From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:04:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:05:14 -0400 Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon - Smith >From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> >To: UFOUpdates <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:15:38 -0500 >Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon >>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:06:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon >>"4. On March 7, 1971, lunar instruments placed by the astronauts >>recorded a vapor cloud of water passing across the surface of >>the moon. The cloud lasted 14 hours and covered an area of about >>100 square miles." >>"It is concluded that during most of the event the observed >>water vapor ions were accelerated by the negative lunar surface >>electric potential and, secondly, that this event was probably >>the result of mission associated water vapor, either from the LM >>ascent and descent stage rockets or from residual water in the >>descent stage tanks." >>So much for the myth of the March 7, 1971 event! >Perhaps the "myth" is what's in the second paper. Assume that given 20 years of time in the development of lunar science between the two papers that there would be ENHANCED understanding rather than a fall into the Dark Ages of selective memory? In addition to these papers are many papers and analyses regarding the electric field around the Moon. This took alot of time to understand, but resulted in a more throrough analysis of the second paper. Indeed, why bother even writing a second paper if the analyses were correct the first time. I assume it is your opinion that they had to hide the evidence now and prove wrong the previous paper to satisfy some desire to keep the public in the dark. >The first one entitled "Water Vapor, whence comest >thou?" was in the Proceedings of the Third Lunar >Science Conference in 1972. Published in Jan 1972. The "first" paper I am referring to was the December 1972 paper "Observations of Water Vapor Ions at the Lunar Surface". >The paper gave 100,000 kg as a lower estimate of >the amount of water >vapor released. The estimate was based on the nearly >simultaneous detection at two Apollo landing sites located 183 >kilometers apart (Apollo 12 and Apollo 14). Well, alot of analysis must have gone on from the January to December time period because he states that" if we assume equivalent ion accelerating conditions for the two events and if the water vapor source was no closer than 27 km, we conclude that at least 500 kg of water was involved in the March 7 event." Also, "if an emission rate of 1 kg/sec of H2) was maintained on March 7 for a period of 14 hr, a total water emission of the order of 10,000kg is implied." Note that the ion emission was detected intermittently so clearly the amount would be much less than 10,000kg (which assumes continuous emissions). So we have an order of magnitude difference between the first paper and the second over a 1 year period. Of course, if you wish to extrapolate this continued reduction for 19 more years the amount would be less than 1 kg, but that is not valid, only funny. The key is that determining the amount of water is very tricky and requires certain assumptions which may be wild ass guesses. You need to know the location, surface area of the source, details of ionization/acceleration mechanisms. It is refreshing that the author was willing to continue working on the topic and write a new paper after 20 years! How often does that happen! And what would have been better for his funding, proof of large water deposits or disprove? Obviously the former! >The second paper retracted the very large estimate of the water >vapor released and concluded that a few hundred kg were >released, with a tank at the Apollo 14 landing site as the >proposed source of the water. The rationale for the drastically >revised estimate was insufficient understanding of the >electrical environment of the lunar surface at the time of the >first paper. Perfectly reasonable! As I said, its complex and took a long time to understand. >The curious thing about the second paper is that it >made no mention at all of what seemed to be the _salient_ fact >in the first paper: that the event was detected at two sites 183 >km apart. Only the Apollo 14 measurements were discussed in the >second paper. No explanation was given for the observations at >the Apollo 12 site on the same day. The December 1972 report states that the Apollo 12 SIDE MA (mass spectra analyzer) was too noisy and unusable. Although the Apollo 12 ion detector (counter) was working and correlated to the Apollo 14 site, the Apollo 12 site may have not even been water ions. Maybe thats why he excluded it. Or maybe it was irrelevant, since it is known that the the Apollo 12 detectors CAN detect Apollo 14 site emissions (from my "first" report, which is how they got their calibration for water mass estimates). Did you try to ask the author? >I'm far from being an expert on this subject, but the mysterious >disappearance of the Apollo 12 observations in the second paper >makes me wonder whether the estimate was revised to fit the >facts or the facts were revised to fit someone's preferred >theories. More likely there is a reasonable explanation but the UFO mythologists prefer mystery and conspiracy over humdrum prosaic explanations.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp