"Brad Guth" <ieis-brad@juno.com> wrote in message
news:9f50a7c5.0311181015.1d691f74@posting.google.com...
|
| First of all, the honest effort wasn't by any means a
| ruse nor a sting, though if it happened the way it was
| reported, the data returned was simply woefully
| insufficient...

For what purpose?  By whose standards?

| and, those thoroughly TBI astronauts didn't lose one hair...

Why should they have?  How have you computed their skin dosages?

| their moon boots were cm deep into the basalt soil and
| rock where secondary radiation (hard X-Rays) doesn't get any
| worse.

Any worse than what?  Why do you seem to believe that secondary radiation
induced by solar input in the lunar soil would have any biological effect on
the astronauts over a two- or three-day sojourn?  Give me a skin dose in
REM, tell me how you computed it, and then we'll talk.  Otherwise keep your
wild speculations to yourself.

| BTW: nearly 70,000 km worth of the Van Allen zone of death is
| reasonably difficult to circumvent, especially if your
| trajectory is lunar bound.

Qualified orbital mechanics specialists seem to disagree.  They apper to be
more creative and imaginative than you, as well as better versed in the
subjects of trajectories and of cislunar radiation.

| It's true that only about 25% of the Van Allen zone is worth
| avoiding like the plague...

Which 25%?  Is the flux constant there for some given harmful energy level?
Why do you constantly avoid questions such as these that look right into the
center of your argument?

| but that's still 1.5 hours worth of being where it's just
| about as nasty as such things get.

And exactly how "nasty" is it?  Keep in mind that I've read all the papers
you cite, so don't bother just reposting the links.  Show me how you
computed the dosages from the data in these papers.  Show me how you
determined that those computations are valid.  You have grossly erred in the
past while computing dosages, and so you cannot be trusted simply to have
somehow gotten it right.

| There's so much solar illuminated surface radiation (direct influx of
| solar as well as cosmic plus subsequently loads of secondary)

Secondary radiation is produced in response to the first two.  You have
provided no quantification for this particular effect.

Solar radiation is a problem only during an especially strong solar flare.
You have not shown that this was a problem for any Apollo missions.  You
have not provided any quantitative data for this particular effect.

Cosmic rays are the primary producer of secondary radiation, but their flux
on the lunar surface over three days is extremely low in biological terms.
Your attempt to show that the sun was a "cosmic" source of radiation, in
response to an explanation of these important distinctions, was quite
amusing.  You really do know very little about cislunar radiation.  And
don't bother asking me for "hard numbers" again.  We're all quite familiar
with that dodge.  Your understanding of radiation is so grossly out of whack
that it can't be "fixed" simply by changing the numbers that you employ.

| ...any notion for biological decontamination was a ruse, buying
| essential time in order to orchestrate the fact that we didn't have
| all the right stuff, at least not at that time.

That might explain the decontamination delay for Apollo 11, but it does not
explain the decontamination delays for Apollos 12 and 14.  Your explanation
fails to fit the facts.

Further, the decontamination delay for Apollo 11 was only 21 days.  This
suggests, according to your argument, that upon the crew's landing, the
lunar samples, photographs, etc., were not yet available.  But they were
available three weeks later.  Why not simply schedule the mission for three
weeks hence, or a month hence.  There was an August launch window.  If the
alleged hoaxers could have had all their ducks in a row by late August, then
the "ruse" of decontamination could have been eliminated.

Your thinking is typical of the conspiracy theorist.  You write roles for
the characters involved based on trying to reconcile the historical facts
with the theory.  So-and-so must have behaved in such-and-such a fashion in
order for your theory to unfold in such a way that explains the evidence.
But you never go back to see whether it was reasonable for so-and-so, in the
context of your theory, to have behaved in such a fashion.  You fail to see
whether so-and-so faced with that certain set of circumstances might have
more reasonably chosen another course of action that doesn't produce the
desired result.

| Actually our optics of today, digital stacking and all (including
| Hubble) can accumulate and thereby pull less than 1 meter raw
| resolution

Total crap.  Go read about the diffraction limits in optics.

| then photoshop upon all of that for another 10 fold
| improvement

More crap.  Explain how a graphics editing tool can put data into a
photograph that can't be there.  I see every day the products of largely
uneducated fools who believe that by running a few random filters in
Photoshop they have "enhanced" a photograph to reveal detail far below the
sampling resolution of the digital image.

-- 
                                          |
The universe is not required to conform   |  Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant.      |  webmaster @ clavius.org