She informed us that the devastating fires that hit Northern California a year ago were "cover" for an all-out battle with alien forces, and she knew about this from interviewing "Captain" Mark Richards. Richards is perhaps her favorite whistleblower, and she goes to considerable trouble to interview him. Why? Because Richards is a convicted murderer and is languishing in Vacaville State prison. He's not captain of anything, either— just a humble house remodeler. Why Kerry Cassidy believes his yarns is anybody's guess.
She spent quite a long time wringing her metaphorical hands over her treatment by Google/YouTube (she says they're bent on stopping her from making a living, see this if you're interested). Then finally she got down to the serious business of claiming to be the only person to report the truth.
18:05: "Nobody else knows this story —I mean, all these other journalists out there are just.. they've got no idea. I'm sorry, you know, but it's... Now, I have back-channel information, I'm not going to reveal my source, but I've seen very concrete information that substantiates what I'm telling you. On top of it, Simon Parkes and I both agree—I got a download last night before my interview with him, that actually said that they... that there are craft near the Sun that were affecting the Sun, supposedly, to actually create ...or er... stop a certain frequency from hitting the Earth. And that this would be photographed by all the observatories, not just one, and that that's why the so-called [air-quotes] FBI was brought in to shut down the one in New Mexico, but it's not the only one—there's seven of them. So don't go reading the press. They're going to lie to you. If their mouths are moving they're lying. They work for the State. The Dark State. And if Trump hasn't made it clear that he and the press do not agree.. Heh! And therefore, what can you say about Trump? He's trying to work for the Light at this time."It must be a treat to be Kerry Cassidy. She says she's an investigative journalist, but sees no obligation to check the stories she hears, or merely concocts. When she said seven solar observatories were shut down, her mouth was moving and she was lying. It's simply not true. As we know, the problem at the Sunspot observatory was a janitor with a penchant for kiddie porn. Alien spaceships near the sun my ass. I think Kerry's "back channel" is the voices in her head.
So who, I hear you ask, is Simon Parkes? Is he a more reliable source than K. Cassidy? Er... I don't think so. Here's his self-description:
"[A] life long experiencer of aliens, shadow people, elementals and ufo's, these include Mantid (Mantis) beings, Draconis Reptilian, Feline, small and tall Grey creatures, Crystalline beings and other creatures that can't be identified."I rest my case. These people are crazy.
Update 2nd October:
Kerry is annoyed about this video report by Kevin Moore, who has just finished investigating "Captain" Mark Richards and declares unequivocally that Richards is a fraud. In a blogpost dated 26th September, Kerry writes that Kevin Moore is obviously mind-controlled, and offers this defense of her imprisoned hero:
"Mark Richards was working for the Secret Space Program at the time of the murder. He was and still is a Captain in the Navy reporting to Bobby Ray Inman. note 1 He is imprisoned by the Illuminati-Draco run planetary government at this time. It is notable that Simon Parkes, a former British counselor has said even recently that it is highly likely that he will be pardoned once the indictments and arrests come through as part of Trump’s drive to “drain the swamp”. ::::My amateur diagnosis:
Mark Richards spent many years as a Captain of a “starship enterprise” type vehicle, part of the Orion class vehicles owned by the Secret Space Program." (emph. added)
Kerry Cassidy - paranoid schizophrenic
Simon Parkes - ditto
Mark Richards - criminal fantasist, outright fraud
Kevin Moore - honest fellow, about half-and-half amused and appalled by what he's discovered
====================/ \======================
[1] Inman retired in 1982, the same year that Mark Richards was jailed. Inman is now 87 years old.
52 comments:
Don't these people ever get tired of pushing the 'alien' shtick? Not one of them has ever produced a photo of an alien, despite all their blather. And has anyone noticed that despite cell phones and their cameras getting better by the day, the number and quality of photos of 'UFOs' is hilariously trending in the opposite direction?
Try saying that ten times fast.
Oh we mustn't do that, it might lead to rudery.
Why wouldn't anyone believe her, I mean all of life's issues, large and small are the fault of some conspiracy or another.
Lost your keys - alien abduction (they must have fallen out of your pocket while on the probulator).
Stuck in traffic on the way to work - sinister military manoeuvres are blocking the highways... again.
An early frost killing your petunas - experiments with weather control based at CNN headquarters, conducted by the reanimated corpse of Nikola Tesla.
An empty wallet at the end of a night of drunken shenanigans - shapeshifting transdimensional lizard people made of with the contents when you weren't looking.
I mean, what other possible explanations for these kind of things could there be.
Trekker said...
"Not one of them has ever produced a photo of an alien, despite all their blather. And has anyone noticed that despite cell phones and their cameras getting better by the day, the number and quality of photos of 'UFOs' is hilariously trending in the opposite direction?"
Sure, I have noticed. Of course, this "proves" that UFOs and aliens are not real, right?
They have not been observing, manipulating and controlling us for thousands of years, and they know absolutely nothing about our technology, cellphones, CCTV cameras etc. So they blunder right in to all the images...
I agree, it's hilarious!
Read a little more widely, I say.
« They have not been observing, manipulating and controlling us for thousands of years, and they know absolutely nothing about our technology, cellphones, CCTV cameras etc. »
Or, alternatively, they don't exist.
expat said...
"Or, alternatively, they don't exist."
Precisely. I.e. What Trekker (and I) suggested.
If they don't exist, they certainly haven't been observing .... us ...
But that is to miss my point.
The fact that the numbers of captured images have been declining, on its own doesn't prove anything. Chances are, what it really means is that people have grown tired of creating hoaxed pictures. Maybe it's no fun any more, because it's already been done to death. Things are fun when there is an element of novelty. Maybe washing dishes was fun, the first few times you did it! Sex every day with the same person for years gets tiresome too. But try it with somebody new! Or, do it less often...
Maybe 'they' have always known when cameras are present, and have never allowed their images to be captured.
I think it says in the Bible that God never allowed a human to even look at his face (except possibly in one case).
Equally, that doesn't go any way to prove the existence or non-existence of God. In fact, isn't the latter impossible?
FWIW, I think it demonstrates a clear understanding of systematic error.
"Sex every day with the same person for years gets tiresome too."
You're doing wrong. ;)
I didn't claim that aliens didn't exist. I have no idea if they exist or not. That wasn't may point. My point was that I have never seen any credible evidence that aliens are HERE, walking among us, at this moment in time, as some proponents suggest.
I'd love to see an alien, but if they're here, where are they hiding? Why aren't they a commonplace sight in our cities and towns? Nobody reports seeing them, nobody presents photos of them, so the logical conclusion would be that they're not here at all.
Lots of people have reported having met and being in continual contact with aliens, in many various different locations, all around the World. I have yet to see an ET show up here to proclaim themselves as such, however. I guess that they just don't feel the need to prove themselves to Patrick and his peanut gallery.
That doesn't address my point - that they've never presented any CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to support their claims! If they're in 'continual contact with aliens', what's preventing them from taking photos of them or video recording them? It's all hearsay until there's some evidence provided.
Trekker said...
" It's all hearsay until there's some evidence provided."
I guess it all depends on the meaning of your words.
In my mind at least, Hearsay is not something directly witnessed, but something repeated second hand. Hear-say. I hear, then I say... Not my own first hand testimony.
BUT there have been thousands of people who have claimed to have seen things first hand that could be UFOs and Aliens, and experienced events that could be contacts, abductions etc. These people's accounts are not hearsay.
As for evidence, the testimony of a number of women, about events in the distant past, without any physical proof at all AFAIK, has been sufficient evidence to send Bill Cosby to jail (where, by my reading of some of the testimony, he should have been long ago, and where he should die), and to pretty much destroy the career of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
But, when it comes to forbidden, "taboo" subjects like UFOs (and the like), no amount of verbal or written testimony, even from competent, experienced pilots and other professionals, is 'evidence', certainly, not what is deemed CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.
Of course, it's a huge double standard, but that's the human world, through and through.
As for seeing them, some 'eye' witnesses have claimed that some of 'them' look just like us. They could walk among us and not appear to be any different from ordinary people. And maybe they are.
