Response from "American Scientist" editor

[AstroBrant]

Regarding the diagram Wunder Blunder used to beef up his radiation claims:

Dear Dr. Watson,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to American Scientist. We are always most grateful when our readers make the effort to contact us, and we are particularly appreciative of your close reading of our material. You are quite correct; there was a typo in that scale and it should have been 1MEV, not 11MEV. I deeply regret that we did not catch this mistake before going to press. We will correct it in the digital version of the magazine and run an erratum.

Sincerely,
Fenella Saunders
Managing Editor
American Scientist, the magazine of
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
www.americanscientist.org

(I've been promoted to "Dr."! ... <blush>)

[Echnaton]

Good work Doc.

[HeadLikeARock]

Regarding the diagram Wunder Blunder used to beef up his radiation claims:

Dear Dr. Watson,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to American Scientist. We are always most grateful when our readers make the effort to contact us, and we are particularly appreciative of your close reading of our material. You are quite correct; there was a typo in that scale and it should have been 1MEV, not 11MEV. I deeply regret that we did not catch this mistake before going to press. We will correct it in the digital version of the magazine and run an erratum.

Sincerely,
Fenella Saunders
Managing Editor
American Scientist, the magazine of
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
www.americanscientist.org

(I've been promoted to "Dr."! ... <blush>)

Hmmm... so if you're Dr Watson... who is Sherlock? 

[AstroBrant]

Good work Doc.

Jes' tryin' t'earn m'keep here, boss.

I posted a reply to Jarrah where he gave the link to that diagram. If he sees it, he'll just have to suffer yet another disappointment.   
Now let's hope Bob is able to get a similar positive response from the authors of Jarrah's "10-100 MeV" quote.

[Bob B.]

Now let's hope Bob is able to get a similar positive response from the authors of Jarrah's "10-100 MeV" quote.

Still no response.  I've found a different email address for Dr. Odenwald than the one I used.  Maybe I'll have better luck with it.

[smartcooky]

Regarding the diagram Wunder Blunder used to beef up his radiation claims:

Dear Dr. Watson,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to American Scientist. We are always most grateful when our readers make the effort to contact us, and we are particularly appreciative of your close reading of our material. You are quite correct; there was a typo in that scale and it should have been 1MEV, not 11MEV. I deeply regret that we did not catch this mistake before going to press. We will correct it in the digital version of the magazine and run an erratum.

Sincerely,
Fenella Saunders
Managing Editor
American Scientist, the magazine of
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
www.americanscientist.org

(I've been promoted to "Dr."! ... <blush>)

Elementary, my dear Watson!

[ka9q]

I posted a reply to Jarrah where he gave the link to that diagram. If he sees it, he'll just have to suffer yet another disappointment.

Nah, he'll just claim the editors have now joined the conspiracy, and the original 11 MeV figure was the right one.

[AstroBrant]

I posted a reply to Jarrah where he gave the link to that diagram. If he sees it, he'll just have to suffer yet another disappointment.

Nah, he'll just claim the editors have now joined the conspiracy, and the original 11 MeV figure was the right one.

In my comment I made a point of reminding him that the author of the article used the NASA AE8MAX database as his/her source for the data on the illustration. Jarrah would be hard-pressed to find any data in that database which would match 11MeV, while the 1MeV table does match the diagram. His only argument would have to be that the NASA database is wrong, and he'd have to show why.

I am curious to see how he will handle it. 

[Luke Pemberton]

Well done Dr Watson.

If Jarrah would engage in honest debate I'd be quite happy to explain to him why the those electron energies are incorrect. If he really had proficiency in physics or astrophysics then he would have immediately dismissed the 100 MeV electron energies as being in error. It's just another example of his dishonesty and lack of understanding. The longer he persists, the more the errors build up. It really is quite amusing to watch Whitian physics unravel. As a real physicist I get joy watching his car crash. It underlines the absurdity of the hoax theory.

[HeadLikeARock]

I posted a reply to Jarrah where he gave the link to that diagram. If he sees it, he'll just have to suffer yet another disappointment.

Nah, he'll just claim the editors have now joined the conspiracy, and the original 11 MeV figure was the right one.

In my comment I made a point of reminding him that the author of the article used the NASA AE8MAX database as his/her source for the data on the illustration. Jarrah would be hard-pressed to find any data in that database which would match 11MeV, while the 1MeV table does match the diagram. His only argument would have to be that the NASA database is wrong, and he'd have to show why.

I am curious to see how he will handle it.

He'll most likely ignore it.

If not, he'll spin it in such a way that he caught NASA out in a big lie about radiation, and now they are scurrying around behind the scenes desperately trying to plug the holes by bringing pressure to bear on the likes of Scientific American... which will of course merely confirm that there is indeed an ongoing conspiracy to cover up the moon landings!

For his claim to be correct (it's not... of course), he would then have to explain the apparent dichotomy between a hoax that virtually no-one knew about in 1969 due to compartmentalisation, with only those at the very top being aware of the hoax (which makes no sense since many people would have been required to implement the hoax), and every man and his dog both in NASA and working with NASA doing everything they can to keep a lid on things.

[AstroBrant]

He'll most likely ignore it.

If not, he'll spin it in such a way that he caught NASA out in a big lie about radiation, and now they are scurrying around behind the scenes desperately trying to plug the holes by bringing pressure to bear on the likes of Scientific American... which will of course merely confirm that there is indeed an ongoing conspiracy to cover up the moon landings!

Re. "Scientific American": I actually wrote that in one of my comments, but caught it before posting. (It's American Scientist).

I've seen you posting in that thread. We need to make sure Jarrah sees this, as well as Bob's recent communication from Dr. Odenwald. Jarrah needs to have some source of radiation data. I would imagine nearly everything he has used can be traced back to NASA's AE8MAX data. Sure, he could claim that NASA lied about the data, but in this case he certainly can't use the diagram from the American Scientist, since that diagram got its data from the AE8MAX database, with the exception of the 11MeV typo.

So what will he do next to prove his case? Maybe get some data from some other source which has done research on the belts, like ESA, JAXA, the Indian Space Agency, or the Chinese. He'll get very similar data. We just need to keep track of what he does and call him on his next attempt.

I would sure love to see some place where he could post his calculations, that someone truly knowledgeable and thoroughly credentialed in this area can evaluate it publicly. Same for his claims about geology and lunar samples. Surely he would never be able to publish these in a respected peer-reviewed journal, but if he tried, we would never be able to see the reviews he gets. It has to be on the Internet.

[Bob B.]

We need to make sure Jarrah sees this, as well as Bob's recent communication from Dr. Odenwald.

Jarrah also needs to be called out if he tries to cite some other page that contains the same 10-100 MeV error, such as the MAARBLE project page.  Any other page that repeats this is almost certain to be a copy and paste job from Dr. Odenwald's original article.

[Echnaton]

How much work is Jarah really doing to hunt down all these errors?  They are typically rare, so it must take some time to find one that is significant enough that it can be force fit into his claims. His passion for anomaly hunting is just amazing. 

[HeadLikeARock]

He'll most likely ignore it.

If not, he'll spin it in such a way that he caught NASA out in a big lie about radiation, and now they are scurrying around behind the scenes desperately trying to plug the holes by bringing pressure to bear on the likes of Scientific American... which will of course merely confirm that there is indeed an ongoing conspiracy to cover up the moon landings!

Re. "Scientific American": I actually wrote that in one of my comments, but caught it before posting. (It's American Scientist).

I've seen you posting in that thread. We need to make sure Jarrah sees this, as well as Bob's recent communication from Dr. Odenwald. Jarrah needs to have some source of radiation data. I would imagine nearly everything he has used can be traced back to NASA's AE8MAX data. Sure, he could claim that NASA lied about the data, but in this case he certainly can't use the diagram from the American Scientist, since that diagram got its data from the AE8MAX database, with the exception of the 11MeV typo.

So what will he do next to prove his case? Maybe get some data from some other source which has done research on the belts, like ESA, JAXA, the Indian Space Agency, or the Chinese. He'll get very similar data. We just need to keep track of what he does and call him on his next attempt.

I would sure love to see some place where he could post his calculations, that someone truly knowledgeable and thoroughly credentialed in this area can evaluate it publicly. Same for his claims about geology and lunar samples. Surely he would never be able to publish these in a respected peer-reviewed journal, but if he tried, we would never be able to see the reviews he gets. It has to be on the Internet.

It's pretty clear that he's been looking for sources that will back up his claim. He cited another article in the same post he made reference to the American Scientist (well spotted!) article, which made mention of fluxes of high energy electrons, but it didn't have a reference for the claim or any specifics. I imagine he's desperately trying to find an article that will look at a specific solar event and how it may have produced a higher than usual number of ultra-high energy electrons, and try to spin it to his advantage. I've looked, and all the articles I can find generally refer back to data gathered on missions that the AE8 and AE9 models use. Most of them gathered data for electrons with energies up to 7-8 MeV, with 1 going as high as 16 MeV.

Incidentally, American Scientist have already correct their error.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/5/new-twists-in-earths-radiation-belts/6

[AstroBrant]

Incidentally, American Scientist have already correct their error.

Thanks for the image. I got a message today from the editor, saying that it had been changed. You saved me a couple of clicks.