Sounds like a mix of n'uh! and splitting hairs. What JayUtah meant when he wrote that was that the solar activity was not at maximum, or near it.

One can discuss radiation in the magnetosphere without bringing politics into the mix. It's numbers, proton and electron fluxes. None of the particles come with national flags.

For the fourth time conspiracy realist, it is your task to prove yourself.

CR, all it seems that you are interested in is fencing with everyone instead of just putting up your evidence. How about you start with that instead of trying to shift the burden of proof....again.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Dang you're vicious. It was a kind "welcome" message, not an insult as far as I can tell. Calm down. Deep breath. In... out...

Yes, but that is misleading. During the decline but during the solar max.

I'm not. The solar max occurs at the maximum point of the solar cycle. All the missions took place after this portion, the decline leading into the solar minimum. It is commonly reported by conspiracy theorists that Apollo occurred during the solar maximum. This is simply not true, and you may consult any number of observatories to verify this.

Further, the number of significant solar events that occurred during Apollo's operational period is a matter of international record. Can you provide any proof that any significant (i.e., life-threatening) solar events occurred during the Apollo missions?

So you don't? Describe the tragectory.

An inclined plane of sufficient eccentricity to avoid the denser portions of the belts. Are you aware that Dr. Van Allen helped to design the Apollo trajectories?

I seriously doubt that you do Jay. But I will give you a chance to prove it.

I'm an engineer. I've built and operated spacecraft within these regions of space. You don't even know what they're called. My reputation here is well established. You are the one claiming expertise without first having demonstrated it.

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

Radioactive isotopes on the moon's surface are hundreds of times more plentiful than the Earth because of bombarment from cosmic and solar radiation that is not mitgated by atmosphere or magnetic field.

Reference?

This is the biomedical results of apollo.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

I don't think I want to elaborate nay further, suffice it to say there is a considerable history between myself and this particular individual, and it is not all pleasant. The TOS here prevents me from going into details , but suffice it to say there have been extreme examples of misconduct on his part that violate not only the rules of civil debate , but the law as well.

Leading to what dosage rate for astronauts, in rems per hour?

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

Again, this post is argumentive and has no purpose but to incite. I think it's obvious that I know what the Van Allen belts are and what they're called, and that he knows that. This is simply more intellectual dishonesty intended to disconenct rations thinking and behavior. Nothing else he said reuires rebuttal.

No. You know little or nothing about how good argumentation works.

Analogous to a civil trial, you are the party making the complaint, so you
are the plaintiff. You have to make the case that the defendant did or
failed to do whatever you claim the defendant did or failed to do. Then
the defendant or the defendant's representatives can try to disprove
your case.

No, he did not imply that you are stupid. He implied that you are
surprisingly ignorant considering your claims of being knowledgeable
on the subject.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Again, this post is argumentive and has no purpose but to incite.

Then report it.

I think it's obvious that I know what the Van Allen belts are...

Not obvious at all. You don't seem to know anything about the work of the principal investigator of that scientific phenomenon. That's an egregious lack of knowledge. And you raised the issue of your knowledge as a premise to your argument. You will therefore be required to demonstrate that knowledge or concede the argument.

You brought up the subject of the Van Allen belts and implied that they were hazardous. Please explain how this relates to your claim that Apollo was faked.

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

How is it intellectual dishonesty? You are the one that keeps making claims that you know more about subjects then we do (which you may), but you haven't provided anything to that point.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

I thank you for posting this information, but I already have it. I am not a newbie on this subject. If you give me time, I will prove to you that the dosimeter readings are too low to have been real data, and I will convince you. Whether you admit ti or not is another thing. My experience is you will never give an inch, no matter how obvious it is that you are wrong.

Person A: "I know more than any of you."
Person B: "Yet you didn't know about X"
Person A: "You're calling me stupid and trying to incite me!"

As an intelligent question and see if I give an intelligent response. Already Jay and Nomuse are resorting to thinly concealed personal assaults.

I will give plenty, if your arguements come to some sort of logical conclusion. So far they have not. So if you really want to convince, quite sparring and get to the data.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Our arguments are based on facts, and a great quote in someone's signature says "facts are stubborn things."

Now if you're able to convince me that the dosimeter data was faked, then I'll gladly admit it. But you'll have to do more than tell us to prove it wasn't.

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.

So, do you have references for this? Something that would show the isotopes that would be produced, their amounts, and what significance this would have for astronauts?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

As[k] an intelligent question and see if I give an intelligent response.

Okay, I asked you regarding the lunar surface isotopes what dose rate that would impose upon an Apollo astronaut. You haven't answered.

Already Jay and Nomuse are resorting to thinly concealed personal assaults.

You've been instructed how to report personal attacks.

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

I've not seen Jay or Nomuse give any sort of attack. I think you're reading too much into these posts. And quite frankly, I think it stems from conspiracy-type paranoia. No one is making an attack against you, we're just refuting what little you've given to support yourself.

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.

Do none of you see that this conversation presents you with an unfair advantage?
I cannot be expected to respond to all of you at the same time and do so with solid answers, so lets just assign a representative from each side. Who do you want to represent your side?

You were instructed that you could pause the discussion to give yourself time to formulate a proper response.

How about you ask for the thread to be closed while your formulate your responses, then ask for it to be reopened when you have the answers available.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Do none of you see that this conversation presents you with an unfair advantage?

No. You elected to take on all us skeptics. You accepted the terms, therefore either carry on or resign.

...so lets just assign a representative from each side. Who do you want to represent your side?

No, it doesn't work like that. This is not just meaningless sparring. This is not you versus whatever one person you think you can lick. This is about whether you have a sufficient grasp of the actual facts.

You may request that the thread be locked while you prepare responses. But the ground rules require you to answer all questions.

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

Once again, you can post 'please wait' or something, and gather together your response. You are expected to answer the questions, not to answer them all at once. Seriously, tell us to hang on, and we'll wait for you to gather your information.

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.

If I can prove to you the dosimeter readings would have been exceeded before the spacecraft left the lower proton belt you still wouldn't admit it, but that is the case and I can do that.

Data please?

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

Instead of crowing about the strength of this proof, why not simply present it?

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

Please realise that despite completely obliterating the claims of the hoax believers, they continue to believe that it was faked.

There's no evidence to suggest that the Apollo believers would continue to believe in Apollo if anyone ever proved the moon landings to be faked, because as of yet, no one has done it.

Conspiracy Realist, would you like to be the first? It's going to take a lot more than sabre rattling. Actually present a case, show us evidence. If you are right, we'll say so. If not, we'll also say so, but don't just assume that we will never admit wrong just because you can't manage to defend your side.

I second that.

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.