Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Article on James Van Allen and space radiation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42

    Article on James Van Allen and space radiation

    Answer to post #3.

    I found a link to the article.
    https://alixus.wordpress.com/the-van-allen-enigma/

    If that link goes dead, viewers can do a Google search on a sentence from the article between quotation marks. This sentence will take you to the article. Just copy and paste it in Google.

    "Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa."
    Last edited by Craig2; 2018-Jul-19 at 09:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Circular logic.

    Satellites operate quite normally within the strongest belt. If these private companies were given the wrong data, their satellites would fail.
    The Soviet Zond mission performed radiation testing and it concluded that it would not be a problem for short missions.

    Van Allen was part of the team that devised the flight path of Apollo to avoid denser areas of the belt.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    It looks suspiciously like Van Allen was gotten to. He seems to have changed his opinion. The theory is that Van Allen's findings were a problem for NASA as they contradicted the moon landing scenario they were presenting so they either bribed and/or threatened him to get him to say his findings were consistent with the moon mission scenario.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
    THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
    By Phylis and James Collier
    Craig2

    It looks like you have reproduced much or all of a magazine article that I assume is copyrighted. This is an extremely serious violation of our rules (rule 4). You must edit your post immediately, with a short summary of the quoted material (instead of the entire copy). You may also link to an online copy of it.

    If you do not make these edits, the moderation team will remove the material
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Their understanding of radiation physics is woeful (hint - Bremsstrahlung)

    The Van Allen belt claims have been done to death - see http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html for a reasonably comprehensive debunk that refers to many of the arguments you've quoted directly. You should probably also read the rest of the site as it addresses pretty much all of the claims you've posted so far in detail.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    It looks suspiciously like Van Allen was gotten to. He seems to have changed his opinion.
    Van Allen was not "gotten" to" because he did not change his opinion in that 1997 interview.
    Van Allen stated that he stood by his original results. The data that he had in 1959 showed that extra layers of protection were needed to safeguard astronauts for the standard he used.
    Van Allen disagreed with the reporter citing his Scientific American article because that was popular science, not scientific literature.
    Van Allen agreed with the NASA results using his data with relaxed standards. NASA expected that astronauts would be willing to take a once in a lifetime radiation dose that would not be lethal.

    The reporter goes off on a paranoid rant. The reporter lies. The Apollo spacecraft (plural!) went through thin parts of the Belt, not its "heart".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    The Van Allen belt claims have been done to death - see http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html for a reasonably comprehensive debunk that refers to many of the arguments you've quoted directly. You should probably also read the rest of the site as it addresses pretty much all of the claims you've posted so far in detail.
    That info comes from NASA who are the ones who carried out the hoax (I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage*). If they faked the missions, why would they be expected to tell the truth about space radiation?

    Here's some alternative info on space radiation.

    MoonFaker: Cold War II. PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4

    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...active+Anomaly.


    I know that the alternative info is also second-hand info. The only way a person could be sure about the real nature and levels of space radiation is to send up his own probe and measure it himself as there's so much contradictory info and governments have records of lying so it would be quite naive to simply take their word for it. I'm putting forward the idea that they had to fake it because of space radiation as a mere theory. They obviously faked the missions. I'm just saying that the radiation theory may be why they had to fake them. It may turn out that they faked them for another reason.


    Van Allen was not "gotten" to" because he did not change his opinion in that 1997 interview.
    I looks to me like he did. The viewers can read it and decide for themselves.


    Satellites operate quite normally within the strongest belt. If these private companies were given the wrong data, their satellites would fail.
    Those engineers wouldn't be given the wrong data. It's plausible that they had security clearances and there is a set of data for the public and the real data that is given to people who need it. Those engineers would have to be in on the hoax of course and it's quite plausible that they are.



    *
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-here-on-earth

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Of course the article is biased and then we have the following quote from CQ
    SpitfireIX
    2003-Mar-05, 07:57 AM
    Hello, all.

    I recently received the following e-mail from James Van Allen in response to a request for his comments on the radiation effects of the Van Allen belts. I post it here as a possible aid to other debunkers. I have edited out sections of my original e-mail for length; Professor Van Allen's response is reprinted in its entirety.

    My request:


    My question to you, Professor Van Allen, is this. I have read that you have "denounced" the conspiracy theorists' claims that radiation in the Van Allen belts would have killed the astronauts. I have also seen a quote from you about what utter nonsense the Fox special was. Could you please, if possible, point me to any sources in print or on the web where you have been extensively quoted? If there are none that you know of, and it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you could reply with a brief statement on the subject. In all my recent studies about the moon-conspiracy theories, the cornerstone of most arguments appears to be that radiation is what makes interplanetary space travel impossible. I feel that there is no person better qualified to debunk this absurd claim (and no one more likely to be taken seriously) than you. Of course, some conspiracists will say that you are in on the conspiracy yourself, but we can never hope actually to convince them.


    Professor Van Allen's response:


    Dear Mr. Lambert,

    In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago --

    Ř The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

    Ř The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

    Ř A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

    Ř However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.


    Ř The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.

    James A. Van Allen



    As a side note, here is an excellent newspaper article about James Van Allen: http://www.press-citizen.com/progres...h/vanallen.htm

    --Doug
    So he did not change his mind, nor did NASA twist his arm to change his opinion. One of the things you might fo is to research the exact statements that Dr. Van Allen wrote, not what HB's have convoluted to suit their interest.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    So he did not change his mind, nor did NASA twist his arm to change his opinion. One of the things you might fo is to research the exact statements that Dr. Van Allen wrote, not what HB's have convoluted to suit their interest.
    How do you know that NASA wasn't twisting his arm to make him say that?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    How do you know that NASA wasn't twisting his arm to make him say that?
    How do you know that NASA did twist his arm, which is what you are proposing. Bottom line you didn't read the note that Dr. Van Allen wrote concerning a hoax concerning Apollo. The missions happened as advertised. Your sophomoric attempts to present a hoax are laughable.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    How do you know that NASA wasn't twisting his arm to make him say that?
    So wait a minute. First you claimed Van Allen changed his mind and was proof he was “gotten to”.
    When it’s shown his opinions remained consistent about his findings yiu’re claiming NASA twisted his arm?
    Furthermore you want us to present proof this didn’t happen?

    That’s not how this works.
    What does God need with a starship?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    So wait a minute. First you claimed Van Allen changed his mind and was proof he was “gotten to”.
    When it’s shown his opinions remained consistent about his findings yiu’re claiming NASA twisted his arm?
    Furthermore you want us to present proof this didn’t happen?
    You're twisting things around. I maintain that the article in post #1 seems to show that he did change his stand and that the letter in post #7 shows opinions that are different from the ones in the article. If they're different, it's plausible that NASA was twisting his arm.

    Viewers please read the whole article linked to in post #1. Do a page search on “It must have been a sloppy statement.” That's where he changes his story.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    That info comes from NASA who are the ones who carried out the hoax (I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage*). If they faked the missions, why would they be expected to tell the truth about space radiation?
    Very poor circular reasoning.

    Here's some alternative info on space radiation.
    I know that the alternative info is also second-hand info. The only way a person could be sure about the real nature and levels of space radiation is to send up his own probe and measure it himself as there's so much contradictory info and governments have records of lying so it would be quite naive to simply take their word for it. I'm putting forward the idea that they had to fake it because of space radiation as a mere theory. They obviously faked the missions. I'm just saying that the radiation theory may be why they had to fake them. It may turn out that they faked them for another reason.
    It isn't second hand info, it is nonsensical, unproven tosh.

    I looks to me like he did. The viewers can read it and decide for themselves.
    I read it. It shows exactly how science works. He made a statement about the difficulty and was part of the team that solved it.

    Apollo took a trajectory around the weaker areas. A flight from Florida guarantees at least 30 degrees and the injection burn added a further 11 degrees by aiming away from the magnetic tilt.

    Those engineers wouldn't be given the wrong data. It's plausible that they had security clearances and there is a set of data for the public and the real data that is given to people who need it. Those engineers would have to be in on the hoax of course and it's quite plausible that they are.
    A quite ludicrous statement. There have been some 8000 satellites launched.

    And your ridiculous, evidence ignoring hoax, acquired more and more people every single time you post! Not one single confession, not one single leak, no paper trails, no design documents, multiple countries hostile to the USA.

    I know you don't know what the word "plausible" means.

    Ball park figure: Tell me how many people are "in on this hoax". Direct request.
    Last edited by Clanger; 2018-Jul-20 at 03:17 AM. Reason: part of quoted post left in

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    That info comes from NASA who are the ones who carried out the hoax (I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage*). If they faked the missions, why would they be expected to tell the truth about space radiation?
    The information about bremsstrahlung comes from laboratories around the world who have measured it. The fact that your source doesn't even understand the basics of radiation shielding makes them largely non-credible.

    But since you have set your beliefs in stone based on debunked YouTube videos and commentary from people with a weak grasp of the actual physics involved I don't see much we can fruitfully discuss. If all you can bring to the table on radiation physics is "NASA must be lying because I believe they are lying" the discussion won't go anywhere. Shame you aren't a little more open minded on the subject.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Answer to post #3.

    I found a link to the article.
    https://alixus.wordpress.com/the-van-allen-enigma/
    An undated article written by people who have no practical knowledge of radiation, as evident by these sentences -
    "One of the most interesting of Van Allen’s findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests."

    First of all, only protons and electrons of the highest energies seen in the inner portions of the belts have that effect. Lower energy particles can be effectively shielded to almost 100% by aluminum with no x-ray production. I have seen and done this MANY times myself. And stupidest of all, dentists do NOT provide two inch thick lead aprons. The weight alone would crush the patient. Yet, these are the kind of idiots you use as a reference? I guess that's the only way you can find anyone who agrees with you.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    That info comes from NASA who are the ones who carried out the hoax...
    A post with:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    That info comes from NASA who are the ones who carried out the hoax (I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage*). If they faked the missions, why would they be expected to tell the truth about space radiation?

    <snip>
    First off you haven't proved any hoax and you need to start doing that instead of giving bare assertions.

    "I consider it to be proven by the anomalies in the photos and footage" More bare assertions. The same direct question to you as in the other thread.
    What anomalies have proven a hoax, spell them out in detail. I suspect it is rather a poor image analysis, but I'm giving you the chance to prove these bare assertions you have been slinging about. If you use any image other than the originals from NASA's website, I'm afraid that will be disqualified due to the lack of control and the possibility that some HB changed the original, just like Jack white did numerous occasions.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The only way a person could be sure about the real nature and levels of space radiation is to send up his own probe and measure it himself as there's so much contradictory info and governments have records of lying so it would be quite naive to simply take their word for it. I'm putting forward the idea that they had to fake it because of space radiation as a mere theory. They obviously faked the missions. I'm just saying that the radiation theory may be why they had to fake them. It may turn out that they faked them for another reason.
    Yes, governments have records of lying, but that's only natural, because governments are made up of people, and people have an ample record of lying. If people didn't lie, then why would be need judges and juries to resolve disputes between people? So I guess that you shouldn't trust anybody. Which makes things pretty difficult.

    I think a better way to go is to consider the evidence and what motivations one might have for lying. For all the governments with space-faring capacities to conspire to cover up something seems pretty absurd to me.
    As above, so below

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Apollo took a trajectory around the weaker areas. A flight from Florida guarantees at least 30 degrees and the injection burn added a further 11 degrees by aiming away from the magnetic tilt.
    Yeah, that's the official story. Of course they're going to have a story.


    A quite ludicrous statement. There have been some 8000 satellites launched.
    So? What does that prove?


    And your ridiculous, evidence ignoring hoax, acquired more and more people every single time you post! Not one single confession, not one single leak, no paper trails, no design documents, multiple countries hostile to the USA.
    You're basing your opinion on the idea that mainstream info is the truth. If the media are owned, they're not going to report on any confessions or death bed statements. Enter "Chomsky media" in Youtube to see what the media are really like.

    We are told that countries that are hostile to the US would rat on the US. Maybe they do and we don't here about it. Also, we don't know what's really going on behind the scenes. Check out Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.

    http://libcom.org/history/articles/c...?quicktabs_1=0
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------
    On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

    The Cold War provided that too. No matter how outlandish the idea that the Soviet Union and its tentacles were strangling the West, the "Evil Empire" was in fact evil, was an empire and was brutal. Each superpower controlled its primary enemy - its own population - by terrifying it with the (quite real) crimes of the other.

    In crucial respects, then, the Cold War was a kind of tacit arrangement between the Soviet Union and the United States under which the US conducted its wars against the Third World and controlled its allies in Europe, while the Soviet rulers kept an iron grip on their own internal empire and their satellites in Eastern Europe - each side using the other to justify repression and violence in its own domains. The Cold War even had a cultural component, with rival interventions in the art world.
    -------------------------------------


    The information about bremsstrahlung comes from laboratories around the world who have measured it.
    You're accepting what they say on faith. How do you know that they're not being threatened or bribed by NASA?


    What anomalies have proven a hoax, spell them out in detail.
    I listed them in my posts in this thread.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-here-on-earth

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    <snip>
    I listed them in my posts in this thread.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-here-on-earth
    Those YT videos are not compelling and as I indicated in the other thread, only direct linkage to official documents, not any image or video that has been produced by a third party (or yourself) will be allowed. Any other will be disqualified. Therefore all those have been disqualified. Try doing research with the originals and present your case. I await your response.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Those YT videos are not compelling and as I indicated in the other thread, only direct linkage to official documents, not any image or video that has been produced by a third party (or yourself) will be allowed. Any other will be disqualified. Therefore all those have been disqualified. Try doing research with the originals and present your case. I await your response.
    translation: The anomalies in those videos are so clear that if I try to obfuscate them, I'll just end up looking silly so I'd better avoid the issue altogether.

    Your response would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Your response would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
    Craig2

    As I warned in your other thread, we will keep this debate polite or it will be closed.

    I also suggest you be careful about the politics you drag into these discussions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    I also suggest you be careful about the politics you drag into these discussions.
    I had to talk about politics in order to address the question.

    Here's some more alternative info on space radiation.

    http://apollotruth.atspace.co.uk/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
    Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/MoreIn...Challenge.html
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...9659&hl=apollo

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The information about bremsstrahlung comes from laboratories around the world who have measured it.
    You're accepting what they say on faith. How do you know that they're not being threatened or bribed by NASA?
    Um, because I've done experiments involving bremsstrahlung effects myself.

    And in case it needs to be spelt out at no point did NASA goons kick down the door to the lab and force me to hand over my lab books.

    Even if I hadn't anyone with a rudimentary grasp of physics and a couple of hours to spare can follow the derivations that show why the article you reference is garbage when it comes to radiation shielding. The fact that the authors didn't and parrot old misconceptions about dealing with radiation hazards reflects very poorly on either their integrity or their thoroughness.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Ball park figure: Tell me how many people are "in on this hoax". Direct request.
    I'm not sure but it would have been possible to fool a lot of people in the Apollo program and important people who would rather not go along with a hoax can be kept quite.

    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Craig2; 2018-Jul-22 at 02:13 PM. Reason: correct spelling mistake

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    So how about radio astronomers? Or any other astronomer that only really uses ground based systems? They keep quiet to keep the data flowing for other people? How did NASA do this prior to 1990?

    The scenario you suggest is just implausible. There are something like 10,000 active astronomers (professional) in the world, with large numbers in countries where a desire to keep US secrets is not likely to be a driving factor.

    Given that all of your arguments about radiation have been debunked in the past and you are resorting to implausible, unprovable stories that would raise the eyebrow of a B-movie fan can we assume you have no more persuasive arguments?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Given that all of your arguments about radiation have been debunked in the past and you are resorting to implausible, unprovable stories that would raise the eyebrow of a B-movie fan can we assume you have no more persuasive arguments?
    The fact that Van Allan changed his opinion is very telling. That's all I'm saying here.

    I wish I could post the whole article but I can't so here's the part that shows he changed his opinion.
    “Are you refuting your findings?” we asked.
    “Absolutely not,” he answered, “I stand by them.” In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA’s point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA’s position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, “It must have been a sloppy statement.
    Viewers please click on the link and read the whole article.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The fact that Van Allan changed his opinion is very telling. That's all I'm saying here.
    It wouldn't be telling at all, even if he did. And cherry picked quotes reported second hand by a blog which can't even get basic physics right don't really give me a sense that I am faced with actual evidence.

    Your argument here is a cherry picked version of appeal to authority. Van Allen's statements have no greater weight than any other physicist studying the space domain. By trying to frame him as THE authority and by trying to find some way to discredit him or align him with your beliefs ignores the other scientists who were working the area, ignores the evidence from observations (not all from NASA) and ignore the fact that the claims the article are making are based on no actual physics (at least none they got right). Even if you could prove Van Allen had changed his views it wouldn't make your claims automatically right. There is so much more physics and evidence out there that you have not given anything like a coherent rebuttal to.

    Since this is a physics forum maybe you'd like to focus on the actual physics rather than this game of quotes. Do you have any actual testable or evidence based claims rooted in physics (not fantasies about global conspiracies sweeping in on undergraduate physicists and co-opting them)?
    Last edited by Shaula; 2018-Jul-21 at 07:00 PM. Reason: Spelling - Cheery picking is not a thing!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The fact that Van Allan changed his opinion is very telling. That's all I'm saying here.

    I wish I could post the whole article but I can't so here's the part that shows he changed his opinion.


    Viewers please click on the link and read the whole article.
    Van Allen's opinion changed only insomuch as it was refined upon collection of additional data (there were MANY late probes post 1961 sent after the first couple to study/map the VAB's). The fact that you cannot recognize this is what is truly "telling".

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    translation: The anomalies in those videos are so clear that if I try to obfuscate them, I'll just end up looking silly so I'd better avoid the issue altogether.

    Your response would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
    The reason that I have disqualified any medium except originals from NASA is that there is no control over the production of that medium. That is hardly obfuscating any issue. Perhaps you could spend some quality time in research for your bare assumptions. By not answering the questions it is you who are avoiding the issues.
    Answer the questions.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    Why do they need information from NASA if information from NASA is lies?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Posting Permissions

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