UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 3

Re: The Engineered Moon - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 21:01:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 12:42:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon - Fleming


>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:04:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon

>>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?

Science marches ever forward, eh?

>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.

You should read a little more carefully before you reply all in
a huff. I never said anything about keeping the public in the
dark. I was speculating more along the lines of peer pressure,
group think, and herd mentality among planetary scientists, who
seem to have an aversion to the notion of liquid water not only
on the Moon, but on Mars as well. Despite the fact that the
water phase diagram says otherwise, there've been repeated
assertions made over the years by scientists that liquid water
cannot exist on Mars. It can and, I suspect, probably does
intermittently at certain elevations, latitudes, and seasons.
But once unqualified pronouncments are repeated frequently
enough in the mass media by sufficiently important scientists,
it seems that they just become accepted as fact without much
dispute by scientists as a group.

>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."

I haven't seen the paper you're referring to, but it's probably
because in the first paper they used a water release rate of 5
kg/sec for the Apollo 14 lander, but that was actually a total
exhaust gas rate. Water was about 20% of emissions, which would
be about 1 kg/sec. But 14 hours at 1 kg/sec is still 50,000 kg
total, midway between the the two estimates. You could say it's
"on the order of" either 10^4 or 10^5, depending on your
preferences.

>Note that the ion emission was detected intermittently so
>clearly the amount would be much less than 10,000kg (which
>assumes continuous emissions).

And it also assumed intermittent detection due to changes in the
direction of the electric field in the solar wind. I know that
the 1991 paper said that the sporadic bursts detected didn't
correlate well with the solar wind electric field direction. But
it also said that the correlation was made with data from
Explorer 35, which was at an apogee of 675 km from Earth, well
within the magnetosphere. The Moon, of course, is much farther
away than that and the later paper said it was near the Earth's
bow shock wave at the time of the event, where conditions may be
somewhat chaotic. So the correlation seems rather dubious. Maybe
it was justified, but it seems to warrant more explanation than
it was given in the 1991 pape given that the lack of correlation
was the rationale for discarding the assumption of continuous
ion emissions.

>>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.

The 1972 paper from the Lunar Science Conference Procedings said
that the mass analyzer at the Apollo 12 site was too noisy. But
there was a _second_ instrument called the TotalIon Detector
(TID) that apparently was working OK at the Apollo 12 site. The
TID can't distinguish between types of ions, like the MA can,
but the readings at the Apollo 12 site correlated well with the
TID at the Apollo 14 site.

>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).

Yes. From 27 km away. If two sites 183 km apart were both
getting similar ion count rates, that implies the closest the
source would have been was midway between them, or 91 km from
both. Assuming the water vapor cloud was spreading out uniformly
in all directions, the area covered would have been 10 times
greater than the area covered by a cloud with a radius of 27 km.
And the total mass would also have been at least 10 times the
total mass released from a source at 27 km away from the
detector. Using the same assumptions as in the second paper to
arrive at a total of 500 kg released at a distance of 27 km,
that would be 5000 kg, which is 1800kg more than the 3200 kg
that the 1991 paper said was the _total_ water released in the
lunar environment during the Apollo 14 mission. The total water
released certainly didn't end up being absorbed by the lunar
soil. That's a more detailed explanation of why the Apollo 12
readings seemed of such significance and why their omission from
the 1991 paper seemed so strange.

>>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.

I don't view the "engineered moon" scenario as the most likely
explanation. Comets have been bombarding the moon for a long
time, and some small proportion of the huge quantities of water
they carry may get trapped beneath the lunar surface after each
impact and then escape occasionally. Ironically, not too long
after Freeman's 1991 paper was published, lunar scientists
started speculating that there may be a lot of cometary ice on
the surface of the moon at the south pole, which has a deep
basin where large areas are in permanent shadow. Subsurface ice
seems as plausible to me as that. Given the present interest in
cometary water on the Moon, maybe Freem "revisited" his earlier
conclusions too prematurely.




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com