PDA

View Full Version : Third Van Allen belt?



AstroMike
2002-May-25, 09:51 PM
From the Cosmic Conspiracies website (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html):

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts.

Absolute rubbish, right? How come no satellites are being instantly cooked now if this was true?

Andrew
2002-May-25, 10:32 PM
Mary Bennet calclated that using her nuclear expertise I presume?

Lisa
2002-May-25, 10:49 PM
Funny site, thanks. I bookmarked it for the next time I need a laugh. I noticed Kaysing's credentials have been upgraded. "Head of advanced research"??? I want upgraded too. Tired of being a newbie.
Lisa

Kaji
2002-May-25, 10:58 PM
Great site indeed...my favorite part is: "Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock... The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.
One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground... Now who's trying to cover things up?". This is hilarious!

David Hall
2002-May-26, 04:45 AM
This is the first time I've seen a second 'C' in the photo. Where did that come from? It looks almost like a duplication of the first one on the rock. Is it in the 'original' C-rock image too?

In any case, To me it seems to be even less likely to be an actual physical letter on the surface by it's very position. If you notice, it isn't aligned to perspective, that is, it isn't laid out on the ground; it is vertically aligned with the photo frame. I wish there was a larger image so we could see more detail.

Another point they fail to mention is that the original proof that the 'C' on the rock is a fake comes from Hoagland's Enterprise Mission site (another conspiracy site, but with a different focus) and not from here or NASA at all. It isn't just suggested that it's a hair, it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively.


On to other things. Here's another howler I enjoyed from this page:



Many people have speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images.

So wait a minute. NASA can't retouch photos because they are not individually exposed? Since when does being on a roll preclude airbrushing an image? Who thought up this one? And doesn't this negate some of the other photo 'anomalies' which they stated couldn't have been natural? Just above, they said that NASA must have airbrushed out the crosshairs on some of the white areas or otherwise altered them.

What a laugh.

JayUtah
2002-May-26, 05:13 AM
That's a sort of Aulis Redux site. It's cribbed almost exclusively from Bennett and Percy.

What a wonderful country when a guy with a Bachelor of Arts in English and only five years' experience can become head of advanced research for the world's foremost manufacturer of rocket engines. I wonder if Kaysing judges figure skating too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-26, 05:21 AM
Where did that come from?

It's always been there, but it's a simple feature of the soil. If you presume every semi-regular shadow you see is a symbol, you can find all kinds of "letters" and "numbers" in any Apollo photo. It's simply the Seethruart Method.

In any case, To me it seems to be even less likely to be an actual physical letter on the surface by it's very position.

It's definitely not what the author says it is. I've been doing theatre since I was about six years old, and I have never seen "C" used to mark the centerline, nor has anyone I've asked. If you need to mark it at all you use a simple strip of tape -- the smaller the better. In scenery plot drawings the stylized "CL" marks the centerline, but you don't put that on the stage.

Further, in film there is no centerline. The line of sight is where you make it. There is no need to identify the center of the stage in flim as is sometimes necessary on a live proscenium stage. And you only mark the stage if the camera won't be shooting the stage. If the camera angle is such that you can see the relevant part of the stage floor, you use a very, very tiny mark -- chalk, or a very small piece of 1/4-inch tape. This is clearly just wishful thinking.

Since when does being on a roll preclude airbrushing an image?

It doesn't. Never has; never will. I've retouched photos on negative rolls before. Not with an airbrush, but in any case the fact that the negative was on a roll didn't impede my work in the least.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-26 01:23 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-May-26, 06:24 AM
On 2002-05-26 01:21, JayUtah wrote:

It's always been there, but it's a simple feature of the soil.

That's what I thought when I looked at it closely. But it's so hard to tell in the tiny little image they posted. It also looks a lot like a letter superimposed on the photo, like the copyright &copy; symbol also on their photo.



Since when does being on a roll preclude airbrushing an image?

It doesn't. Never has; never will. I've retouched photos on negative rolls before. Not with an airbrush, but in any case the fact that the negative was on a roll didn't impede my work in the least.


That was a rhetorical question you know. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

jrkeller
2002-May-28, 05:58 PM
Actually, Mary Bennet used her PSI abilities to figure it out.

P.S. I got that one from the about the author in her Dark Moon book.

Andrew
2002-May-28, 07:07 PM
Yes, her remote-viewing capabilities. Of course.

2002-May-29, 03:48 PM
<a name="20020529.7:40"> page 20020529.7:40 aka after Leav
On 2002-05-28 15:07, Andrew wrote: To: 6 IMIX 15 ZIP
aka end of noise dropped off. OK ok: it was in April of `58
that I & I alone put a stop to the Events.
believe what you like. at that time I was only
4 miles from Zero = 100 Megatonne which these
days I call 100,000 KiloTon as my Erg scale jumps in steps
of 1,000,000 not 1000 and skips from KwHr to Kt to Rc
Anyway: in the remaining line i'll include radiation
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=612&forum=1&10#20020218.7:37

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-05-30 07:25 ]</font>

Sean
2002-May-29, 11:14 PM
Has anyone ever asked Rocketdyn who held the positions Kaysing has claimed to hold? If his accounts conflict with theirs it should be fairly obvious.

2002-May-30, 11:30 AM
<a name="20020530.3:21"> page 20020530.3:21 aka My Step
On 2002-05-29 19:14, Sean wrote: To: HUb' 3:21 A.M. PST <pre>
s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
SEC METER M/S NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
?hr M _warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
?11hr kM KM/Hr _blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
?day ?+4 _shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
?14 3/4d?+9 _wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
?yr ?+16 _sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
??Myr ?+25 _puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21) </pre>

2002-May-30, 11:40 AM
<a name="20020530.3:30"> page 20020530.3:30 aka Dense = off_FENCE
On 2002-05-30 07:30, HUb' wrote: HUb' 3:30 A.M. PST

BY using a step interval of 1,000,000
and starting from erg, I can in the
number of lines i have
cover the situation /?/ Well enought
for my own satisfaction..I can Not
using SI { the so called "French" system }
I dislike that PHOnE.net ans so say i
Now as far as Go.Mint:LIES?gO
gone are the days that i update my steps
its true the time & the space units need retinking, But i'll stick with e6 beginning from erg in the Energy column.. THANKS for reading this

2003-Nov-21, 04:14 PM
&lt;a name="20020530.3:21"> page 20020530.3:21 aka My Step
On 2002-05-29 19:14, Sean wrote: To: HUb' 3:21 A.M. PST &lt;pre>
s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
SEC METER M/S NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
?hr M _warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
?11hr kM KM/Hr _blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
?day ?+4 _shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
?14 3/4d?+9 _wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
?yr ?+16 _sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
??Myr ?+25 _puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21) &lt;/pre>
note e18=kT e12=kWHr e6=J

Graham2001
2003-Nov-22, 01:02 AM
From the Cosmic Conspiracies website (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html):

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts.

Absolute rubbish, right? How come no satellites are being instantly cooked now if this was true?


It is rubbish, while the Starfish Prime test did cook some satellites :o in the aftermath of the test, its main effect was to induce Aurora at extremely low altitudes and to set off every burglar alarm in Hawaii from the EMP.


Fishbowl/Starfish Prime
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dstarfish1.jpg
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dstarfish2.jpg


Operation Dominic(1) of which Starfish Prime was a part
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html

EGMAG
2007-Apr-03, 06:20 PM
After Starfish now is HiVOLT (acronym for High Voltage Orbiting Long Tether) is a concept proposed by Robert Hoyt and Robert L. Forward for removing the radiation fields of the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the Earth. A proposed configuration consists of a system of five 100 km long conducting tethers deployed from satellites, and charged to a large voltage. This would cause charged particles that encounter the tethers to have their pitch angle changed, thus over time dissolving the Van Allen belts, reducing their strength to 1% of their current value.

Jason Thompson
2007-Apr-03, 09:11 PM
Why did you resurrect a thread that is several years old to tell us that?

Matherly
2007-Apr-03, 09:21 PM
What I want to know is why this Van Allen guy needs so many belts and if he'd tried suspenders.

( :shifty: )

Van Rijn
2007-Apr-03, 09:27 PM
After Starfish now is HiVOLT (acronym for High Voltage Orbiting Long Tether) is a concept proposed by Robert Hoyt and Robert L. Forward for removing the radiation fields of the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the Earth. A proposed configuration consists of a system of five 100 km long conducting tethers deployed from satellites, and charged to a large voltage. This would cause charged particles that encounter the tethers to have their pitch angle changed, thus over time dissolving the Van Allen belts, reducing their strength to 1% of their current value.

Wow. That is badly worded (and similar, unfortunately, to the Wikipedia article). The idea is to reduce the particle flux (good for spacecraft that are in that region) in the inner electron belt. From the website of the folks proposing HiVOLT (http://www.tethers.com/HiVOLT.html):

Preliminary analyses indicate that a HiVOLT System can reduce the MeV particle flux in the inner electron belt to 1% of its natural levels within about two months.

The strength of the Earth's magnetic field would be unaffected, and particle flux would go back to pre-HiVOLT levels when the tethers were no longer used. There's nothing magical about the Van Allen belts. They are simply regions where the Earth's magnetic field temporarily traps charged particles.

Serenitude
2007-Apr-04, 01:53 AM
EGMAG - First of all, welcome to the BAUT forum. May your stay be long and prosperous.

For "zombie" threads - it is generally in the best interest of all to start new threads for topics than it is to resurrect years-old threads ;) Also, please be careful not to simple cut'n'paste (or do so but changing a word or two) - it's extremely frowned upon. We like to know that you either know what the idea is, and can be challenged or questioned thereupon, or that you don't know what the idea is, so that we can help you learn it's particulars. It's ok to say "I don't know" - I have to say it all the time, and I moderate here ;)

Also, if there is not a specifically inherent Conspiracy, this is probably the wrong sub-fora to post in. There's a QnA section if you would like answers to a question, a general science section to discuss non-astronomic science, and an Against the Mainstream section, if you have a proposal that isn't an evil conspiracy, but you none-the-less think the mainstream opinion is wrong (and you are prepared to demonstrate why).

Again - welcome!

JayUtah
2007-Apr-04, 02:06 AM
...than it is to resurrect years-old threads ;)

That's the third thread this week. You have no idea how hard it is to refrain from making a joke about Eastertime.

Serenitude
2007-Apr-04, 02:15 AM
...than it is to resurrect years-old threads ;)

That's the third thread this week. You have no idea how hard it is to refrain from making a joke about Eastertime.

And my vote for post of the week is... :lol:

Serenitude
2007-Apr-04, 02:21 AM
...than it is to resurrect years-old threads ;)

That's the third thread this week. You have no idea how hard it is to refrain from making a joke about Eastertime.

Addendum - that reminds me of my first near banning from an internet forum (not this one). I'm not Christian, and a simple, brain-cramp, no-malice-intended misspelling lead me to type "crucifiction", instead of "crucifixion". The replies, I think, are imaginable ;) I had to go to very great pains to explain that no offense was intended, etc...

BTW: To the CT crowd in general, this post is not inviting any sort of religious-bashing replies - hopefully the honest mistake is amusing, but I don't want to set things off on this tangent...

JayUtah
2007-Apr-04, 02:28 AM
hopefully the honest mistake is amusing...

It is to this Christian.

CJSF
2007-Apr-05, 02:59 PM
Serenitude, that is priceless!


It is to this Christian.
And to this one.

CJSF

JayUtah
2007-Apr-05, 04:48 PM
Yes, Serenitude, they should have shown you more charity, especially since archaic spellings and pronunciations and Latinisms bite even the most literate, conscientious, and faithful church-goer. One typically learns by embarrassing trial and error that primate is prounounced pry-muht and not pri-mayt, that collect is a noun and collect is a verb, and that a lay clerk isn't what you think she is.

Today is Maundy Thursday, but lots of Christians don't know what's especially maundy about it. I sure don't; I'm probably going to have to go look it up. All I know is that as a choir director in a high liturgical church, I'm spending most of this week in it, and have come to regard the upcoming Monday as Laundry Monday because that's the only time I'll have to get to that chore. Poking fun at our own difficulties with archaic terminology is part of our culture, and you should have been excused for your intuitive misspelling. Take it from someone who dips his finger in the holy water and says, "Dang it, why does this stuff always sting me?" The acolytes giggle and the choir rolls their eyes, and life goes on.

SpitfireIX
2007-Apr-05, 05:01 PM
It is to this Christian.


Same here. :D

Jim
2007-Apr-05, 05:29 PM
Today is Maundy Thursday, but lots of Christians don't know what's especially maundy about it. I sure don't; I'm probably going to have to go look it up. ...

"Maundy" comes from a quote from Jesus, in Latin, "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos." (A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you.) It's in reference to the Last Supper, which took place on this day.

And, yes, I had to look up the quote. My memory's not that good, and my Latin is much worse.

Added:

Oh, and Serenitude, about that "crucifiction" thing? In keeping with the spirit of the season, I forgive you, my child.
;)

Donnie B.
2007-Apr-05, 05:32 PM
Today is Maundy Thursday, but lots of Christians don't know what's especially maundy about it. I sure don't; I'm probably going to have to go look it up. aka "Mandate Thursday", for the new commandment to love one another "as I have loved you".

From wikipedia:
The word Maundy is derived through Middle English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English), and Old French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French) mand&#233;, from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) mandatum, the first word of the phrase "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos" ( A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you), the statement by Jesus in the Gospel of John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John) (13:34) by which Jesus explained to the Apostles the significance of his action of washing their feet.

ETA: Hey, you beat me to it. But I have links :)

Jim
2007-Apr-05, 05:36 PM
But I have links :)

A good scrubbing with a strong soap can get rid of those.

PhantomWolf
2007-Apr-07, 01:14 AM
Today is Maundy Thursday, but lots of Christians don't know what's especially maundy about it. I sure don't; I'm probably going to have to go look it up. All I know is that as a choir director in a high liturgical church, I'm spending most of this week in it, and have come to regard the upcoming Monday as Laundry Monday because that's the only time I'll have to get to that chore. Poking fun at our own difficulties with archaic terminology is part of our culture, and you should have been excused for your intuitive misspelling. Take it from someone who dips his finger in the holy water and says, "Dang it, why does this stuff always sting me?" The acolytes giggle and the choir rolls their eyes, and life goes on.

Not wanting to get into a religious debate or anything, but just an observation. I am sooooooooooooooooooo glad that the church I belong to has disposed of all those things and just gotten back to the basics.

Serenitude
2007-Apr-07, 03:45 AM
"Oh, and Serenitude, about that "crucifiction" thing? In keeping with the spirit of the season, I forgive you, my child.
;)

*bows*

mugaliens
2007-Apr-18, 10:41 PM
Actually, I'm quite certain Van Allen had several belts, as do most men.

:whistle:

PhantomWolf
2007-Apr-18, 11:34 PM
Actually, I'm quite certain Van Allen had several belts, as do most men.

:whistle:

How do you know he wasn't into suspenders?

DataCable
2007-Apr-19, 03:13 AM
How do you know he wasn't into suspenders?American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspenders), or British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_%28stockings%29)?

PhantomWolf
2007-Apr-19, 11:23 PM
Well either might have worked, I mean who am I to tell the man would he could and couldn't wear?

mugaliens
2007-Apr-20, 10:21 PM
How do you know he wasn't into suspenders?

Because of his other belts. If he were into suspenders, the astronauts would have traversed the Van Allen Suspenders.

JayUtah
2007-Apr-21, 02:37 AM
Maybe those were the suspenders they used to simulate low gravity on the lunar surface. Boing, boing, boing.

DataCable
2007-Apr-21, 02:50 AM
Maybe those were the suspenders they used to simulate low gravity on the lunar surface. Boing, boing, boing.
Wouldn't that be "Grumman, Grumman, Grumman"? :think:

Damien Evans
2007-Apr-21, 02:33 PM
Serenitude, that is priceless!


And to this one.

CJSF

and this one as well

Damien Evans
2007-Apr-21, 02:37 PM
Wouldn't that be "Grumman, Grumman, Grumman"? :think:

Hmm, you've given me some deep thinking to do...

mugaliens
2007-Apr-21, 08:42 PM
Wouldn't that be "Grumman, Grumman, Grumman"? :think:

Only if the suspenders' spring effect were dampened....