Van Allen's "Nonsense" Quote

[AstroBrant]

I just saw where Jay mentioned it in the Jarrah White radiation thread. It reminded me that this quote has been bugging me for some time. As much as I have referred to it, I'd really like to have a better source. A few years ago, I saw the posting of the e-mail from van Allen to a person about hoax believers' radiation claims and the Fox documentary. (I can't remember the person who posted it.)

It would sure be nice if we could find a more solid source for this often-used quote. The authenticity of a personal e-mail can't be confirmed. Does anybody know of a reliable source where van Allen made this or a similar statement, and that we don't just have to take one person's word for it?

[beedarko]

Jay's scan of his personal letter to/from Dr. Van Allen is pretty solid evidence in my book.

[Luke Pemberton]

It would sure be nice if we could find a more solid source for this often-used quote. The authenticity of a personal e-mail can't be confirmed. Does anybody know of a reliable source where van Allen made this or a similar statement, and that we don't just have to take one person's word for it?

It won't make one bit of difference to the Blunder from Down Under. Jay's a big poopy faced liar and forged the writing to earn his $10 per hour shill cheque from NASA. Hell, all he had to do was get his mate down the pub to write on the letter.

Blunder Boy has been debunked more times than the beds in a submariner's living quarters. Radioactive Radiation Anomaly XXII - This Time it's Even Worse, has been visited by HLAR, and his comment sums it up wonderfully.


From page 53, RHS column, para 2 of "The Danger Zone":-

"The cumulative dosage on this trajectory would be 10 r with a 1 g/cm^2 shield". (paraphrasing for clarity).

This is assuming a flight path similar to Pioneer IV, which pretty much flew through the most dangerous regions of the belts as it had a 1.5 degree orbital inclination. (Apollo avoided these). So, even had Apollo flown along this flight path (it didn't, it had a much higher orbital inclination > 30 degrees), and had very light shielding (the Apollo shielding was 700% denser), the total radiation dose from the deadliest part of the proton belt would have been 20 r (100 r produces few symptoms other than blood changes).

That's the inner belt. As for the outer belt, although radiation levels are higher, it is far easier to shield against the electrons (the paper mentions a 4g cm^-2 shield mildly reducing the inner zone, but reducing the outer zone by a factor of AT LEAST 500).

All this information is taken directly from your sources and can be verified.  Quite clearly, Van Allen doesn't support your assertion that astronauts in an Apollo CSM (higher rated shielding than his example figures), flying at 30 degrees inclination through both belts (avoiding the really bad path Pioneer IV took), would receive a total dose of, oooh, what did you say, about 700 rad?

Would you want to expose your astronauts to this level? No. Despite being far from deadly, it is still too high. The increased chance of cancer, cataracts and other effects is too high. Hence you want to avoid them, or have better than 1g cm^-2   shielding.

It's time you took another look at your methodology again. Stop hiding behind "well I used this method for my Jupiter study and my tutor said I was right". Why not give your Apollo work to your tutor or department head, tell them you have absolute proof that the Apollo missions could not have flown, and ask them to verify your findings before you issue a paper to a respected astronomical journal for peer review. You'll go down in history as a leading truth-seeker for exposing the dark truth of NASAs lies.

What's that?

You're not going to?

Is that because you know full well that your tutor or dept head will use up an awful lot of red ink on your paper, with a big, fat SEE ME at the end? Or will you use the excuse that your tutor and head of department have far too many other important things to be doing than reviewing the most stunning piece of investigative space science journalism the world has ever seen. Surely they want the plaudits for their department too?

It's time to cut the apron strings and safety net of Youtube Jarrah. Claim your place with the greats. Einstein, Hawking, Rutherford and Higgs. Get your findings written up in a proper article, and submit it to a noteworthy journal for peer review, with the full backing of your University department. If you actually believed your figures, you've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

[JayUtah]

Anyone who wants to make the trip to Utah can inspect the letter.  Jarrah can claim until he's blue in the face that the signature is forged, but he knows full well he didn't start making that accusation until after Van Allen died.  He had just as much opportunity as I did to verify Van Allen's statement while the professor was alive.

[Luke Pemberton]

Anyone who wants to make the trip to Utah can inspect the letter.  Jarrah can claim until he's blue in the face that the signature is forged, but he knows full well he didn't start making that accusation until after Van Allen died.  He had just as much opportunity as I did to verify Van Allen's statement while the professor was alive.

Precisely.

[ka9q]

Anyone who wants to make the trip to Utah can inspect the letter.  Jarrah can claim until he's blue in the face that the signature is forged, but he knows full well he didn't start making that accusation until after Van Allen died.  He had just as much opportunity as I did to verify Van Allen's statement while the professor was alive.

Hey, how do we know somebody didn't forge Van Allen's name on that old Scientific American article the hoaxers like to cite so much?

"You could be detonating on the basis of false data."

"I have no proof it was false data."

"YOU HAVE NO PROOF IT WAS CORRECT DATA!"

(beat)

"I must think on this further..."

(later)

"Let there be light."

 

[ajv]

My body flies the galaxy, my heart longs to be there

[Bryanpoprobson]

http://www.benzedrine.cx/benson.mp3

[onebigmonkey]

Is it my turn to feed the alien again?

[RAF]

Jarrah can claim until he's blue in the face that the signature is forged, but he knows full well he didn't start making that accusation until after Van Allen died.  He had just as much opportunity as I did to verify Van Allen's statement while the professor was alive.

I find this to be absolutely disgusting. This is no different than "dancing" on a grave.

[raven]

The boy is a fraud who commits perjury to censor his critics.
Reprehensible is only the start.

[AstroBrant]

Thanks for the replies, friends.
I wasn't really concerned about Wunder-Blunder per se, but just needed to feel a little more secure when I make reference to that statement from JVA -- or if I see someone else getting jacked up for it.

Jay, again, thank you. I didn't know you had gotten this confirmation. I just wish he had made a more public statement.

Luke, I went to see Wunder-Blunder's video. Holy cow! He made 23 of those!!?? He must really feel insecure about this radiation thing.

BryanPR, "Benson, Arizona" WTF?? LOL.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Sorry, was in response to people quoting from "dark star" on here

[ajv]

Sorry, was in response to people quoting from "dark star" on here
I appreciated listening to the song, thanks! So much that I'm going to put aside some time to watch the film again this weekend.

[ka9q]

BryanPR, "Benson, Arizona" WTF?? LOL.

My fault. My quotes were from the movie Dark Star, John Carpenter's USC student film project, which used this tune as sort of a theme song. That scene does to the writers' philosophy professors what the "Romani Ite Domum!" scene in Life of Brian would later do for the Pythons' Latin teachers.

I often think of this exchange with Bomb 20 when I encounter hoaxers. It's an obvious reference to solipsism, the one philosophy truly consistent with rejection of the Apollo missions.