[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

NASA / CME / (probably not a) Coverup

This issue of NASA coverup is pretty much a null issue, although it has sparked
a fine debate about List material, on which I've already given my .02 ... in
forwarding the below letter to the List, let me re-iterate one point I made:
"Some things, were they open for general release, might well cause
unnecessary (or potentially unnecessary until more facts are
uncovered) panic ... even among this august company. "

================================================
NASA Sends A Second Response, June 1st
Unreported CME...06/15/99
by Geri DeStefano & Alfred Lambremont Webre
!EcoNews! Service <econews@ecologynews.com>

From: Craig DeForest, SOHO/MDI Resident Observer AAS/SPD Press
Officer

It was with some alarm and not a little chagrin that I read your note and Mitch

Battros's coverage of the large solar event on 1 June 1999.

As the person who wrote the press release that the BBC picked up, I can assure
you that there was no cover-up on NASA's (or anyone's) part.  In  fact, when
we saw the event on the live telemetry feed at the Chicago meeting of the
American Astronomical Society, those of us interested in public outreach were
excited that we might be able to predict an aurora in
three days.  We set to work immediately, chasing down actual images of the
disk of the Sun from observatories around the world, to determine whether the
coronal mass ejection was coming toward or away from the Earth (the
coronagraph images don't distinguish; one has to examine the actual surface of
the Sun to determine whether an event is from the front face).

We determined at the meeting (independently of the NOAA Space Weather
people, who had already come to the same conclusion) that the event wasn't
coming toward the Earth, and hence might not be as exciting as we initially
thought -- in fact, I was surprised (and, admittedly, pleased) when the BBC did

decide to pick up the coverage anyway.

Though I'm writing to you from my personal email account, I must admit that I
am an "insider" to much of the solar work that's going on at NASA: I operate
one of the instruments aboard the SOHO spacecraft that recorded the solar
burst. (Note that the BBC incorrectly identified the burst in their photo --
the
bright, speckly "ray" emanating from the Sun in their picture is in fact part
of the
telescope itself.) Feel free to believe me or not -- but there is little or no
connection, at the operational and public relations level, between the Cassini
team and the solar physics and space weather organizations within NASA.  We
SOHO people are busy enough deciding what to look at, filing and
disseminating data, and analysing our results to take part in some vast
conspiracy regarding Cassini.

Several groups have accused NASA, at different times, of harboring large
conspiracies -- some of the recent ones involved Hale-Bopp and an alleged
giant solar flare that would envelop the Earth.  I get a lot of personal
chuckle
value out of such things, because I can't imagine any of the scientists I work
with (and I work with the SOHO operations team -- the people who collect
solar data, operate the instruments, and make the decisions about how to
disseminate the  images) voluntarily working in secrecy.  Getting scientists to

work together is like herding kittens: we're individualistic enough that it's
hard
to get us to stick together even for something we believe in.  The concept of
solar physicists actively trying to hide something we believed to be
dangerous -- well, it's laughable.

As far as "Sharon B."'s comment that the 10-day solar animation at
http://www.spaceweather.com/java/solar-anim.html
is missing June 1 -- I suspect that something broke in the automated data
pipeline over memorial day; we certainly were collecting data then, and I
notice that they are publicly available in the database. I invite you or anyone

else to visit the instrument sites at http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov and
request data directly -- even large collections of data are only modestly sized

by today's standards, and you can view them directly on your home computer
with Photoshop or
other image manipulation software.

Please feel free to forward this to Mitch Battros: I don't have his email
address,
and I believe it addresses his plea for responses.

Warm regards,

Craig DeForest
SOHO/MDI Resident Observer
AAS/SPD Press Officer
<zowie@deforest.org>

Mitch Battros
Producer - Earth Changes TV
Web Site:
http://www.earthchangesTV.com
===========================================================

Phil Bagnall wrote:

> >NASA bashing and pseudoscience, do we support these on our list while at
> the
> >same time we have NASA personnel on this list constantly keeping us
> informed
> >of what goes on "out there"?
>
> Certainly pseudoscience should play no part in this list, and nor should
> unwarranted criticism of NASA. However, I think it would be wrong to regard
> NASA as being beyond criticism. The Agency has made mistakes in the past,
> and some of their PR people have been.....well, let's just say a little
> enthusiastic. Healthy criticism provides the Agency with feedback on how
> those on the outside view the work of those on the inside. Unjustified
> criticism - usually by people who know little about the Agency and how
> science works - is simply a waste of everyone's time.
>
> Phil Bagnall
> www.ticetboo.demon.co.uk
>
> ----------
> Archives located at:
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
>
> For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
> ----------

----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------
References: