Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: David Roffman mars conspiracy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4

    David Roffman mars conspiracy

    Has anyone done a systematic debunking of the father and son team of Barry and David Roffman and their "Mars Correct"? http://davidaroffman.com/ Note I am not advocating the opinions expressed on that site in any shape or form.

    They allege that NASA is misrepresenting the atmospheric pressure on Mars and of course doctoring images and Mars colours.

    I can see the usual mess of special pleading, factual errors, and guilt by innuendo. The son (David Alexander Roffman) is said to have a physics PhD from the University of Florida. this appears to be genuine. Needless to say it's not in Martian meteorology.

    Barry (the father) also runs this humdinger of a site http://arkcode.com/cgi/wp/?page_id=42

    They look like more fun than the usual run of conspiracy people. Though not as much fun as the child slaves on Mars!

    I have also asked this question on the Apollo Hoax site.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,881
    Hi Dalhousie, welcome to CQ.

    I have to admit I've never heard of the Roffmans and know nothing about their ideas. My very quick look around the first website gives me the impression that they think Mars has a much higher air pressure than reported by NASA and is more hospitable to life. Is that interpretation correct? What color do they think Mars really is? I can look at it at night with my naked eye and see it is red.

    And whatever they think NASA is lying about, India must be in on the conspiracy, because their Mars orbiter is confirming the NASA results.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4
    Correct. These seem to think that phenomena like dust storms and dustdevils cannot be supported vy at atmosphere as thin as that of Mars, so the measurements by the landers must be wrong.

    The ignore the fact that there are different instruments with different design principles involved, from different agencies (Russia and ESA also have descent data on Mars), skim over the radio-occultation data from multiple missions by multiple agencies. Somehow this links the Hoagland's views on mars, Keith Laney's obsession about the true colour of the Martian sky, NaSA changing the atsa shen problems have been pointed out, editing photos, overlooking trees etc. and from there to new physics, UFOs, Bible codes and the rest.

    I am enough of a Mars scientist to see many flaws, but not enough of a physicist to get into the nitty gritty of the details of their criticism of the atmospheric data. Nor to I have the inclination read the reams they written to that level of detail. I was hoping that someone had.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,882
    Had a look and some fairly dumb statements to support their fantasies about Mars. For some reason they want Mars to support life, require Earth-like conditions on Mars and thus all the data is wrong.

    NASA ordered pressure sensors that were calibrated to be optimized for known Martians condition and the Roffmans want them to be calibrated for terrestrial conditions!
    The delusion the NASA takes any notice of crank web sites.
    A delusion that daily pressure spikes in Viking and MSL readings have to be measurement failures (ditto for wind).
    Unsupported allegations that "NASA" could not explain stuff (dust devils, drifting Barchan sand dunes, etc.) implying that whatever they made up did explain them. Rather dumb because it is scientists, many of whom do not work for NASA, who study and explain Martian phenomena. NASA does public outreach about Mars based on that scientific research.

    They have a PDF that shows how ignorant their fantasies are.
    • Images "might show spherical life forms on Mars" because there are greenish nodules of rock in them!
    • A repeated fantasy of running streams of water on Mars ( "But Mars has thousands of these streams"). Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes are probably brine seeping through soil.
    • Close to a lie of "frozen sea at Utopia Planitia" - there is a large amount of underground ice under Utopia Planitia.
    • A lie of "water found on Mars matches what is expected for pure water" after they state a Luju Ojha proved running water on Mars is linked to perchlorate salts.
      NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars (Update)
    • Idiocy about the color of the Martian sky starting with "In the Moon's vacuum the sky is black". The Moon has no sky !
    • Some pages of "Looks similar to Earth so must be Earth pressures/temperature/etc.", ignorant questions and assertions.
      [*They have graphs of Viking 1 recorded pressure measurements that do not get above 0.62 mbar!
    • A delusion of "All dust filters likely clogged immediately on landing" because Mars is dusty. NASA know Mars is dusty and designed instruments to cope with the dust. They even list dust filters for Viking!
    • The stupidity that a person at a company (FMI) not knowing how their instrument was mounted on the Phoenix spacecraft makes a controversy.
    • A page with a quote with "Information on re - location of the heat source had not been provided due to ITAR restrictions" (International Traffic in Arms Regulation) asserted to be about that FMI pressure device.
    • The ignorant crank ignorant citation of Occam's Razor.
    • Paranoia about data being altered.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Sep-08 at 01:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,881
    I've always thought the conspiracies that NASA is covering up evidence for life on Mars to be among the sillier. Why would NASA possibly do that? Evidence for life on Mars would be like a blank check for NASA; why would they cover up such a thing? It is more believable that NASA found absolute evidence that life was never possible on Mars and covered that up so they could keep getting money for missions to look for evidence of life (not that I'm claiming that happened either).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    20
    I have to agree, as far as conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty lame.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4
    I think the "reasoning" is that if life was found on Mars there would be rioting on the streets, the pope and dalai lama would be hung from lamp posts, cats and dogs will interbreed and produce kippies (or puttens), the stock market would implode, and civilisation would collapse generally.

    Oddly enough there have been times when the majority of educated people and the general public thought there was life on Mars and none of the above happened......

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,586

    David Roffman mars conspiracy

    Well, there was that "Grover's Mill incident" in 1938.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Well, there was that "Grover's Mill incident" in 1938.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Didn't they finally lay that one on somebody code-named "Rosebud"?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Didn't they finally lay that one on somebody code-named "Rosebud"?
    All's Wells as ends Welles.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalhousie View Post
    Has anyone done a systematic debunking of the father and son team of Barry and David Roffman and their "Mars Correct"?
    Well, it kinda debunks itself...


    I went to the linked site, and within 5 minutes was able to find where a claim was made using his so called "code"....a claim that has been completely disproven within the last week.


    I seriously doubt this error will be removed, and I really don't care...my point being, if this "fella's" method led to incorrect conclusions, why should anyone take him seriously about anything??


    As far as the actual claim, itself?...sorry, politics.

    PM me if you need to know the answer....
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,882
    Some more idiocy from the Rothmann web site: Radio Occultation and Spectroscopy
    They lie about "significant differences" between the web site The Mariner Mars Missions and a symposium preceding Radio occultation exploration of Mars (1974).
    The web page does not give references for their figures, e.g. "surface pressures of 4.1 to 7.0 mbar" for Mariner 4.
    The Kliore. A.J., 1974 paper uses their calculations from their earlier Mariner earlier papers as in the first figure in the paper of "Fig 1. Historical review of Martian surface pressure estimates" from 1925 to 1971. This shows wide variations before about 1964 with zeroing onto a more accurate value up to 1971 as techniques improved.

    The idiocy that pressures not being measured at specific points, e.g. Olympus Mons, somehow makes the measured pressures invalid. As if they expect pressures to increase at the top of tallest volcano on Mars!

    An idiotic "Collectively, Mariners 4, 6 and 7 only attempted to make six pressure measurements" when Mariner 4, 6 and 7 were flyby missions where it was physically impossible to take more than 2 occultation measurements each (one each side of Mars).

    They go onto the many measurements by Mariner IX as in the Kliore. A.J., 1974 paper figures of occultation points.

    More whining about Olympus Mons (wow - older estimates of height differ from more recent estimates!).

    A lie of "Kliore et al. claimed to have measured pressure on Pavonis Mons" when the Kliore. A.J., 1974 paper does measure the pressure on Pavonis Mons (about 1 mb). The idiocy of being surprised that a 1974 paper estimating the height of Middle spot (Pavonis Mons ) as 12.5 km based on 1974 pressure measurements being different from the modern height.

    A probable lie of "an occultation experiment that directly derives air pressure". Occultation should be an indirect measurement. Model the atmosphere and how it absorbs radio waves. See what pressure profile gives the observed absorption of radio waves during the occultation.

    The idiocy of leaping from Martian pressure and shape as measured by occultation and the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter to their delusion of dust blocked pressure sensors.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4
    The argument that missions have typically landed long means that there is something fundamentally wrong with atmospheric pressure determination looks very suspect to me. We have landing ellipses for both Vikings, Pathfinder, the MERs, Beagle 2, Curiosity, Phoenix, and Schiaparelli. All but Phoenix landed (or crashed) inside the landing ellipses, meaning that atmospheric variables were within range. Phoenix was only just outside.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Hello. I am Barry S. Roffman, father of Dr. David A. Roffman. I have noticed that this web site has the fatal flaw of throwing out a lot of totally unsupported nonsense criticism of our research without ever having the academic integrity of attempting to contact my son and I for a response. Let me first address the remark that says "The son (David Alexander Roffman) is said to have a physics PhD from the University of Florida. This appears to be genuine. Needless to say it's not in Martian meteorology." You miss two major points. First: David's B.S. is in space physics from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Second, his PhD was in physics. Yes, it was, from UF, but his post doc was a Yale. We are now about 9 years into combined Mars research. NASA (in particular, NASA Ames) is on our website several times almost every day (including today). We have three sites. David's site does not mention the Torah Code. My MarsCorrect.com site stays clear of that topic too. The ArkCode.com site occasionally mentions Mars, but is largely political and religious. It explores how to analyze the statistical validity or lack thereof of Torah Code matrices. This research (ongoing for 21 years now) is unrelated to what David does with Martian meteorology, so it is dishonest to throw it at him as dirt in an attempt to discredit him. He is his own man. I am an Orthodox Jew. He is not religious. David is a physicist. I am retired so I have more time to answer questions. Use my e-mail to contact me if you like, or call me. I can be contacted at Barrysroffman@gmail.com. If you write to me and want a phone call, I am available. One thing I can assure you of. NASA reads our Mars stuff daily. Neither, nor anyone else, has every debunked any of it. If you want to try I can arrange for a live TV interview and we can go at it together in a fair manner. I promise you - you will lose.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrysroffman View Post
    ... Use my e-mail to contact me if you like, or call me. I can be contacted at { email address }. If you write to me and want a phone call, I am available. ... If you want to try I can arrange for a live TV interview ...
    Or, on this discussion forum, you could, um, discuss it.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrysroffman View Post
    Hello. I am Barry S. Roffman, father of Dr. David A. Roffman. I have noticed that this web site has the fatal flaw of throwing out a lot of totally unsupported nonsense criticism of our research without ever having the academic integrity of attempting to contact my son and I for a response.
    Barrysroffman

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, just to be clear, we are not an academic institution nor a news organization, so we have no responsibility to seek out opposing opinions. This is a discussion forum, and as long as people follow the rules, they may discuss what they like and express their opinions.

    Third, if you wish to support your ideas, please do so in this thread. However, you will be required to follow our rules for advocating Non-mainstream ideas and conspiracy theories. If you have not done so, I strongly urge you to review our rules (link in my signature).

    If you are just going to come here to seek exposure and gain email contacts, but not defend your ideas here, your email and any links will be removed and you will be infracted.

    Have fun.
    Last edited by ToSeek; 2018-Jun-03 at 12:30 AM.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Hi Dalhousie, welcome to CQ.

    I have to admit I've never heard of the Roffmans and know nothing about their ideas. My very quick look around the first website gives me the impression that they think Mars has a much higher air pressure than reported by NASA and is more hospitable to life. Is that interpretation correct? What color do they think Mars really is? I can look at it at night with my naked eye and see it is red.

    And whatever they think NASA is lying about, India must be in on the conspiracy, because their Mars orbiter is confirming the NASA results.
    Nobody here challenged to the color of Mars! We challenged the color of the Martian sky as seen from its surface. The first pictures back from Viking 1 showed a blue sky. At JPL then NASA Director in 1976, then Dr. James Fletcher, ordered the color monitors to be manually tuned to show a reddish color. It stayed the wrong color for 36 years until in 2012 on the second day of MSL when we were permitted to see the blue sky again. The false color until then also wiped out green on rocks (on Viking 1) which might have been photosynthetic life. Both Viking 1 and 2 labeled release experiments (4,000 miles apart on Mars) detected life in accordance with standards set before the launches, but NASA dismissed the findings based on bad chemistry that has since been debunked.

    As for India, they have never had an in situ pressure detector on Mars. Their orbiter ranges between altitudes of 262 miles and over 44,000 miles. It had no instrumentation to measure surface pressure, though it was equipped to look for methane. So, unless you have data to support your assertion, you need to study the real data in our report at http://marscorrect.com/cgi/wp/=http:...%20Report.pdf/. The full report (with Annexes) is over 1,030 pages on length. Don't have time? I suggest you read the PowerPoint at http://davidaroffman.com/27%20MARCH%...20is%20Wet.pdf. Enjoy!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    While I do radio and TV interviews when people request them, the primary target audiences of my Mars articles are NASA, DoD, and to a lesser extent foreign space agencies. Slides 63 and 64 of my PowerPoint at http://davidaroffman.com/27%20MARCH%...20is%20Wet.pdf shows the IP addresses of NASA and Kremlin readers. I do not like to publish DoD reader IPs, and it is my custom to leave out the last 2 or 3 digits of NASA IPs because I don't want to give mid-level employees there a hard time. I responded to your site when I found it by accident and noticed that my son and I were misquoted numerous times. People who have a hard time with what I assert should start by addressing our Abstract which is as follows:

