the entire duration of the mission. ... since A-7 never left the influence of the magnetosphere nor traversed the SAA.

Pretty silly claim for someone who bragged about his extensive studies of Apollo. Others have already pointed out CR's fundamental error of understanding, but attached is an illustrative ground track for a Shuttle mission (STS-72), with a slightly lower inclination. Right through the SAA, repeatedly.

If action is not taken I will lodge a formal complaint with NASA's administrators regarding the conduct of NASA proponents on Phil Plait's forum..

Good luck with that. I once had the opportunity to work briefly with (then Col.) Charlie Bolden. I'm sure he'll jump right on the complaint rushed directly to his desk from a generic PAO contact...

Oh, well. CR never answered when I asked about his apparently identifying X-rays as particles. Now I'll never know. Dang.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I think there's a strand of HB's, probably the followers rather than the proponents who cling to conspiracies because they expect the world to work in a simply, orderly, 'common sense' fashion, without requiring 'elitist' knowledge to understand. When they encounter the Moon hoax it's presented in nice simple terms they can comprehend but the refutation is often complex and requires people to study and learn, thus they cling to conspiracy, and it doesn't hurt that in their minds it takes down all those 'elitist' scientists and engineers a peg or two.

I'm glad he's going to email Nasa HQ. They could do with a laugh what with all the negativity regarding Augustine, Ares, etc etc.

And it's those scientists and engineers who created their cellphones so the can text their "peeps" in class, watch satellite TV with all it's dubious content, and plaster themselves all over youtube and myspace.

Oh, and they got us to the Moon...

I'm alternately amazed and amused that there are people out there who, upon visiting this site, could think it is paid for by NASA or somehow officially associated with it.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I, for one, would very much like to be on the NASA payroll. I'm sure most of us would. I also am sure that I am totally unqualified and upon an interview they would throw me out on the street, laughing. Unless the needed a diesel fixed. Then I'm the man.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---