PDA

View Full Version : Arguing an HBer on another forum



Swordfish
2007-Jul-24, 06:52 PM
Before I say anything allow me to assure you that I have been handling his arguments very well, and he hasn't thrown anything new into the pot (van Braun in Antarctica, Van Allen belts, no stars, etc.). During his Van Allen belt argument, however, he said that film for their cameras would have been ruined by the radiation, and while I gave him the typical speech about the Van Allen belts, but there is just one thing concerning the film that I wasn't sure about.

Does particle radiation even effect film like EM radiation does?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-24, 07:06 PM
Particle radiation will affect photographic film, but not by fogging it. Particle hits show up as trails or spots.

Ask him why Luna 3's film wasn't destroyed.

Particle radiation, such as that found in the Van Allen belts, is relatively easy to shield against. Some heavy particles such as alpha particles can even be effectively blocked by a sheet of cardboard. EM radiation, especially gamma rays, is much more difficult a shielding problem.

papageno
2007-Jul-24, 07:41 PM
Particle radiation will affect photographic film, but not by fogging it. Particle hits show up as trails or spots.


They used photographic plates to detect particles in the old days.
In particular, they used to send plates up on balloons to record traces from cosmic rays.

gwiz
2007-Jul-24, 08:02 PM
They used photographic plates to detect particles in the old days.
In particular, they used to send plates up on balloons to record traces from cosmic rays.
They use the same technique on spacecraft, too, including Apollo 11. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-7587(197202)49%3A2%3C245%3ANTROTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A)

Fazor
2007-Jul-24, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by papageno
They used photographic plates to detect particles in the old days.
In particular, they used to send plates up on balloons to record traces from cosmic rays. They use the same technique on spacecraft, too, including Apollo 11. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-7587(197202)49%3A2%3C245%3ANTROTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A)
They sent Apollo 11 up on a balloon? Now THAT'S innovation!
Sorry, just focusing on the wrong parts of valid statements...in other words, honing my HB skills. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

peter eldergill
2007-Jul-24, 08:43 PM
Glaven that made me laugh outloud! Balloons indeed

Pete

JayUtah
2007-Jul-24, 09:09 PM
You could always try a big cannon.

I've worn film-based dosimeters in this day and age. It's still the cheapest way, and it's reasonably reliable.

Swordfish
2007-Jul-24, 09:13 PM
Thanks everyone. I knew the film was really a non issue in the argument since the spacecraft were sufficiently shielded, but was still curious as to what effect particle radiation would have on it. I figured it was worth a venture since the person I was arguing didn't understand the difference between particle and EM radiation, and it was very possible they were confusing the effects of one for the effects of both (which still seems to be the case, because I guess that if the film were not shielded, then it still would have been fine with the exception of some overexposed dots).

JayUtah
2007-Jul-24, 09:35 PM
Possibly many little dots, but not necessarily the fogging you get from x-rays.

Swift
2007-Jul-25, 05:00 PM
Here (http://www.spaceref.com/iss/payloads/dosimetric.mapping.html) is some information about dosimetry experiments that were conducted on the shuttle. It includes a picture of the tracks left by high energy particles on film.

Fazor
2007-Jul-25, 06:37 PM
You could always try a big cannon.


I think the Baltimore Gun Club (http://www.online-literature.com/verne/earth_to_moon/) beat me to it...



**Shameless plug of one of my favorite authors: if you haven't read it already, the text is available in it's entirity at that link

nomuse
2007-Jul-25, 08:03 PM
And don't rule out rockoons yet.

Which, oddly enough, were tried out by James Van Allen as part of his methods to probe the upper atmosphere...

Sticks
2007-Jul-25, 09:14 PM
And don't rule out rockoons yet.

I thought they busted that one on Mythbusters? :confused:

JonClarke
2007-Jul-25, 10:38 PM
While on the topiuc of debating HIBers on other forums, one such of the Hoagland sub species has raised the issue of Ken Johnson who, Art bell, apparently said the following:

Worked for Brown-Root and Northrop at the LRL. They had the contract for the processing of the lunar samples and his particular function was a supervisor of the data and photo control department, which handled all of the photographic, as well as written documentation about the lunar samples.

Kept about a thousand pictures and said "saw what we were told we were going to see."

Eighteen to twenty years later Richard Hoagland his team came over he took a serious look was amazed the things that they had seen (on some of those eighth to tenth generation copies) that just stood out blatantly right on his pictures.

These would have been the usual Hoagland alien artefacts on the Moon that Hoagland sees.

Any ifo? Thanks

Jon

Grand_Lunar
2007-Jul-25, 11:52 PM
The only artifacts Hoagland sees are in his mind.

He uses the same tactics he does for his Mars pictures; making up patterns and giving false explainations for the pictures.

The BA's site discusses Hoagland's tactics for Mars photos. I'm pretty sure they can apply to his look at the moon photos too.

Other threads here have delt with Hoagland's moon claims.

JonClarke
2007-Jul-26, 01:38 AM
I know that about Hogaland :). I am asking for info on Ken Johnson - did he do what he said he did, etc.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-26, 06:15 PM
I don't think Ken Johnson's name has popped up in quite a while. My overall impression was that it's another unsubstantiated "I worked at a NASA site and saw these things firsthand" claim.

Eyewitness testimony is a funny thing. It tends toward conclusive assertions, as opposed to circumstantial evidence that requires an inductive leap. That is, if Mary says she saw Bob shoot Ted, that's a different form of evidence than powder residue on Bob's hands and a bullet in Ted's body that matches Bob's gun. The latter evidence is less open to subjective evaluation, but it still requires one to put two and two together and generalize from them. The former eyewitness testimony goes right to the interesting part of the question, but is based wholly for its value on whether Mary is believable. People have the option rationally to believe or disbelieve the witness.

Here too we have Ken Johnson telling us he witnessed the doctoring of Apollo photographs firsthand, but since there is no corroborating evidence we are left with our impression of his credibility as a witness. To my knowledge, Johnson has not provided any evidence for his claim to have been an insider. I don't recall whether Johnson was one of the people J.R. Keller researched in NASA personnel and contractor records.

My recollection of Johnson's claims revolve around two specific accounts: first, that he witnessed the alteration of photographs; and second, that he displayed photographs for NASA officials that were then altered when he saw them later.

The first occurrence requires some interpretation on Johnson's part whether alteration was intended to deceive. That is, even in the the best case where he is telling the honest truth of what he witnessed, he cannot have known whether those altered photographs were then passed off as unaltered originals. Since we know NASA supplies edited versions of some of its photographs for public relations and presentation purposes (which are not the same as for historical research), we are not constrainted to accept Johnson's interpretation without further evidence.

The second occurrence has Johnson operating what he calls a "sequence camera" to display Apollo images to NASA officials. He says there were anomalies in some of the photos that he was told by the officials to ignore, then when he went to show the photos to others the anomalies were inexplicably absent. Unfortunately, Johnson's description of a "sequence camera" is complete hogwash. A "sequence camera" is a well-known piece of hardware that is utterly unlike what he describes.

So since there is no corroborating evidence for his claims, no evidence of the basis for his testimony, factual errors and leading interpretations in his testimony, I conclude that Ken Johnson is not a credible witness on this point.

gwiz
2007-Jul-26, 08:14 PM
Is this the same guy? His bio suggests he was born in 1943, which makes him a bit young to have given pilot training to Apollo astronauts.

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=103

I don't really have the time to listen to a one-hour audio to find out his views.

JonClarke
2007-Jul-26, 10:07 PM
Thanks Jay

That was the line I took also. Eyewitness testimony is fine, but that of a singel person must be supported by others and, if possible by other times of evidence.

Jon

Fazor
2007-Jul-26, 10:27 PM
Eyewitness testimony is no better if there's multiple witnesses. In fact, it often gets worse the more witnesses you have. Obviously, this level of weight and accuracy witness testimony brings depends on the situation, on a case by case basis (i.e., five employees from a temp agency saying they spent 8 hours a day for 5 weeks shredding documents is more reliable than the same witnesses testifying about a man who ran in, shot someone, then fled in the span of under a minute).

Really, witness testimony becomes most usefull when it can be corroborated by other tangable evidence; and better still when it also can futher identify evidence that has yet to be found.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-26, 10:51 PM
Is this the same guy?

Probably, which illustrates an error I've perpetuated: the correct spelling is Johnston.

This guy claims quite the resume. Three bachelor's degrees in aerospace-related fields? I don't know what to make of the Master in Theology and Doctor of Metaphysics degree. The fact that no institutions or years are listed for any of these degrees makes me suspicious. It was, in fact, not uncommon for ex-Apollo people to go back to school at get advanced degrees in non-scientific disciplines, but that means they generally changed career paths too, which Mr. Johnston evidently has not. Apparently he simply found religion.

In fact, he seems to have run the gamut. He claims affiliation with Brown & Root, Northrup, Grumman (which at the time was not merged with Northrup), and Boeing. Brown & Root partnered with Northrup to do a lot of LRL work, but I don't see Johnston's name associated with any of it.

He says he "taught the astronauts to fly the lunar module," presumably while he was working for Grumman. He says he is associated with the TM-5 article, which was an engineering and assembly mockup. Various sources say he was the "test command pilot" for the astronauts for the lunar module, but I have no idea what that might mean.

Then inexplicably he made a substantial career jump to a major custodian of lunar samples and associated records at the lunar receiving lab. Although several Brown & Root and Northrup employees are on record as working in the LRL in substantial roles, I don't see Ken Johnston among them. He claims to have authored or contributed to Lunar Sample Information Catalogues, but his name does not appear on their cover sheets or in supplementary material.

The only record NASA has of him that I can find is his association with their Ambassador program, in which the same bio appears that is repeated elsewhere in connection with his photographic anomalies speeches. Consulting the application procedure for this program, it appears the applicant is responsible for supplying the biography (several are even written in the first person). I consulted the program for Ambassadors in my area and found people with whom I am familiar (e.g., planetarium employees) who generally have no other connection to NASA. Since Johnston specifically gives this association as a reference to his affiliation with NASA, I am suspicious that he is overplaying that card.

Johnston maintains association with UFO, Mars-Cydonia, and Moon alien enthusiasts.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-26, 10:56 PM
Really, witness testimony becomes most usefull when it can be corroborated by other tangable evidence...

And when it is credible on its face. If someone says he did everything at NASA except sweep the floors and turn off the lights at night, has more college degrees than a Mensa chapter, and worked for every Apollo prime contractor save one, you have to wonder about what he's going to claim on that basis.

Maksutov
2007-Jul-26, 11:16 PM
Here (http://www.spaceref.com/iss/payloads/dosimetric.mapping.html) is some information about dosimetry experiments that were conducted on the shuttle. It includes a picture of the tracks left by high energy particles on film.I'm pretty sure some of the astronauts performed informal particle detection experiments using their retinas (http://cfi.lbl.gov/%7Ebudinger/visualpercep.html).