But that seems to be very much part of their intention - not to advertise their presence, so to answer what's stopping people from taking photos, very likely, 'they' are. By many of the accounts I have read, people who encounter aliens are not in control at the time. It is apparently as if their free will is deeply suppressed, they are reduced to trance-like, automaton states - which means they wouldn't make ideal witnesses either. There was one pilot who said he was incapacitated while the object was near his plane, and that he only "came back to normal" after it had departed. Other pilots have reported being unable to make the controls work.
Anyway, knowing humans like I do, if I was an alien contemplating approaching one, you can be damn sure I would want it to be incapacitated before I got within shooting range!
The problem, if you want to call it that, seems to be that this field of knowledge is (apparently, by intention) at the very edge of our perception, so is very hard to substantiate. That doesn't mean at all that it isn't very, very real.
However, if you want evidence, try reading a few of the many books by Jacques Vallee. There are lots of good books, and lots of unexplained things reported in them, out there.
P.S.
"I'd love to see an alien, but if they're here, where are they hiding?"
Be careful what you wish for!
For years, I had the same thoughts, but recently, I have completely reversed them.
You may not consider Nick Redfern credible, but maybe "Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind" is worth a read.
Kerry's fascination with the "Captain" is always of interest - https://sites.google.com/site/skyzabove/
Thanks for that. I corrected "federal jail" to "California jail".
Nick Redfern? Lol! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nick_Redfern
TP: "By many of the accounts I have read, people who encounter aliens are not in control at the time. It is apparently as if their free will is deeply suppressed, they are reduced to trance-like, automaton states"
Sounds like a textbook simple partial seizure to me. Aliens not required.
Two Percent usually seems to mean well, but for once I unequivocally agree with Two Percent's, two previous comments.
Chris, it also sounds like the night terrors associated with sleep paralysis.
Trekker said...
" Nick Redfern? Lol! https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nick_Redfern"
You'd allow the narrow, securely closed and locked minds behind the 3rd-rate RW guide your world view - without doing an ounce of your own research? I find many of the RW comments pathetic, completely unscientific and irrational. I read them for LOLs! In relation to Redfern, nothing more than snide, unsubstantiated criticism. They should look first at themselves. For example, the first RW lines about Redfern:
"Was it an UFO in the terms of a flying saucer? Or what is an UFO in the sense of it was just something in the sky that wasn't identified?
—Nick Redfern, a ufologist who apparently never bothered to find out what the UFO acronym stands for[1]"
Really? RW REALLY thinks Redfern doesn't know what 'U.F.O.' is the acronym for? And their evidence for that? It's unsubstantiated, unscientific BS.
UFO is the acronym for "Unidentified Flying Object". His usage is therefore correct (though I don't like the "an" construction myself). Anything seen in the sky that you cannot say is a plane, a weather ballon, a parachutist, a glider or whatever, is, to you, a UFO - something in the sky that isn't identified.
As actually recorded by Oxford Dictionaries (and not lazily grabbed from Wikipedia) the meaning is as follows:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ufo
"noun
A mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.
Origin
1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object."
Trekker, do you follow Star Trek? And you don't think any of these alien Sci-Fi movies are inspired by reported events? They are not at all part of a deliberate program of softening up the masses to certain realities?
I've read several of Redfern's books, and while I don't agree with all of it, much of what he writes is just a rehash of other accounts, some good, some less so. But those can be independently checked, for what that's worth. Actually, his CEFK book is quite thought provoking, if not troubling. I don't recall it gives many answers, just reports the unsolved events. Many of the events reported should be verifiable. In fact, I'm sure the SDI Stuff is correct, and that is worth pondering. Was it the Russians, or was it someone else?
Anyway, if you don't like Redfern, try Vallee. Let us know what you think!
Trekker, I was referring to TP's examples of pilots entering that state. But if someone is in bed and has an alien encounter I'd agree completely, it's just sleep paralysis.
Chris said...
"Sounds like a textbook simple partial seizure to me. Aliens not required."
"Trekker, I was referring to TP's examples of pilots entering that state."
It's reassuring to think the modern Airline Pilot's Medical Check allows pilots suffering from partial seizures to fly us about. That may be the case - such things may never have happened up until 'X', and they can be hard to detect, let alone predict. Indeed, there are cases where pilots apparently suffered a brain haemorrhage or aneurysm, in the middle of landing a plane, and died later:
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pilot-praised-for-landing-after-aneurysm-20111117
(Or: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ngcdmgtcNeIJ:https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pilot-praised-for-landing-after-aneurysm-20111117+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk)
and
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11351554
But, I reckon it would be a very brave and honourable pilot who speaks up about an apparent close encounter with a UFO, when he could have experienced a partial seizure. And what of his co-pilot? Saw nothing, says nothing, asks for a transfer to a different route...? Of course, the pilots would discuss it, and think carefully before reporting such things, as they are commonly career-limiting. You'd have to be pretty sure of what you saw...
"But if someone is in bed and has an alien encounter I'd agree completely, it's just sleep paralysis."
Well, there goes the alien possibility (hypothesis)! I'm glad that's been solved, and that the world is a much simpler, safer place now!
But seriously, isn't this exactly what the story is about? Making false assumptions about particular events?
I do agree, not every crazy dream is a genuine alien encounter, but maybe, the very occasional one is. Like earthquakes, they do happen, now and then, right under your feet. As for so-called 'sleep paralysis', I've experienced that several times. It happens to all of us, every time we sleep, but most of us are not conscious at the time, so the phenomenon is a misnomer. Mine, definitely not alien encounters, but for me, very easy to recognise.
TP: "Well, there goes the alien possibility (hypothesis)! I'm glad that's been solved ..."
The way this works is that symptoms are reported and explanations for them are put forward and then you see if they hold up under scrutiny. Sleep paralysis and dreaming do. Alien encounters don't.
TP: "But seriously, isn't this exactly what the story is about? Making false assumptions about particular events?"
No, it's about Cassidy sounding like an idiot and being soundly mocked for her batshit insanity. Or rather it was about that. I'm inclined to agree with expat's amateur diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. In that case she's sick and needs a care package and drugs to manage her illness, and I feel less inclined to mock her from here on in.
TP: "... not every crazy dream is a genuine alien encounter, but maybe, the very occasional one is."
Your problem is that the very occasional one is as easily explained as all the others. Can you advise how you would form a hypothesis for a dream being an alien encounter, and perhaps for having an alien encounter in general, and how you would go about trying to falsify it?
[i]“But if someone is in bed and has an alien encounter I'd agree completely, it's just sleep paralysis.”[/i]
Chris,
Yes, some research has been done on that:
https://midoriskies.wordpress.com/tag/hypnagogic-hallucination/
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/abduction_by_aliens_or_sleep_paralysis
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/waking_up_to_sleep_paralysis
Lucid dreams are also a possible explanation for ‘alien abduction’, a study has shown:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313447
Trekker, thanks for the links. The second link mentions the role of the temporal lobe, and this is also indicated in simple partial seizures. The odd sensation of Deja Vu could be said to be a small seizure which doesn't spread. When it does spread but doesn't induce loss of consciousness, it's a very odd sensation in which language, room layout and the ability to process inputs all disappear for a minute or so. I had these a few years ago, and they were as fascinating after the fact as they were troublesome. I can imagine that some people have these and have no idea, instead interpreting and reporting the effects as supernatural phenomena.
One of the common themes in abduction stories is that of being unable to move, in a really bright clinical room, everything's blurred, there are beings moving around talking a language that can't be understood. I once read an interesting idea about those. It was suggested that these could be memories of being born in hospital or of being in hospital at a very early age.
It's said that adults can't remember stuff before the age of around 3 years old, but in my case that's not the case. I remember a couple of events really clearly from when I was 18 months old. I can imagine that occasionally some people will remember earlier than that, and perhaps some babies or young infants in their early years do form what could be described as a memory of the sight and sound of their hospital surroundings, devoid of any interpretation at the time of course. Later in life the memory is there as a vague recollection, not anchored to any event, and an idea that an alien abduction ocurred is able to latch onto it as a 'memory' of the event.
Chris said...
Your problem is that the very occasional one is as easily explained as all the others.
I don't see that it's exclusively my problem, but never mind. Apparently, you like things to be black and white.
Of course, [a genuine alien encounter] "is as easily explained as all the others."
