|
Post by echard on May 6, 2010 1:57:45 GMT -4
Presumably this means NASA threatened Van Allen into retracting his earlier (~1959) statements about the hazards of radiation to human space flight. Why he would only succumb to threats shortly before the end of his life is of course not explained. I've also heard other hoaxers claim that Van Allen was forced by NASA to retract earlier statements he made in the late 50's regarding the transversing of the radiation belts. However, the reading of a Time Magazine article found here www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863443-1,00.html from May 1958 confirms Van Allen didn't doubt from even early on in space exploration man's ability to pass safely through the belts.
|
|
|
Post by echard on Nov 14, 2009 23:00:31 GMT -4
In a 1958 Time Magazine article, Van Allen himself said he didn't think the belts would be much of an issue for lunar-bound astronauts: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863443-2,00.html To cherry-pick a few sentences from the article: "The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite" and "The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt." I guess Time was in on the hoax then too right? BTW, thanks from at least this, and I'm sure many more, lurkers who now understand orbital mechanics a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by echard on Sept 2, 2008 21:23:12 GMT -4
A friend of mine just produced a reply to the Mythbusters' A17 video showing the supposed "wires". www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREagAs predicted, no scratches on the cleaner copy. Whew, that was a close one...
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 31, 2008 21:49:35 GMT -4
Does anybody know the mission/EVA for this video? I'd like to view a better copy to see if the scratches extend through the astronauts to the bottom of the frame.
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 31, 2008 19:31:35 GMT -4
You all are a great source of knowledge and insightful explanations. I need to draw on that again unfortunately. I've come across a YouTube video showing a portion of the Mythbusters episode where for a brief moment, two lines appear from the astronauts to the top of the screen. As you can imagine, the hoaxers believe they've found the next undebunkable "proof", and I'd love to explain exactly what it is we're seeing. While I hate posting links to YouTube videos, you need to see it to understand what I'm talking about. As you'll see, the "wires" don't appear to connect to the PLSS antenna but to another part of the pack. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0Now I know they're not wires, but what would cause such an artifact to appear like that? Do you know of any other instances where the same type of artifact exists apart from where the astronauts are located? Thanks in advance for any information you've got.
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 29, 2008 0:12:00 GMT -4
If only they would have put the vacuum chamber in the Zero G jet and combined the effect!
But I can only dream...
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 29, 2008 0:04:29 GMT -4
After reading www.clavius.org/bibzz2.html (thanks for the link laurel) I understand that compacting the lunar soil has the effect of making it appear brighter. So was the LM descent engine compacting the regolith as is passed over, or blowing the top surface away to reveal a lighter strata? A mix of the two?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 28, 2008 0:27:45 GMT -4
During the course of my pasttime of debating (if you can call it that) with hoaxers on youtube, I can usually debunk the typical hoaxer questions fairly easily. However, I had a question posed to me I can't answer or find any mention of anywhere. When the Apollo astronauts were walking around and disturbing the lunar regolith, the Hasselblad photos and videos shows the astronaut-disturbed regolith darker than the surrounding undisturbed regolith. In the recently released Kaguya photos, the A15 site shows the disturbed regolith distinctly lighter than the undisturbed. www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.htmlHas the regolith changed greyscale over the last 37 years? Did the ascent stage have some effect? Or possibly is the opposition effect making it appear lighter? What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 28, 2008 0:04:06 GMT -4
I agree with Count Zero that showing how dust fails to billow in a vacuum would have been convincing. If only the boot print experiment could have been coupled with the boot kicking the fake regolith in full atmosphere and again in a vacuum.
How much time would it have taken to evacuate the air from a vacuum chamber that large anyhow?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Mar 8, 2008 2:22:28 GMT -4
If I remember correctly, wasn't the A15 flag planted at the very END of an EVA giving the astronauts plenty of time to build up an electrostatic charge while on the surface?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Mar 1, 2008 0:04:51 GMT -4
Jay & AtomicDog, thanks for your time thus far.
You claim the mark could have occurred anytime during the printing process but was never on the masters themselves. This makes perfect sense.
The confusion stems from the phrase, "he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters." Originally, I interpreted Steve Troy to be implying the mark first appeared after 1997, but he is actually making the assertion the mark has never been on either the set of masters used up to 1997 or the new set used since. I had no idea new masters were created in 1997.
Do we have an idea of when the mark first appeared and how long the defective print was officially in use by NASA?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Feb 29, 2008 22:48:52 GMT -4
In what way does Clavius deem the 1981 print "nonexistent?" I was meaning that on Clavius is a reference to a study in which Steve Troy " failed to see the mark on either of the masters used prior to 1997." If the mark was not on the masters prior to 1997, how did it get on a print from 1981? Or am I missing something? Even though a subsequent photo shows no sign of the "c" proving it was not actually on the rock, I would still like to answer his question on how the "c" arrived on that particular print prior to 1997.
|
|
|
Post by echard on Feb 29, 2008 21:35:58 GMT -4
I don't post here very often at all, but I garner a lot of information I use during my hobby (youtube arguing!) You guys (gals included) are a great resource.
Anyway, I'm having a discussion where the HB indicates he has a book, "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology", published in 1981 by Salamander Books, Ltd., in which the "C rock" is pictured. I explained the facts to him and asked him to check out Clavius for even more details.
He reviewed the Clavius information regarding the C rock and there we read, "In 2001 Steve Troy of Lunaranomalies.com undertook a lengthy investigation. After obtaining transparencies from different sources connected with NASA, he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters."
He now concludes the website is not dependable since in his hot little hands is a print from 1981 deemed nonexistent by Clavius. Was the study flawed, or is there a simple explanation (assuming he's not lying) for the apparent discrepancy?
|
|
|
Post by echard on Dec 15, 2007 21:15:33 GMT -4
The "undebunkable" moon hoax video mentioned earlier at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQ8UPekwTUshows prolonged movement after the astronaut walks by. I can count at least 25 swings of the flag corner. I believe that type of reaction would be impossible in an atmosphere. MichaelStMark obviously disagrees. Go to 9:00 in the video and count for yourself. Michael has changed his position so many times (from 20 to 10 seconds of movement after the astronaut passes, breeze assisted to no breeze, indoors to outdoors, etc.) that he now says the "apparent" prolonged flag movement is caused by "picture instability". He says I just need to open my eyes! If any of you feel up to it, would you take a look for yourself and add your opinion? If you're lucky, maybe Michael won't censor your comment and allow it to post!
|
|
|
Post by echard on Aug 17, 2007 14:04:12 GMT -4
Over at youtube, I, Svector, and michaelstmark have been having a discussion on Svector's "Earth from beyond the Van Allen belts" video. Apparently, mstmark is convinced I, Svector and Jay are one and the same.
One of the best compliments I ever got!
|
|