This doesn't make the hoax proof go away.
Yes it does. If you claim the public data are faulty, you must explain how successful use is made of them.
There are plausible explanations. People who design satellites probably have high security clearances.
"Probably?" You mean you don't actually know?
We still have to know that the data on which we're basing the calculations isn't bogus.
That's not what I asked. The question is about what method we should use to test your hypothesis regarding radiation or other engineering factors. You admit you are not conversant with the proper mathematics to do this. I'm asking whether that presumes the premise that a mathematical proof is necessary. You are filp-flopping. On the one hand you refer constantly to "common sense" in place of specialized knowledge, and here you seem to admit that these specialized techniques are proper.
All I can do is read what Van Allen said and wonder about it.
Are you qualified to know whether your sources accurately represented Dr. Van Allen? Are you aware that Dr. Van Allen explicitly repudiated the hoax theories?
It's more or less a moot point anyway as the anomalies have already proven the hoax.
No, it's not moot. You may fervently desire to pursue this discussion as if your belief was already proven, but it is not.