Explained, by 'real' aliens actually levitating someone, deeply asleep, out of their bed, through the ceiling, through the roof and up into their hovering spaceship, by way of some magical 'tractor beam', in the middle of the night (or whatever).
Now, I know you don't believe a bar of that, and I know that your mind is closed to the possibility of it happening, but IMHO, you just haven't done enough research. You don't seem to understand how "the world" truly works, and how the "public mind" and public opinion are swayed and manipulated by media stories such as those pointed to by Trekker. Sure, maybe these stories explain 99.99% of the reported occurrences, but it's the ones that they don't, that matter.
Regarding Trekker's "research" links:
https://midoriskies.wordpress.com - from the homepage:
"Midori Skies - Ramblings on Atheism, Asexuality, and Life While Trans"
Reliable Science, I'm certain. [A friend of 'Orbs', perhaps?]
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/abduction_by_aliens_or_sleep_paralysis
Much more scientific, as per its conclusion:
"These findings do not and cannot prove that no real abductions are occurring on this planet. "
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/waking_up_to_sleep_paralysis
Also good, but not exhaustive:
"One successful mark of a scientific hypothesis or theory, after all, lies in its capacity to provide a plausible explanatory framework that can account for an observed phenomenon..."
The Alien Abduction hypothesis also meets these criteria and accordingly, (as for previous item), is not completely ruled out. Such is science.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313447
How this story made it into Science (if it really did) is beyond me. The wording is SOOO loose and unscientific. For example:
"Using the exercises they had designed, the researchers found they could teach subjects how to have close encounters with aliens. "
WOW! Real Alien Encounters, just like that! UNBELIEVABLE!
Slightly redeemed by the following statement:
"Lead researcher Michael Raduga, whose research design is based on the theory that reports of alien encounters come from very realistic dream experiences, reasons that successfully coaching people how to have realistic dream experiences of alien encounter[sic] provide[sic] strong evidence in support of the theory that alien encounters are mostly lucid dream experiences, that is, the product of people's imaginations." [Emphasis added.]
Again, not exhaustive, but the average Joe on the street isn't gonna appreciate the difference. To him, this is Black and White... Happily, the world (not to mention, the Universe) is not!
Thanks Chris. Going back to the sleep paralysis explanation of abductions, I'm of the opinion that Occam's Razor is usually a good guide. If an account of an alien abduction sounds like sleep paralysis, it most likely is, when you consider the following:
the experience seems completely real while it's happening;
nobody else, apart from the experiencer/dreamer is aware of what's happening, or can respond to it;
experiencers/dreamers who are going through a frightening episode claim that they cry out in fear, but nobody hears them or comes to their aid;
experiencers/dreamers never bring back any artifacts from their travels
Would you agree?
TP: "Explained, by 'real' aliens actually levitating someone, deeply asleep, out of their bed, through the ceiling, through the roof and up into their hovering spaceship, by way of some magical 'tractor beam', in the middle of the night (or whatever). Now, I know you don't believe a bar of that, and I know that your mind is closed to the possibility of it happening ..."
I don't believe it because there is no evidence for aliens or for anything like that ever happening, and there is plenty of well established theory with supporting evidence (for example general relativity) which explains why it can't happen. It's as simple as that.
As for me not understanding how the world works, take a moment to think about how strikingly little humans can interact with established life that is already here now on this planet where we have a huge amount of common genes. I don't think people like you, who dreamily anthropomorphise aliens from mysterious other worlds, ever appreciate this.
Let me know when you have an answer to my earlier question: "Can you advise how you would form a hypothesis for a dream being an alien encounter, and perhaps for having an alien encounter in general, and how you would go about trying to falsify it?"
Chris, I'd like to take a crack at your previous question to, Two Percent, but we'll need to get Patrick's okay for me to post it. He doesn't like Quantum Physics.
Cassidy probably sees this as a "sychronicity" or somesuch sign of import:
"The Pendragon cult sought a paramilitary takeover of Marin County and creation of a modern-day Camelot with Richards as King Arthur and his teenage workers as knights, according to court rulings.
Richards allegedly promoted plans in meetings with his workers to take over Marin County by destroying the Golden Gate and Richmond-San Rafael bridges and placing a laser gun on top of Mount Tamalpais."