    BASIC REPORT FOR MARS CORRECT:
    CRITIQUE OF ALL NASA MARS WEATHER DATA

    ABSTRACT: We present evidence that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. Our 8-year study critiques 2,060 Sols (over 5 terrestrial years, 3 Martian years) of highly problematic MSL Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) weather data, and offers an in depth audit of over 8,311 hourly Viking 1 and 2 weather reports. We discuss analysis of technical papers, NASA documents, and personal interviews of transducer designers. We troubleshoot pressures based on radio occultation/spectroscopy, and the previously accepted small pressure ranges that could be measured by Viking 1 and 2 (18 mbar), Pathfinder and Phoenix (12 mbar), and MSL (11.5 mbar - altered to 14 mbar in 2017). For MSL there were several pressures published at or slightly above the initial advertised upper range of the pressure sensor. Indeed, from August 30 to September 5, 2012 pressures initially published were from 737 mbar to 747 mbar – two orders of magnitude high – only to be retracted. We challenged them all and NASA revised them down, however 8 years into this audit it has come to our attention that of two pressure sensors ordered by NASA for Mars Pathfinder, one of them (Tavis Dash No. 1) could in fact measure up to 1,034 mbar. Further, for the MSL according to an Abstract to the American Geophysical Union for the Fall 2012 meeting, The Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) states of their MSL (and Phoenix) Vaisala transducers, “The pressure device measurement range is 0 – 1025 hPa in temperature range of -45°C – 55°C, but its calibration is optimized for the Martian pressure range of 4 – 12 hPa..” So while we originally thought that of the five landers on Mars that had meteorological suites, none of them could measure Earth-like pressures, in fact, assuming that the higher pressure sensor Pathfinder Tavis Dash 1 (0-15 PSIA/1,034 mbar) was sent rather than Tavis Dash 2 (0-0.174 PSIA/12 mbar), three landers were actually equipped to get the job done, but the public was largely kept in the dark about it. All 19 low uv values were removed when we asked about them, although they eventually restored 12 of them. REMS always-sunny opacity reports were contradicted by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter photos. Why REMS Team data was so wrong is a matter of speculation beyond the basic thrust of this report, but we clearly demonstrate that their weather data was regularly revised after they studied critiques in working versions of this report and on our websites at http://marscorrect.com and http://davidaroffman.com.

    Vikings and MSL showed consistent timing of daily pressure spikes which we link to how gas pressure in a sealed container would vary with Absolute temperature, to heating by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), and to dust clots at air access tubes and dust filters. Pathfinder, Phoenix and MSL wind measurement failed. Phoenix and MSL pressure transducer design problems included confusion about dust filter location, and lack of information about nearby heat sources due to International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR). NASA Ames could not replicate dust devils at 10 mbar. Rapidly filled MER Spirit tracks required wind speeds of 80 mph at the assumed low pressures. These winds were never recorded on Mars. Nor could NASA explain drifting Barchan sand dunes. Based on the above and dust devils on Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid (Martian equivalent of sea level), spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons and similar storms above Olympus Mons (over 21 km high), dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix and elsewhere that descends 1 to 2 km in only 5 or 10 minutes, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, we argue for an average pressure at areoid of ~511 mbar rather than the accepted 6.1 mbar. This pressure grows to 1,050 mbar in the Hellas Basin.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalhousie View Post
    Correct. These seem to think that phenomena like dust storms and dustdevils cannot be supported vy at atmosphere as thin as that of Mars, so the measurements by the landers must be wrong.

    The ignore the fact that there are different instruments with different design principles involved, from different agencies (Russia and ESA also have descent data on Mars), skim over the radio-occultation data from multiple missions by multiple agencies. Somehow this links the Hoagland's views on mars, Keith Laney's obsession about the true colour of the Martian sky, NaSA changing the atsa shen problems have been pointed out, editing photos, overlooking trees etc. and from there to new physics, UFOs, Bible codes and the rest.

    I am enough of a Mars scientist to see many flaws, but not enough of a physicist to get into the nitty gritty of the details of their criticism of the atmospheric data. Nor to I have the inclination read the reams they written to that level of detail. I was hoping that someone had.
    It's too bad that people can express opinions without having facts to back what they write, but as long as they are permitted to do so NASA does not have to answer hard questions. So let's start with the first but if disinformation here. Dalhousie writes that, "there are different instruments with different design principles involved, from different agencies (Russia and ESA also have descent data on Mars)." Actually, there are only two types of pressure sensors that successfully landed on Mars - The Tavis magnetic reluctance transducer used for Vikings in 1976, and Pathfinder in 1996; and a 26-gram Vaisala Barocap ® sensor developed in 2008 by the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) for the Phoenix and MSL Curiosity.

    Let's look at Tavis first. Tavis sensor pressure ranges for Viking had limits of about 18 mbar. There was a question of whether or not the limit was closer to 25 mbar due to Tavis CAD no. 10014 (see Figure 10A at http://davidaroffman.com/images/pathfinder_cad.png) that indicates a limit of 24.82 mbar (0.36 PSIA). However, Professor James E. Tillman, director of the Viking Computer Facility, in a personal communication dated 27 May 2010, insisted that the limit was 18 mbar. This figure is accepted as correct in our report. The 18 mbar Viking figure is backed by NASA report TM X-74020 by Michael Mitchell dated March 1977.29 It states:

    Two variable reluctance type pressure sensors with a full range of 1.79 x 103 N/M2 (18 mb) were evaluated to determine their performance characteristics related to Viking Mission environment levels. Twelve static calibrations were performed throughout the evaluation over the full range of the sensors using two point contact manometer standards. From the beginning of the evaluation to the end of the evaluation, the zero shift in the two sensors was within 0.5 percent and the sensitivity shift was 0.05 percent. The maximum thermal zero coefficient exhibited by the sensors was 0.032% over the temperature range of -28.89°C to 71.11°C.

    It gets a lot colder than -28.89°C on Mars, but Professor Tillman insisted that “The pressure sensors were located inside the lander body and heated by RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) units. They were not exposed to ambient Martian temperatures.” Our report questions whether rapid ingestion of dust during the landing process also prevented transducers from ever correctly measuring ambient Martian pressures.

    Figure 5A at http://davidaroffman.com/images/fig_5a_redone.png is the very first picture ever transmitted from the surface of Mars to Earth. It was taken between 25 seconds and 4 minutes after the landing and it makes clear that dust was an immediate issue when the landing occurred. Figure 5A also shows that rocks were also kicked up and landed on at least one footpad.

    Things get more interesting with Mars PathFinder. This Tavis-2 sensor had a limit of 0.174 PSIA (see Figure 10B at http://davidaroffman.com/images/tavi...finder_cad.png). But Tavis-1 had is als shown ordered by NASA and it had a upper limit of 15 psia which EQUALS 1,034 MBAR! There is a real issue here as to exactly which sensor was sent to Mars.

    The range of sensitivity and accuracy of the Vaisala Barocap® and Tavis sensors are crucial. With Mars Phoenix, three Barocap sensors [LL(B1), and RSP1 (B2, B3)] were used. They had problems associated with a nearby heat source. Problems were particularly noted when temperatures rose above 0şC. According to Taylor et al. (2009) calibration coefficients were also withheld from the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) due to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The 5-12 mbar range of Barocaps was probably due to the data from the Tavis sensors before, but Tavis sensors were limited due to radio occultation pressure experiments (not as accurate as in situ measurements) by the Mariners. Radio occultation results are discussed further in Section 5.

    An issue with respect to how fast the dust filters for transducers on landers could have clogged relates to when the air tube was initially exposed to ambient conditions. If open to space all the way down, then air might not rush in so fast; while if the tube were suddenly opened on the surface, more dust might be expected to rush in, even at supersonic speeds. Alvin Seiff, et al. (1997) indicates that for Pathfinder the plan was for atmospheric pressure (and temperature) to be measured during parachute descent from ~8 km to the surface. The air inlet was connected to the flared tube fitting shown in Figure 10B by one meter of 2 mm inside diameter tubing. Dr. Robert Sulliavan (Cornell University) told us (on July 27, 2011) that while 1µ particles on the surface of Mars clump together quickly, larger particles that were easier to move would be lifted on landing. He was not sure about whether they would clog a dust filter as fast. But if MPF suddenly ingested 1µ particles suspended in the air below 8 km right after parachute deployment, the hot air associated with the entry-related heat might cause a problem for the tiny filter.

    Mars Pathfinder pressures are discussed in greater detail in Section 11 of our report at http://davidaroffman.com/photo4_35.html.


    I will post more about the concern of your readers as time allows me too.

    Figure 5B at http://davidaroffman.com/images/rocks_on_msl_deck.png shows that again with the MSL landing rocks kicked up on landing fell on the lander deck. As is shown later in our report on Figure 44E at http://davidaroffman.com/images/figure_44a_to_i.png, dust originally covered a camera lens cover on the MSL too. So it’s a safe bet that dust could have quickly made its way into the MSL’s Vaisala pressure transducer’s dust filter.
    Last edited by Barrysroffman; 2018-Jun-04 at 07:37 PM. Reason: Wrong Tavis CAD was attached. The correct one shows a sensor order for up to 1,034 mbar.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalhousie View Post
    Correct.
    Russia and ESA also have descent data on Mars)
    Actually, what Russia and ESA has from Exomars 206 seems to support us, not NASA!

    16. CRASH OF THE EXOMARS 2016 SCHIAPARELLI LANDER.
    On May 18, 2017 ESA published its ExoMars 2016 - Schiaparelli Anomaly Inquiry. While our research was not directly cited, we maintain a log of significant IP addresses and readers who access this Report and our Mars-related websites. One of the most frequent readers traces to the Thales Alenia Space Italia S.p.A. in Milan, Italy. They built the Schiaparelli lander. In reading through the Inquiry the following sections were of particular note:
    Inquiry paragraph 6.2.2.2 High angular rate due to natural phenomenon.
    With respect to this branch of the failure tree, it has to be noted that hypersonic parachute deployment is a very complex and dynamic phenomenon affected by several uncertainties (winds, wake, etc.) and therefore very difficult to predict (and model).
    The following aspects, on which the investigation has focused, have been identified as potentially contributing to the high angular rates at parachute deployment.
    1. Mach number different than estimated, potentially due to
    a. Atmospheric dispersion density/ temperature)
    2. Propagation error from accelerometers into position and velocity
    We further note:
    Each of the potential contributors to high angular rates have been analyzed. The main contributors appears to be:
    2.a Presence of Wind/Gust
    Of course, with respect to atmospheric density we argue for air pressure at areoid that is about 85 times higher than NASA asserts. As for wind/gusts, if NASA was right about a low atmospheric density and pressure, winds aloft would probably be insufficient to cause the loss of the lander. ESA is likely right about correcting the problem with the IMU. Perhaps that will be enough to overcome the density problem, but we challenge the wisdom of their statement that ExoMars 2020 will proceed with models of Atmosphere and Winds as per 2016. However, it is important to understand that a full blown rejection of NASA and JPL without an in situ ESA lander measuring pressures is problematic. ESA still depends upon NASA/JPL experience for advice on a number of space-related matters. If the IMU (Inertial Momentum Unit) is fixed it should not, as apparently happened in 2016, go into something akin to a nervous breakdown when the parachute is deployed and runs into much greater atmospheric density than expected. The specific final sequence of events in this “nervous breakdown” are spelled out as follows in ESA’s Inquiry:

    f) Parachute deployment time (time from mortar firing to peak load factor) was circa 1 sec (in line with the predictions).
    - The parachute was deployed, and the parachute inflation triggered some oscillations of Schiaparelli at a frequency of approximately 2.5 Hz.
    - About 0.2 sec after the peak load of the parachute inflation, the IMU measured a pitch angular rate (angular rate around Z-EDM axis) larger than expected.
    - The IMU raised a saturation flag,
    - During the period the IMU saturation flag was set, the GNC Software integrated an angular rate assumed to be equal to the saturation threshold rate. The integration of this constant angular rate, during which the EDM was in reality oscillating, led to an error in the GNC estimated attitude of the EDM of about 165 degrees. This would correspond to an EDM nearly turned downside up with the front shield side pointing to quasi-zenith.
    - After the parachute inflation, the oscillatory motion of Schiaparelli under its parachute was mostly damped and Schiaparelli was descending at a nominal descent rate, with very small oscillations (< 3 deg) around pitch and yaw axis.
    - After parachute inflation the angular acceleration around the spin axis changed again
    g) The Front Shield was jettisoned as planned 40s after parachute deployment (timer based command) at 14:46:03
    h) The RDA (Radar Doppler Altimeter) was switched on at 14:46:19 (15s after Front Shield separation acknowledgment) and provided coherent slant ranges, without any indication of anomalies;
    - Once the RDA is on, RIL (Radar in the Loop) mode, “consistency checks” between IMU and RDA measurements are performed. The parameters checked are: delta velocity and delta altitude. The altitude is obtained using the GNC estimated attitude to project the RDA slant ranges on the vertical.
    - Because of the error in the estimated attitude that occurred at parachute inflation, the GNC Software projected the RDA range measurements with an erroneous off-vertical angle and deduced a negative altitude (cosines of angles > 90 degrees are negative). There was no check on board of the plausibility of this altitude calculation
    i) Consequently the “consistency check” failed for more than 5 sec. after which the RDA was forced anyway into the loop based on the logic that landing was impossible without the RDA. The correctness of the other contributor to the altitude estimation, i.e. the attitude estimate, was not put in question. The RDA was put in the loop (event signaled by RIL time-out flag at 14:46:46).
    - The GNC (Guidance Navigation and Control) mode entered was TERMINAL DESCENT where the altitude is scrutinized to release the Back-Shell and parachute if the altitude is below an on board calculated limit.
    - Because of the incorrect attitude estimation leading to an estimated negative altitude, the GNC Software validated the conditions for separating the back-shell and parachute
    j) Back-shell separation at 14:46:49.
    k) Switch-on of the Reaction Control System (RCS).
    - First RCS thruster operation was at 14:46:51 (no backshell avoidance maneuver)
    l) Switch-off of the RCS 3 seconds later at 14:46:54.
    - The criterion for the RCS switch-off was based on the estimation of the EDM (Entry Demonstrator Module) energy (as combination of the altitude and vertical velocity) being lower than a pre-set threshold. Since the estimation of the altitude was negative and very big, the negative potential energy was much higher than the positive kinetic energy (square of the velocity) and this criterion was immediately satisfied the RCS was commanded off as soon as allowed by the thruster modulation logic. This occurred just 3 seconds after the RCS switch on command when the capsule was at an altitude of about 3.7 km, leading to a free fall of Schiaparelli and to the impact on Mars surface about 34 seconds later.
    m) The Touch Down occurred at 14:47:28 corresponding to the crash of the surface platform on the surface of Mars at an estimated velocity of ≈150 m/s. The expected landing time was 14:48:05 (some 37s later).


    At some point, hopefully in 2020, ESA will succeed. But here we must caution NASA. There is an old cliché:’
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
    NASA has fooled ESA once. But ESA is on to the problem and is not likely be fooled again. If NASA announces that they have come to understand that air pressure is much higher than they previously announced, there may be room for plausible deniability with respect to issues related to liability.
    Whether NASA blames mistakes on unit conversion, or failure to allow for dust filter replacement on transducers, or inability to provide critical design information with respect to heat sources near the Vaisala pressure sensor due to ITAR, NASA can still preserve its respect if they publically abandon their loyalty to a 6.1 mbar pressure at areoid in time to ensure a successful ExoMars 2020 mission. But if that lander safely arrives on the Martian surface and reveals ongoing fraud on a massive basis, the results for NASA and U.S. Government credibility will be catastrophic.
    We write this knowing that NASA and/or the U.S. Department of Defense is on our web sites daily. While we do not generally record DoD visits and while we only record partial IP addresses for NASA in an effort to protect the privacy (and jobs) of those who visit us, if required in court action we could produce records of over 1,400 such visits since 2014. Indeed, we have often provided such lists to DoD personnel complete with a similar number of full IP addresses for visits by Russian and Chinese readers.
    We have a more comprehensive write up of Section 16 of our report at http://davidaroffman.com/photo5_16.html. But in Section 16.1 we show that ESA ot smarter - It raised the ExoMars 2016 orbit due to excessive density of Mars’s atmosphere.
    See Figure 79 at http://davidaroffman.com/images/frm.png. This is similar to what was seen with the Mars Global Surveyor and also with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Both of these incidents were discussed earlier in Section 10 of our report at http://davidaroffman.com/photo4_35.html. With the loss of the Schiaparelli lander and now this public ESA statement about excessive density of Martian air, the question remains as to when NASA will reach and publish the same common sense conclusion.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Well, it kinda debunks itself...


    I went to the linked site, and within 5 minutes was able to find where a claim was made using his so called "code"....a claim that has been completely disproven within the last week.


    I seriously doubt this error will be removed, and I really don't care...my point being, if this "fella's" method led to incorrect conclusions, why should anyone take him seriously about anything??


    As far as the actual claim, itself?...sorry, politics.

    PM me if you need to know the answer....
    It would help if you actually cited an article here. But just understand this. Dr. David Roffman, other than way back when he was in 8th grade doing a science fair project, does NOT do Torah Codes. Therefore nothing about the Codes is relevant to him. I stay away from Torah Codes on Marscorrect.com, and I use ArkCode.com to document my 21 years of research in that area. On ArkCode ALL topics are fair game from wars to politics to sports (rarely) to science and technology. On occasion, as when a frozen fresh water lake the size of Lake Superior was found on Mars, I will look at the Codes to see if anything statistically significant matches the discovery. The Mars research NEVER depends on the Code findings or lack of findings. But when statistically significant matrices are found that back NASA discovery announcements, these matrices are presented as evidence to support further Code studies. The Utopia Planitia matrix is found at http://arkcode.com/photo4_91.html. Since it is the best finding about Mars in the Codes, I might have included it elsewhere almost as a matter of poetic license, but it would be the extremely rare exception to my general policy, and it would not have been done by David.

    As for the Codes being proven to exist or not exist, that is an ongoing scientific question with PhDs on both sides of the argument. I will tell you this much. The primary fans of my writings on ArkCode.com are (1) NASA Ames, and (2) an Army intel base on Arizona - Fort Huachuca. My primary interest in the Codes for 21 years now has been to determine IF the Code has data encoded that can be useful for military intelligence purposes. I really don't want to get bogged down on this issue here, but if you are interested in the topic you can look at the proposal that Dr. Haralick (Distinguished professor City University if New York - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Haralick) and I recently submitted to DoD. It is posted at http://arkcode.com/photo4_113.html.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrysroffman View Post
    It would help if you actually cited an article here.
    I was obviously referring to the link in the OP.


    Such mis-represention does not inspire confidence in a reasoned discussion....
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Cape Canaveral, Florida
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I was obviously referring to the link in the OP.


    Such mis-represention does not inspire confidence in a reasoned discussion....
    When I publish something I do not use a false name. Nor does my son, Dr. Roffman. When I wrote war plans for the Coast Guard and Navy I won the Meritorious Service Medal for them (see [link redacted]) , I knew that when using abbreviations in plans their their exact meaning must be spelled out the first time they are used. Further, all the references had to be included up front for each section of a plan. When I look at what you offer - it is nothing. R.A.F. appears to stand for Really A Fraud. Order of Kilopy? A thousand posts? None of them are significant unless their authors are clearly listed. Maybe you are brainwashed by Pokemon or some need for points in your video game addictions, but unless you have something to say under your own name, there is no reason to for me to continue this discussion. This site challenged whether my son knows anything about Martian weather. His ** in space physics (at the age of 18!) was based largely around this exact topic and he took courses at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University that were created by the school when they realized that he was finding information that clearly refuted NASA data. David then earned his Masters and PhD in physics (at the age of 23). He also ha a fellowship at CERN and he did his postdoc a Yale. His CV are posted on his site at [link redacted] and his diplomas and coursework are posted at [link redacted]. His PhD thesis is at [link redacted]. And what do people like offer in return? The lack of courage to publish under a real name. Unless you read at least the entire Basic Report at [link redacted], you have nothing of value to offer. The Basic Report is an easy 214 page read. The entire report with Annexes documenting all our data is over a thousand pages. If you are lazy, which you evidently are, there is a PowerPoint summary at [link redacted].

    "The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching," said Isaac Asimov? Would we care about this belief at all without his name attached to it? Obviously not. I have real research to do. Those who want to discuss science or anything else may reach me at [e-mail address redacted]. I will only respond to e-mails with real names.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2018-Jun-07 at 07:19 AM. Reason: Removed gratuitous links

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,258
    Barrysroffman,

    If you're going to break our rules by resorting to name calling and insults, this post will not serve as a springboard to your site(s). Links redacted and thread closed. If anyone can think of a good reason to reopen, please report this post.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •