Columbia

[ATCNavyRetiree]

Has anyone seen the video of the zoom camera shot taken as the Columbia hurtled over Texas? It looks as if the Columbia is either travelling sideways, pointed away from the camera, or in a flat spin lending the appearance of the "hubcap" effect (for lack of a better term) where it looks as if the wheel isn't turning. In other words, it is spinning so fast that it looks as if it is just sliding sideways in a nose at 90 degree position. I have never heard anyone explain what we are looking at in this video. It's too bad the person taking the shot did not continue to zoom through break-up--it may have yielded some valuable insight! I met CDR Willie McCool in the summer of 2001, he and his wife came through the Wilderness Info Center at Olympic National Park (where I work) to get a wilderness permit. They were headed to the Washington coast to camp. As a Navy retiree I immediately noted his Navy ID card when he pulled out and set down his wallet. Nice guy, he loved the Olympic Peninsula, came here often when stationed at Whidbey Island. He took a piece of pillow basalt (the core material of the Olympics) into space with him. We will miss him!!

[Chi-townChief]

I'm heard this video talked about many times here and thought it was a myth. Where did you see this?

[hole_n_one]

Debunked here

[Arkinsaw]

If this is the one discussed before it is merely a lens flare.

[vger]

Its caused by part of the video camera's mechanism. This effect is usually most prominant when the camera is zoomed onto a point of light. I doubt that Columbia was spinning when it broke up. At those velocities it probably broke up as soon as it yawed more than a few degrees.

[jlogajan]

The shuttle was too far away (probably 100 miles or more) for the video camera optics to resolve its shape regardless of orientation.

The image, instead, is exactly explained as a lens flare -- an out of focus condition in which the shape of the iris becomes apparent in the "bloom" of the blur.

Now mind you, the shuttle probably was in a flat spin at some point (actually probably earlier than this video shot) but the point is that this video camera was not capable of seeing what it appears to show.

[freepersup]

Please explain why the alledged aperture illusion is emitting a contrail ?

The altitude of the shuttle was 45 miles agl as it passed over Lake Tahoe, Nevada. I would estimate the shuttle is at half that altitude (22.5 miles agl) by the time it passes within site of the ground camera crew's location. However, it is not directly overhead, so distance must be added back to arrive at an accurate estimate. The shuttles position is at a 45 degree angle in relation to the horizon and a point directly overhead of the camera's position. I would estimate 22.5 miles down range, therefore the shuttle is roughly 45 miles from the camera crew. With a 6 power or 10 power zoom the image would appear as if it were 4.5 to 7.5 miles away. This distance can easily be determined by visiting NASA's website and viewing the shuttle's path as it tracked across Texas, and by checking the fixed location of the camera crew.

I debated you on the other threads about this image and I've seen zero proof that the image is anything other than the image of the shuttle. The example provided by someone agreeing with you, that it was an aperture illusion was unconvincing.

[freepersup]

It was debated at the thread you so kindly provided, but it was anything but debunked.

[freepersup]

I am of the opinion that what I am seeing in the image (zoomed in) is in fact, the shuttle. I don't doubt that the aperture can create an illusion. I saw the replicated example of the effect of the flare (of light) from the aperture, and it looked just like that, a flare or illusion. It looked nothing like the image provided in the video. I disagree that what I am seeing is anything other than the shuttle.

Please explain why I am seeing a smoke contrail coming off of the illusion ?

[jlogajan]

I am of the opinion that ...

Who cares?

[freepersup]

Then why doesn't it look like a lens flare ? A lens flare (example) was provided in the previous thread where this issue was debated, and it looked nothing like the image that looks like the shuttle.

I want just one person to explain to me why the aperture illusion is emitting a smoke contrail ?

[freepersup]

Here's 50 cents- that and your opinion will get you a cup of coffee.

[freepersup]

Greetings- You've asked about an interesting image that has elicited much debate. By all means spend some time at the thread provided and make up your own mind as to whether it is an image of the shuttle (zoomed in) or is an illusion. I make no apologies for my opinion on the matter.

You will find that there are some posters here at Free Republic that will debate an issue with you intelligently, although they may be in disagreement, and then there are those much like the leftists in America, that will resort to belligerence in lieu of articulating their views. Others pull no punches, thus removing any doubt as to whether they are donkeys, burros, or asses.

Pulled a couple of hitches with the Army & Air Force.

[twntaipan]

50 cents won't do at Starbucks! (Sorry--trying to a little levity to a tense thread)

[freepersup]

If you do watch this video, you will see the shuttle break up at the end of the segment. The shuttle can be seen passing down range (to the viewer's lower left) and breaks up behind a bare tree that comes into view.

[freepersup]

Thanks- really.

I took the apparently unpopular view / opinion, on the now somewhat infamous thread, where the- aperture distortion of light (illusion) versus shuttle image zoomed in- debate, grew testy by the post.

[Arkinsaw]

You can't zoom in on something the size of the shuttle that is 200,000 feet away with an amateur video camera. There can be a debate about just what that is, but its not a zoom of the shuttle.

[Rudder]

I have the video. I agree with you. There is a contrail that develops slowly as the scene progresses in time. It's a shot of the shuttle, not a lens flare nor an aperture. It wasn't taken by an amateur video camera.