Chris wrote:
"... there is no evidence for aliens or for anything like that ever happening, and there is plenty of well established theory with supporting evidence (for example general relativity) which explains why it can't happen. It's as simple as that."
Black and White is the simplest level of image reproduction. Remember back in the day, the first TVs were Black and White (more or less)? Also known as monochrome, because they were really white and (not white). Or, green and (not green).
Of course, it's absolutely not "as simple as that." Things are very seldom so black and white.
For a start, where on God's Green Earth did you get your belief that "there is no evidence for aliens or for anything like that ever happening"? There is in fact loads of evidence, if you care to look. But apparently, you don't. So, there is no point discussing the matter further.
However, let me respond to some of your other points.
"there is plenty of well established theory"
You know that a theory is just that. A theory. The best effort at understanding something we don't actually know? Say, I have a theory.... I'm sure you've heard something like that before. On CSI, perhaps?
"with supporting evidence"
Yep, Newtonian Mechanics has plenty of "supporting evidence" too, but it is by no means the final answer. It works, up to a point, beyond which, it breaks down.
"(for example general relativity)"
You mean THE THEORY of General Relativity, of course. As above, it's a theory.
We don't yet know a whole lot of things. We don't (I think) know whether there is a point at which General Relativity also breaks down, but I say there is much, much more that we have yet to discover. It's impossible to know what you don't know.
"which explains why it can't happen."
Oh, YEAH!!! A theory doesn't explain anything. Conversely, a theory is an attempt to explain something. And it's absurd to think that something you haven't yet even discovered can be shown not to be possible by present knowledge. Your limiting thoughts are very limiting!
If you read my comment in an earlier post (another thread), I suggested that in order for there to be effective interstellar travel, there has to be another "dimension" - and we have got no further than theorising about its possible existence, AFAIK.
Having said that, there does appear (to me and many others) 'evidence' that other beings in the Universe have already, long ago, cracked those problems.
"... take a moment to think about how strikingly little humans can interact with established life that is already here now on this planet where we have a huge amount of common genes."
Obviously, you have no idea of the irony of that statement!
"I don't think people like you, who dreamily anthropomorphise aliens from mysterious other worlds, ever appreciate this."
Got any evidence for any of that?
I can tell you for a start that I do not anthropomorphise aliens. That is entirely contrary to my belief system. As for 'dreamily', are you trying to make a play on words? Or do you mean dreamily as in clouded, woolly, fluffy, air-head thinking?
Finally, (Yes), I have a response.
No Theadora, no quantum physics. You don't have a clue what it even is.
Trekker: "Would you agree?"
Yes completely.
Chris:
You could have (if you haven't already, but not yet posted) had a crack at me here:
" It's impossible to know what you don't know."
That's ambiguous and easily misunderstood.
Of course, we might know that we don't know if Brett Kavanaugh did what has been alleged, so in that sense, we "know" that we don't know.
But we still don't know if the allegations are true. We may never know.
Many similar situations occur in science, which is why we search for answers, and sometimes, find them. So, in that sense my statement is incorrect. It is possible to know things that we do not yet know.
But we can't know that about which we as yet have no clue, such as how to pass macro-scale solid objects through one another without damaging either. We may think it's impossible, but it may not be, yet we don't even know whether it is or not, let alone how to do it. Does that clarify?
Orbs:
Quantum Physics is/are not required to address Chris' pointless, if not vexatious question. But he hasn't asked me for my answer yet. Maybe he won't.
If all you wish to do is win petty arguments on minor points of contention, then don't consider applied Quantum Mechanics.
Sour grapes?
Sour grapes about what? Patrick posted my comment which alludes to my point. If you can't figure it out, tough cheese.
Off topic but on the spot....
In various articles there has been talk about the van Allen belt radiation and the [im]possibility traveling through them....
The standard reaction by some is....must be some conspiracy theory...get educated....the apollo missions proved over and over again that this belt is no obstacle whatsoever...
Well....consider the following video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBUwdyz4I
and explain the following...
- fake video ? and why?
- uneducated nasa scientist? and why?
- educated nasa scientist?
- oeps ?
Awaiting educated responses :-)
Adrian
Dear me, dear me, fancy you falling for anti-NASA bullshit like that. Here's the actual quote from Kelly Smith:
“….As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up, once back. But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors onboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space".
