From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:40:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 07:59:30 -0400 Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon - Smith >From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 21:01:08 -0500 >Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon >>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 >You should read a little more carefully before you reply all in >a huff. I did not mean to sound huffy. >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. Okay, I misunderstood your position. However, it is not clear to me how you can infer "peer pressure, group think, and herd mentality" caused Mr. Freeman to revisit his paper after 20 years. Consider that the truest, most powerful time of peer pressure is prior to any paper being written. In fact, he might have been trying to find enough data to confirm his previous results so as to get recognition and more funding!! Because he wrote two initial papers about 1 year apart, I am inclined to believe NO peer pressure existed to remove the "anomaly" of water on the Moon. >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. Assuming it is continuous and assuming the corrleations based on known water releases can be used for inferring water quantities. >>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. Okay, I agree more explanation was warranted. >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. Yes, I know and stated this. You need to ask him why he omitted the Apollo 12 data in the 1991 paper. I doubt it was due to peer pressure. There is likely a good rationale. >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. Okay, you make a good point, although I still don't see any peer pressure in this. >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. Have to ask Freeman.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp