In what follows, I preceed Bang Zoom's comments with: BZ; and mine with: PABLO:
BZ: Oh I missed this -- I respected you taking it on your own initiative to do more research and correct your critique of SELENE and what it actually shows, and doesn't, giving you a second chance to correct your errors for yourself, and in fact, you were talking about hours spent writing a lengthy Van Allen belt response. How disappointing.
PABLO: I clearly stated that I had meant to refer NOT to me further analyzing the SELENE stuff; but to the Popular Science article on the Apollo & the Van Allen Belts. YOU have no basis to be disappointed because my earlier analysis (of the SELENE pro-NASA arguments) and neither you, nor anybody else has refuted them. For the general reader: I was challenged to respond to a linked article which supposedly consisted of "independent" scientific analysis that supported the NASA claims for Apollo - I carefully reviewed ALL the claims; and debunked the first few - to which no one yet has responded - btw, this is called "moving the goal posts"; i.e., challenge after challenge is thrown at me; I respond carefully; no return response is given (much less admission that they were wrong); instead more challenges are thrown at me.
BZ: One problem with "the other side" stepping up and "debating" you, is the false implication and tacit admission that your lengthy posts with STYLE have yet presented any points worthy of debate. Simply getting a response that takes you seriously, is a victory. This was my reluctance from the start to even engage. You said that "reasonable doubt" clearly exists -- there is no agreement that any of the doubts raised to date are "reasonable".
PABLO: More moving of the goal posts by YOU. You (or someone on your side) claimed that style does not count. I countered that thoroughly; and now YOU want to pose things as if I'm more concerned with style than content. Regardless, I (and others) HAVE presented many points worthy of debate. You can claiim anything about me you care to; but that doesn't make it the truth. For me, getting people merely to respond is NOT a victory. A victory would be any progress (from either side) towards learning from each other and thru that, getting closer to the truth about Apollo. As to "reasonable doubt" - I claim there is, YOU claim there isn't. Yet, not counting AMERICANS, the vast majority of the people of the world DO have serious doubts about Apollo (as they typically have far more doubts about most positive claims made by the US Gov - THEY have FAR FEWER ILLUSIONS about the "inherent righteousness" of the American Gov - and they have EVERY REASON to have those doubts - the problem is NOT with them; it's with "us", the average American has been seriously lied-to during our/their lifetime - and most Americans are not close to realizing how big, and how prevalent, the lies that we've been told are.
BZ: For someone who values STYLE, and says he doesn't use RIDICULE, you show no such restraint, e.g. against Popular Science and NASA, -- RIDICULE is one of your main tools.
PABLO: Again YOU make a much bigger deal about "STYLE" than I ever intended. You-all claimed style counted for nothing; I countered that terribly wrong, one-sided thinking. Simultaneous with that, in no uncertain terms, I stated that almost always (but not always), style is much less important than content. (Heck, any trained investigator pays good attention to such as: facial expressions, where-the-eyes-are-looking, tone-of-voice, posture, etc WHILE paying attention to the words being said as well. The words are the content; the way those words are expressed and the acompaning gestures are style - both are important. I HAVE refrained virtually 100% of the time with posters from ridiculing what they say. BUT, you-all challenged me about the Popular Science article - that is an ORGANIZATION, not an individual - what they publish IN THEIR NAME, is fair game to one and all to criticize; and if, as was the case here, the article deserves being exposed as junk "science" - then to do less than that would be to do a disservice to the readers of this thread. ESPECIALLY, considering that Popular Science is generally held in such high regard - a kind of, "last word" on science as it were. In THAT particular article, the "science" was flawed, deeply and repeatedly flawed.
BZ: The main problem with your response regarding SELENE, is that you clearly didn't understand what SELENE corroborates. For example, you expect to see real photographs of the surface, with human artifacts, like the Rover. We can see it in your words, for example, when you admit you don't understand what reconstruction of a 3D landscape image could even mean. When you know the basics of the subject, there really can be no confusion, and yet you expressed complete confusion.
PABLO: No, as usual, you twist everything important I say. But, before I continue, I want to thank you for FINALLY actually responding to what I said about the SELENE article (you-all linked to and "insisted" I respond to). I did NOT "... expect to see real photographs of the surface, with human artificats, like the Rover." NO. What I expected was that the SELENE article would simply do what it was claimed it WOULD do: INDEPENDENTLY PROVE that NASA put men on the Moon. It did NOT do that in the least. A real photograph with REAL human-on-the-Moon artifacts would have been a SERIOUS thing to consider - but NONE was provided. Instead we were presented with what THEY called a "reconstruction"; AND without explaining what went into that "reconstruction". Therefore, ANY critical thinker would naturally question WHY they offer a "reconstruction" AS PROOF; when an actual PHOTO might settle the issue; and, again, what exactly went into producing that "reconstruction". Many people can and do use such as "Photo-shop" to change how images look - that SELENE "reconstructed" the image raises more doubts than answers doubts.
BZ: SELENE was a third party (Japan) satellite sent to map the surface of the moon (among other things). The Terrain Camera was not a traditional camera taking photographic images in the visible spectrum, but used larger wavelengths (0.43-0.85 micrometer), from an orbit of hundreds to thousands of km, above the moon. The resolution was comparatively low, about 10m per pixel, too low to capture a lunar rover in any detail, but suitable for mountains. The topographical image data was used to corroborate that the landscape in astronaut photos was amazingly accurate, strongly arguing against a staged lunar landscape in a studio. Getting that landscape right in "fake" astronaut photos, without landscape data would essentially be impossible, and much harder than taking real pictures. Reconstruction of the landscape from SELENE imaging data would be a simple mathematical transformation of the topographical image data, from the approximate perspective of the astronaut's camera.
PABLO: FINALLY, YOU address something CONCRETE; and actually make a (small) contribution to the discussion. Nonetheless, GIVEN EXACTLY what you posit here: "not a traditional camer" ... "from an orbit HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KM ABOVE THE MOON" ... "The resolution was comparatively LOW ... TOO LOW to capture a lunar rover in any detail ..." [emphasis: PABLO] HOW INTERESTING! This is supposed to be PROOF that NASA put men on the Moon - yet it provides NO PROOF - as an actual photograph of the Lunar Rover would be. Instead, the "proof" is a "reconstructed" image of mountains - which, AT BEST, would only "prove" that such mountains exist on the Moon and that SOMEHOW (not NECESSARILY due to HUMANS) photos of those mountains were taken previously. In addition, I am in no position to judge the ACCURACY of SELENE's claims - lies HAVE OFTEN been told by investigative teams (its SOP for capitalist companies to LIE atrociously about their products: cigarettes, hamburgers, car-safety ....)
BZ: This is the kind of homework you should do, BEFORE pasting a lengthy rebuttal, to avoid making the kinds of fundamental errors that litter your lengthy expressions of doubt. This is something I would expect from someone who has harbored doubts for nearly 50 years, and someone who claims they have done EXTENSIVE RESEARCH on the topic before posting.
PABLO: NO, "This is [NOT] the kind of homework [I] should [have] done. My ONLY ONUS, at most, given that it wasn't I who pushed for a critique from me of that group of articles, ... my only onus was to honesty critique those articles and present that fair critique in this thread. Which is EXACTLY what I did do. I established that the SELENE article (and others) did NOT present unequivocal PROOF that NASA landed men on the Moon back then. A reminder: I'm being hit with challenge after challenge - I don't necessarily have to respond to any of them; but I HAVE responded to ALL of them. It can not be expected of me (or of any other human being) that I be an expert on every subject to which I respond. It is only hoped that someone who critiques the work of others UNDERSTANDS ENOUGH of the subject matter to make a worthy critique. I maintain that I did exactly that: the SELENE (and other) article(s) are NOT (independent) PROOF of Apollo
BZ: What utterly failed is your lengthy "disproof", which has a STYLE, but is also liberally filled with WRONG CONTENT, and only really demonstrates that you didn't understand what SELENE was, or what it showed, when you attempted to disprove it. You built a SELENE straw man, which indeed did utterly fail.
PABLO: How many times will you unprincipledly resort to "STYLE" as if I, PABLO NOVI, was the one who initially raised it; as if I, PABLO NOVI, was the one who claimed that STYLE was unimportant. I only mentioned it because YOU INCORRECTLY claimed that STYLE is ALWAYS UNIMPORTANT. (Talk about moving the goal posts and pointing the finger at anybody except the guilty party, YOU!) Further, my "disproof" as you call it, is NOT filled with "WRONG CONTENT". It was not I who built any "SELENE straw man" - it was whoever posted the link to the article which included the SELENE stuff as if it were proof of Apollo. It was NOT proof; I built NO SELENE straw man. Again, the SELENE article CLAIMED to be proof; but utterly failed to actually PROVE its claim.
BZ: What about your lengthy 4 part rebuttal of Van Allen radiation? It seems that most of your arguments boil down to "You expect us to believe that?" The short answer is "Yes, why not?" Despite your lengthy rebuttals, that's still where we are. You've only managed to express doubt, without expressing any reasons that such doubts are valid. NASA thought radiation would be a problem, but once they gained more knowledge (i.e. from the failed tests) they found a workable solution, by selecting a trajectory that avoids the worst part (clearly visible in the diagram), and accepting the risk of radiation for the short durations of exposure involved.
PABLO:Again, it was not I, but YOU-ALL, who "insisted" that I respond to the Popular Science article on Apollo vis-a-vis the Van Allen Belts. I quoted them directly, repeatedly, where THEIR SCIENCE clearly stated that the radiation was HIGHLY DANGEROUS. (I didn't DISAGREE with them on this issue, even once.) (Btw, how many times are you going to repeat that my posts are long? As if that's some major crime? That's the best you can offer as a critique of my work? Come on dude/dudette - let's TRY to keep this a serious and principled debate, ok?) As to "... they [NASA] found a workable solution ..." I made TWO responses. First, was that IN THE POPULAR SCIENCE article there was NO PROOF that NASA had, indeed, found a workable solution. Second, that in that article there was NO MENTION AT ALL about the re-entry phase - almost inevitably they did NOT avoid passing thru the Belts then. As to my " ... arguments boil down to 'You expect us to believe that?" The short answer is, "Yes, why not?". Pablo's response is: It's been almost exactly 50 years since NASA started claiming that it did something unprecedented in all of history and never been repeated (or even approached) since then. Any HONEST, critical-thinker would NATURALLY QUESTION such an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM - expecting EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE - something that NASA has provided in the least.
BZ: The one key comment that should disqualify all four parts of the lengthy post, is your demonstration of misunderstanding that 3 sheets of aluminum foil would be insufficient to protect them from radiation. By now, you should know the difference between the COMMAND module and the LUNAR module (I gave you two pictures), and that the astronauts had much greater protection than the LUNAR module offers, because they were not in the Lunar Module when going through the Van Allen belts.
PABLO: You miss the more, much more, important points: a) the equivalent of 3 sheets of aluminum foil WOULD BE totally insufficient to protect the astronauts in the Lunar Module; and b) The Command Module was not coated in thick LEAD; and was therefore far from sufficient to protect the astronauts when they passed thru the Van Allen Belts (both sets of Belts and in both directions). This failure to address the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT POINTS, as is your SOP, disqualifies YOU from being considered as a contributor of WORTHY content in this thread. YOUR position is: WHATEVER NASA CLAIMED, MUST BE 100% THE TRUTH. YIKES!
BZ: You expect Popular Science to show data? It's correct to ask for DATA, but not from Popular Science. I noticed you took the words of Popular Science (and NASA) that radiation was a risk, WITHOUT DATA. But you don't take their words when they say, once they gathered more information, the danger was not a show-stopper for the mission.
PABLO: YOU try to play tricks with phrasing; but fail at it. I didn't write the Popular Science article; nor did I link to it. It was written by them (and therefore, subject to ALL the usual expectations of it being "SCIENTIFIC") and linked to by YOU-ALL. Of course, it's natural to accept the word of a government agency WHEN they expound on the DIFFICULT CHALLENGES they faced (they wouldn't tend to exaggerate them - seeing as it would raise even more doubts about them then subsequently overcoming them). BUT, OF COURSE, we should raise questions, INSIST ON THEIR DATA, for supposed "proofs" that they DID overcome such incredibly difficult challenges. Otherwise, it's not science at all, is it? For science to be really science, it has to pass strict peer-review processes - something this Popular "Science" article doesn't do. If YOU want to claim that it wasn't necessary for them to PROVE their claims; then why the bleep did you-all link to THAT article AND "insist" that I respond to it???
BZ: The data we need, to assess the DANGER, is INTENSITY of exposure, and DURATION of exposure, and what levels of INTENSITY and DURATION is damaging to humans. Comparing them to Nuclear Plant employees requires more data: FREQUENCY of EXPOSURES. For example, think of getting X-rays from a hospital -- the short number of exposures to X-rays may be negligible for patients, but not for hospital staff and doctors.
PABLO: This paragraph is "unworthy". We already KNOW about the need to ascertain: intensity & duration of exposure AND how much humans can safely handle. The question was and remains: Was the total radiation the Apollo astronauts exposed to SAFE OR NOT. Btw, your example of hospital x-rays is an argument for OUR SIDE, not yours. Isn't it the case, that patients get covered in lead-vests before/during x-rays? The Apollo astronauts were neither clothed in lead; nor was their ship protected with lead. Point, Set, Match.
BZ: What about "we need decades" to see long term damage? We have had decades.
PABLO: Interesting that it was I, not you-all, who even mentioned the need for decadal analysis to determine a lot of the potential damage. Have YOU seen any scientific studies about the long-term damage suffered by the Apollo astronauts? I haven't. But, again, it was not I who made the claims that they were safe. It was NASA & you-all its defenders. The burden of proof is on you-all, not on me. (Besides, IF NASA faked Apollo, they'd surely cover-up any and all significant negative indicators. Which is precisely why the world needs an INDEPENDENT-OF-THE-US-Gov INVESTIGATION of Apollo.
BZ: What about re-entry? Coming back down is much faster, and exposure to radiation is even shorter.
PABLO: Again, you play fast and lose. "... and exposure to radiation is even shorter." Yes and NO! Shorter? MAYBE (Wouldn't that depend on how much time they actually spent in EACH of the TWO Belts (plus in the left-over third belt produced and still lingering, by the US Gov atomic explosion(s) up there?) A "map" was provided that supposedly indicates that they took a short route thru the LOWER Belt; but I see nothing there that indicates either how much harm was nonetheless done in IT; and how much harm was done in the 2nd, higher, Belt. YOU don't even address what I've now repeatedly raised: that there's virtually no chance that their re-entry path took the path of least-exposure to the radiation in the Belts, particularly the Lower Belt). Given how critical and precarious was the re-entry ANGLE; there was no time nor way to then adjust it to avoid significant exposure. So, your " ... exposure to radiation is even shorter." is groundless - and, worse, not reasonable.
BZ: The list is as long as your lengthy posts, but the main issue is you repeatedly demonstrate a clear lack of understanding about the things you doubt, or try to debunk, coupled with a clear demonstration that you didn't even conduct a few minutes of research on the topic, that would debunk many of your points before you wrote them.
PABLO: Any HONEST adult reviewing my work in this thread would conclude that I HAVE DEMONSTRATED enough of a clear " ... understanding about the things [I] doubt, or try to debunk ..." Further, they would surely conclude that I HAD DEMONSTRATED that I [did] conduct [much more than] a few minutes of research on the topic." Heck, I've quoted several sources, linked to several sources, critically critiqued several other pieces, particularly the very ones you Apollo-defenders have "insisted" be critiqued. Those critiques SHOW that I DO have enough of a grasp of the subject matter to give a (highly) informed opinion.
BZ: I often say YOU, but others, like Dave McGowen commit many of the same errors. In fact, reading through the first five or so parts of his "Wagging the Moondoggie", I wonder if your ideas are yours, or his. In any case, he writes with a great STYLE, and often employing RIDICULE, but also clearly and repeatedly doesn't understand what he is purporting to debunk. The fact that the ideas and research are his, and not yours, likely explains why your lengthy rebuttals are so feeble, generally lacking in substance.
PABLO: About Dave McGowan. I have NEVER made any claim to be an original author on this subject. My very first post in this thread was simply posting a link to his "Wagging The Moondogie" series, along with my strong recommendation of it. I've referred to, linked to and quoted from other sources - NEVER ONCE claiming to have been an original investigator of these issues. I am, in fact, not specialized in ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION; my forte is in summing up the work of others (both of those I agree with; and those I disagree with) - as shown in my posts where I attempt to sum up the main points in any number of articles. About comparing YOURSELF to Dave McGowan - YIKES. Compared to HIM, and his professional-level investigative (and descriptive) abilities - you are a complete amateur. Yes, he does include some timely humor, including ridicule where deserved - but, as in my case, he does NOT do ad-hominems. Ridiculing PUBLIC positions of public organzations and officials is SOP in all discourse. Do not US Presidents ridicule foreign leaders as a matter of course.Do they not sometimes "return the favor". Of course. It can't be avoided in the case of authority figures.
BZ: You promised us you would be the first to execute some kind of self-introspection as to why you were wrong. The starting point is that you don't understand the arguments "from the other side", and we've seen repeatedly that you haven't even conducted a few minutes of investigation to form a minimum understanding, before attempting to refute, debunk, or disprove them.
PABLO: I HAVE self-criticized a number of times in this thread (more so than the COMBINED self-criticisms of all of "my" opponents in fact. (Which indicates SOMETHING about the intellectual honesty involved, doesn't it?). Claim what you want about my supposed inadequacies in this discussion; but any HONEST adult would conclude that, completely contrary to what you claim here; I:
a) HAVE self-criticized for every mistake I've made (and without needing anybody's help to see the righteousness of doing so);
b) I DO UNDERSTAND well enough "the arguments 'from the other side'".
c) "We've seen repeatedly that [I HAVE] conducted [much more than] a few minutes of investigation to form a minimum understanding, before attempting to refute, debunk, or disprove them." This is astonishing bizarre! You-all have linked to a number of articles; and "insisted" I critique them. I was under no moral obligation to do so; but I DID critique them. And not just superficially; but IN-DEPTH; sometimes, line-by-line, quotes and all. AND, I have not focused on their weakest arguments (as a general rule); but, instead, I've consistently taken on their STRONGEST ARGUMENTS, and systematically shown what was wrong with them, WHY their (incorrect) premises led to their incorrect conclusions; and countered with in-depth analysis and explanations.
Vis-a-vis this latest series of challenges / criticisms you raise:
Interesting that "my" opponents have flunked such challenges far more than I have - yet you have not seen fit EVEN ONCE to criticize any of them with even the slightest criticism. Hmmm. Whereas, with me, you could hardly exaggerate more than you are doing; could hardly twist my work from positive-to-negative more than you are doing.
