FORMAT OF THIS POST:
Words by "Bang Zoom to the moon" are preceded by: BZ 1, BZ 2, BZ 3 ...
My words are preceded by: PABLO 1, PABLO 2, PABLO 3 ...:
PABLO PREFACE: My apologies for taking almost a week to respond to your post (which strikes me as one of the best-thought-out posts from the Pro-NASA side of this discussion - as such, as I indicated when I first read it; it does merit a serious response. My "excuse" for the delay? Xmas.
----------------
BZ 1: Pablo,
Regarding SELENE, and Van Allen, you weren't ask for your critique per se, but they were presented as real evidence addressing doubts you expressed, in your 10 point and growing list.
PABLO 1: My responses to SELENE and Van Allen WERE my critiques of those articles (regardless of whether anybody asked for my critiques). They were presented as strong "real evidence" for the Apollo story; I spent the time to seriously study them and responded by pointing out in both cases that what they presented was NOT strong "real evidence". That's all I set out to do vis-a-vis those articles; and I did just that.
----------------------------
BZ 2: PART 1) STYLE
More than once you have suggested that neutral observers should conclude that "the other side" should be weighed negatively in the "debate" because their style of "ad hominem" attacks should be unncessary if they are on the side of "truth", and that you should be weighed more positively, because you consistently maintain the HIGHER ground.
Half of your posts seem to be directed at how mean "the other side" is being to you, and that this hostility should somehow speak against any merits of "the other side". While I do not condone, nor resort to, name-calling or ad-hominem, this should not in any way negate the real merits of an argument, coming from others from "the other side" who do not resort to "ad hominem".
Any implication that "style" should have this kind of influence on the strength of the merits of the argument, is the very definition of "ad hominem", because it attempts to bypass the merits: "an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance".
In the end, the strength of a case can only be made by presenting arguments with substance. (Name calling, and ad homimen also fail in this respect).
PABLO 2: You try hard to make it SEEM that resorting to "ad hominem" attacks is not really important; but it DOES TEND TO INDICATE something important - if one side is consistently resorting to them, that DOES TEND to indicate that their position is weak; otherwise they wouldn't need to or want to use them. (You end this section by saying "(Name calling, and ad hominem also fail in this respect)." Which was/is PRECISELY MY POINT.
-------------------------------
BZ 3: PART 2) SELENE
Regarding SELENE, I understand that my initial expectation was due to a minor mis-statement which you quickly corrected, yet I missed.
Nevertheless, I am dissappointed that despite a second chance to address SELENE, and your expressed commitment to search for "truth", that you still haven't made any effort to improve your initial critique, instead concluding that "reconstructing" "raises more doubts than answers doubts" for "ANY critical thinker".
SELENE addresses two of your stated doubts: 1) the NASA photographs could be fake, and 2) where is the crater at the blast site? This is no "(small) contribution".
I could say, for ANY critical thinker, these independent images should close both points, but at the very least, it forces you to expand your conspiracy to include all these other national and international third parties.
Much of what you needed to know was in the linked article, including links to further sources at external websites, starting with "On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 astronauts August 2, 1971 during EVA 3 at station 9A near Hadley Rille. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 metres." I will address "reconstruction" in this context a little further down, since that seems to be the term that keeps your doubts open, as you admittedly don't understand what "reconstruction" could mean, thinking that it could be a group of artists using Photoshop to create what they want.
You make mention of an "investigation team", and the possibility that they could also be lying, because it's SOP to lie. With that style of justification, I can support every argument I can imagine. And it's also "ad hominem" -- they are lying because they are a government. The Japanese were not an investigation team answering the "moon hoax" question. In fact, it was the other way around -- they were Japanese scientists using real NASA photos to confirm the SELENE imaging data from the Terrain Camera accurately captured the topology of the terrain, by comparing it to real photos, and the match ended up being a very good one -- mutually corroborating both the NASA photos, and the TC imaging data.
The fact is that the "proof" that NASA went to the moon is all of the pictures and videos NASA took and made public, including men, rovers, and lunar landscapes. What SELENE confirms is that the landscapes in the NASA photographs and videos are real, because they match well with the imaging performed by the Japanese probe some decades later. So now, to continue believing that NASA photographs are fake, you have to believe that they used photos of real landscapes, and then photoshopped astronauts and the rover in them, or accurately reconstructed the landscape in a studio, before taking the photos, or that Japanese scientists are also lying.
Besides landscapes, SELENE (as well as the Indian Chandrayaan-1) also visibly confirmed the Apollo 15 "blast zone" at the landing site, identifying a "halo" created by the ejected dust -- addressing the "where is the crater" doubt, by comparing a "before" picture of the landing site, with their "after" imaging, showing evidence of a local blast.
In all, the NASA photographs, videos, and visits were confirmed by many agencies (again by clicking through some of the support links): "Nasa took images of the area during the mission, and these images were confirmed as accurate by later probes including the DOD’s Clementine probe and probes sent by the European Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, Soviet Union and Japanese Space Agency."
It's a bit lazy to say "raises more doubts than answers", when further sources were provided, which gives many more answers. Because you say your doubts are based on 1) photos could be fake, and 2) where was the blast site?, there is some ONUS on YOU to understand what this evidence shows, and why this 3rd party evidence undermines, if not erases, these doubts. It's not "independent evidence" of man on the moon, but corroborates NASA's photo evidence of man on the moon.
But let's turn to "reconstruction", and whatever that can mean. I can understand if you are not a subject matter expert on planetary imaging, but briefly, a probe like SELENE does not take photos or videos of the surface, but often use lower, non-visible frequencies, like radar imaging. This is because, for example, you cannot see through clouds, but lower frequencies, like radar, can penetrate clouds. Reconstruction means taking the raw 3D imaging data, which is ultimately an ordered collection of measured spatial coordinates, stored as a large table with numbers, and using them to draw the topographical surfaces in 3D projections, onto a 2D device, such as a computer screen, or printed out on paper, and which includes necessarily adding (false) colors, because the data recorded was not true photographic colors. Similarly, a 3D surface "projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos" is merely a mathematical exercise, choosing the point of view, and the type of 3D projection you want. The Japanese told us (and any Computer Graphics student can confirm) "The viewpoint of the 3D image produced from TC stereo-pair data can be freely changed." The article also linked to "3D Computer Graphics" to help explain what's going on.
If you have more many more genuine questions raised about reconstructing 3D images, ask them. But it appears the only question you have re-expressing the same doubt with different parties -- "how do I know that JAXA, or India, or Russia, or ESA, is not lying too?"
To summarize, first you say we don't have proof, but NASA provided loads of photographic proof.
Then you ask -- how do I know the proof is real? -- we only have NASA's words, and everyone knows the CIA lies, so why not NASA? That's what these third party corroborations, all parties not connected to the US government, address.
PABLO 3: I was presented by the SELENE material in a post by pro-NASA people as serious coorboration of NASA's claims. I citiqued that material; showing that it was not serious coorboration - doing what I set out to do. Given that noone (until now) had disputed my critique AND that I still stand by it; there was ZERO reason for me to re-do it. (Sorry that you're disappointed that I didn't do what there was no need for me to do, at least up to that point). You spend a ton of words trying to claim that the SELENE article(s) provide proof of NASA's Apollo claims - but they do not do that. As to their "reconstruction", my problem was not with the WORD "reconstruction" (I do know what is usually meant by that word). My problem was that there was ZERO documentation PRESENTED vis-a-vis that reconstruction; OTHER THAN a photo that presumed to show the Apollo site YET does not have the Apollo stuff in it! What kind of a "reconstruction" is that supposed to be? As to my attitude towards images produced by non-NASA sources: YOU posit that I'd automatically reject any and all of them as being liars. But that's your dirty trick trying to lump me in with SOME (and the worst) of the Apollo-doubters. I judge each and every piece of would-be evidence based on its intrinsic value - and I TEND to accept the work of NON-US sources MORE than I do the work of US sources - based on a whole half-century of witnessing endless Big Lies told by the US Gov. I HAVE looked at material coming from non-US sources and I have NOT seen any absolute PROOF of Apollo materials on the surface of the Moon. I BELIEVE this should be relatively easy to establish beyond any shadow of a doubt WITH PHOTOS OF ACTUAL Apollo materials THERE.
----------------------------------
BZ 4: PART 3) Van Allen belt radiation
The approach NASA took to the Van Allen belts was threefold: 1) Pick a path to avoid the most dense region of the inner belt; 2) fly through the belts as fast as possible to minimize the exposure; and 3) measure the radiation exposure with a dosimeter. Talking about lead lining rockets is a strawman distraction. After many experiments, and measurements, and tradeoffs, NASA simply decided the rocket, and the command module would provide some protection, provided the speed was high enough to limit exposure. From a forbes.com article, "In the end, it seemed that these tactics worked; the on-board dose counters for the Apollo missions registered average radiation doses to the skin of the astronauts of 0.38 rad. This is about the same radiation dose as getting two CT scans of your head, or half the dose of a single chest CT scan; not too bad, though not something you should do every week." In another website, I found "according to NASA's published biomedical account of the Apollo mission, the average skin dose for the Apollo 11 crew over the course of their 12-day mission was just 0.18 rads."
Regarding re-entry, there doesn't seem to be anything special about re-entry that prevents similar high speeds as when exiting, or makes avoiding dense areas of the inner belt impossible, while achieving a trajectory that allows the required angle of entry with the atmosphere, once we've passed the Van Allen belts.
PABLO 4: I reject all your major arguments here. That NASA TRIED to avoid as much radiation as possible, tells us NOTHING whatsoever about whether they ACTUALLY avoided ENOUGH radiation as to ENSURE the safety of the crews. You say, "IT SEEMS that these tactics worked". EXACTLY my point, "SEEMS" does not equal PROOF; but instead, just guess work. About the need for lead-protection - perhaps we'll have to wait till the FIRST (post-Apollo) manned flights beyond low Earth orbit - so see how much or little protection such flights actual use (decades from now? how many decades might that eventually become - I see EVERY REASON to "return" to the Moon in far less than 50+++ years).
--------------------------------------------
BZ 5: Here is a recent finding that confirms why NASA's risk was in fact not as dangerous as they initially thought:
"It's long been assumed that these seething regions of radiation are too dangerous for spacecraft to explore for extended periods of time, but NASA just made an unexpected discovery - the fastest, most energetic particles in the inner radiation belt are usually not even there."
"The reason this is so exciting is simple - by overestimating the intensity of high-energy electrons in the inner belt, and therefore the amount of damaging radiation in low and medium altitude orbits, we've been building bulky, expensive spacecraft for no reason."
"Now that we know that the inner Van Allen Belt is usually a whole lot weaker than we assumed - except in extremely rare cases like the 2015 solar storms - it won't be very often that we'll have to avoid the area."
PABLO 5: Here we're presented with an defense of NASA claims presented by NASA itself. )I, personally, do not doubt MOST NASA claims - mostly I ONLY DOUBT NASA's Man-On-The-Moon claims.) IF NASA is proven to have faked the Moon landings; then relying on THEIR WORD is, necessarily problematic. But, even within what THEY say, one finds reasons to still have doubts. They say, "are USUALLY not even there." (ALL EMPHASIS ADDED BY PABLO). This tells us ZERO about how much was there DURING Apollo; and it tells us SOMETHING nasty about Apollo - that, back THEN, when they suspected HIGH, dangerously high, radiation levels - they still supposedly went ahead risking all the Apollo astronauts health. They say, " ... we're building bulky, expensive spacecraft for no reason." Same problem as above. IF they ever go ("back") to the Moon, let's see just how LITTLE anti-radiation protection they build into those spacecraft.
--------------------------------------------------
BZ 6: PART 4) The rest of the world's opinion
It's the second time you mentioned "most of the rest of the world" believes the moon-landing was a hoax. Do you have any evidence to support "the vast majority of the people of the world DO have serious doubts about Apollo". I found estimates of Russia and the UK of 25-28%. While I find these numbers surprisingly high, it is still hardly the "vast majority". I also found one survey in the UK of 52%. The sample size was quite small (1003 respondents), and 30% believed in ghosts and 12% believed in witches and wizards. These surveys likely says more about the people, rather than representing some kind of truth of events that happened before many of the non-believers were born.
PABLO 6: So you did find one survey from the UK where the majority DID doubt Apollo; the UK being one of the most-highly educated populations on the planet. You admit that you found the other lower numbers "surprisingly high". I've been all over Mexico (population 120+ million); and EVERYWHERE a discussion of Apollo comes up (amongst non-rich people), they already either doubt NASA or are easily convinced that there are good reasons to doubt NASA.
Let me TEMPORARILY accept (barring further evidence) that I exaggerated by using the terms "vast majority"; still, the MAIN POINT is that WAY MORE non-Americans doubt NASA than do Americans - and where, exactly, would NASA have the most power to influence public opinion? Within the US, undoubtedly (what with how much media-access and the super-high importance of the "National-pride" factor.
Why is this important. Because in THIS THREAD, the pro-NASA people have continuously tried to paint the Apollo-doubters as a crazy and FRINGE, tiny minority. We are FAR from that * You NOW AGREE with my point here.
* (though there IS a segment of Apollo-doubters who I believe are either: crazy, blind-Bible-thumpers or troll-agenda driven - the US Gov HAS said it was in the business of using MASS Cognitive Dissonance; and their budget to do so is virtually unlimited).