It's the electronic systems that may be vulnerable, not the people. Of course, if the guidance computer goes on the fritz that would be a bad day for the astronaunts as well. But the title of that video is a total lie, worthy of a Mike Bara or a Kerry Cassidy.
Even that Dick Hoagland ain't afraid of no Van Allen Belt. Of course he likes an occasional belt of Mescal, now and then; and who can blame him? He says that a rocket ship travels fast enough, that it's like waving your finger through the flame of a candle. If you do it quick enough, no problemo. Of course you don't want to pull over and park to have a drink in there or stop to take a piss.
Exactly.....
"We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space".
and everybody thought these "challenges" were already "solved" some fifty odd years ago. So why make such a statement?
The aforementioned statement says that this problem [still] has to be solved....and clearly not anywhere near "we solved these problems.
Semantics?
Adrian
Anonymous, you've cherry-picked one sentence and ignored the context.
What that scientist said was "Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation… We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space." He DIDN’T let slip that no human had ever before been through this region of space during the Apollo era. What he DID say was different, if you’d actually bothered to listen to him. He was talking about the Orion technology, which will be used for long-term trips through the most intense part of the belts, when heading to Mars - NOT the 50-year old, long-retired Apollo technology.
These new spacecraft have 21st century, sensitive electronic equipment never before tested for endurance under lengthy exposure to radiation. OF COURSE NASA is going to do extensive testing before sending such electronics into a belt of dangerous radiation! Would you prefer to see a catastrophic equipment failure? And OF COURSE they’re going to test the spacecraft unmanned before putting humans at risk in a capsule full of microchips. Bottom line – don’t ignore the context of the sentence you’ve cherry picked.
Trekker alleged:
" '... We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.'
He DIDN’T let slip that no human had ever before been through this region of space during the Apollo era. What he DID say was different, if you’d actually bothered to listen to him. He was talking about the Orion technology, which will be used for long-term trips through the most intense part of the belts, when heading to Mars..."
Wait...
Isn't there a Rover or two already on the surface of Mars, having landed successfully and operated reliably for quite some time? Ergo, these machines, equipped with modern "21st century, sensitive electronic equipment never before tested for endurance under lengthy exposure to radiation" have already passed unharmed through the vARBs.
Trekker, my friend, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
He does say 'people', not equipment. Think about that.
I come from the era when CMOS chips were in their very early stages. I had a job repairing equipment that used them. I designed and built equipment that used them. Let me tell you, those chips were ultra-sensitive to damage from almost any kind of excess voltage, especially static electricity. The gate inputs would frequently get "blown up" because the internal protection circuitry was hopelessly inadequate.
Never had the opportunity to "radiation test" them, but I can tell you, they were also highly sensitive to ordinary sunlight. Sunlight alone was enough to completely disrupt their operation. Therefore, I am confident those early CMOS chips wouldn't have a chance of surviving the vARBs.
But times have changed greatly since then. The manufacturing processes and the input protection circuitry are orders of magnitude better now. Chip failures these days are remarkably rare. Just look at the modern cellphone. Full of low-power CMOS electronics, and tough as anything. (I know there are multitudes of other chip technologies available now, but all very low power silicon devices suffer from these same issues. And, out there, power is definitely an issue...)
Now, on the matter of radiation hardening, the military has spent millions on exactly that. What is the point of having all these sophisticated electronic guidance, targeting, tracking and whatever systems, if the first EMP weapon detonated would toast the whole works?
So, Radiation Hardening is not the issue.
The problem, which he didn't LET SLIP, is the meat. Getting real, live humans through the zone.
Which harks back to the whole Apollo illusion...
« Isn't there a Rover or two already on the surface of Mars, having landed successfully and operated reliably for quite some time? Ergo, these machines, equipped with modern "21st century, sensitive electronic equipment never before tested for endurance under lengthy exposure to radiation" have already passed unharmed through the vARBs. »
Oh no, oh no. The LRVs were not electronically sophisticated at all. They were built to be rugged. There's no doubt that Kelly Smith was talking about electronics, not people.
Of course, I beg to differ! ;-)
I agree, not the simple, old tech LRVs. I was referring to the Mars Explorers, with their on-board redundant computers, switchable / mappable memories, robotic arms and high resolution colour cameras, video? (image) storage and transmission equipment, sample boring and analysis equipment etc.
They undoubtedly survived the van Allen Radiation Belts.
Quite different beasts from the simple Radio Controlled LRVs we have seen in the Lunar Rover movie footage!
"Anonymous, you've cherry-picked one sentence and ignored the context."
No I did not so therefore poppycock.
The general modus operandi is as follows....I people like Bara, Hoagland et al....say something similar on a different topic..
The reaction is standardized the same here [by no means in defense of Mike "the Cartman" Bara ] by means of zooming in on one or two sentences, or parts of it and then go full blaze.
"He DIDN’T let slip that no human had ever before been through this region of space during the Apollo era"
I did not say or implied that either. Point being....why a NASA official is saying something about an obvious none existing problem given the apollo missions and people traveling through these regions. So why point out a problem in such a specific way were there is none.
- I believe you are cherrypicking by means of putting certain parts of text in a different context.
- I am not saying nobody went to the moon...aux contrare mon ami
- I am not saying that the van Allen belt is an obstacle in the sense no one would be able to pass through and tell the tale
You are making these somewhat prejudiced assumptions based on my reaction.
- So whats up with the unfounded accusations about cherrypicking? Why does one need explanations in terms of context?
The statements made by this and other NASA officials or scientists stand for themselves. If one needs and/or uses explanatory "contexting"in order to make a certain case in point then one can kill every reasonable and/or sound argument.
And yes...the "science guy from NASA" was really talking about humans in relation to the van Allen belt. So there is no reason getting belligerent as if one can not tell A from B without some non existing wisdom in context. In this case there is no context unless one wants to obfuscate the clear and very understandable statements made by the "science guy from NASA"
And that remains to be a very odd statement
Adrian
« The reaction is standardized the same here [by no means in defense of Mike "the Cartman" Bara ] by means of zooming in on one or two sentences, or parts of it and then go full blaze.
»
Well, wtf do you expect? A transcription of two full hours of these blabber-mouths? Give me a break....
Anonymous - this video, and that one sentence, has been used by moon landing deniers as 'evidence' that the missions were a hoax, since it first appeared on Youtube. It's one of their standard go-to 'proofs'. The fact that they've taken that one sentence out of context never deters them, even when the context of the whole video is pointed out to them.
Why did you bring up this video, if not to question the validity of the landings?
Schizophrenia is onset in adolescence, only. When the same symptoms thereof occur in adulthood, the diagnosis becomes, 'Psychotic'.
"Anonymous - this video, and that one sentence, has been used by moon landing deniers as 'evidence' that the missions were a hoax, since it first appeared on Youtube. It's one of their standard go-to 'proofs'. The fact that they've taken that one sentence out of context never deters them, even when the context of the whole video is pointed out to them. "
Exactly! And that makes it very odd for a NASA official to make a statement that goes very much in that direction. Given the professional character of NASA one should and can reasonably assume that people over there control and/or redact their publications before going public.
"Why did you bring up this video, if not to question the validity of the landings?"
An opinionated assumption on your part and the answer is no. It is to point out the very real controversy concerning the van Allen belt which is going on for decades. Surely since the first out in space travel. For decades there were real scientific controversies...and to some extend still...concerning the belt. One scientist says and writes impossible and another scientist says no problemo. Thats the point in case.
Adrian
There is no controversy about the Van Allen belts - everyone agrees they are a dangerous place to hang around. The only controversy is when people misinterpret the words of people to make it sound as if they are saying something they are not. The risks of the VAB can be managed. The modern, less gung ho approach to that management requires more stringent testing than before and that is what is discussed in the video in question.
The new Orion craft has different mission profiles to Apollo which means it may not have the luxury of taking the path that Apollo did, hence the need to test the electronics more.
The only people who claim you can't cross the belts are anti-science nuts incapable of understanding the facts put before them. If you object to being aligned with those nuts then choose your arguments more carefully.
@OBM
And you know this (“can be managed”) how?
Which Scientific Sources?
Post a Comment