Shuttle Pic--SIDE VIEW!

WFAA | 02/01/03 | GRRRRR

[timestax]

I think that shuttle crew knew they were in deep trouble and were in a denial shock, knowing they were doomed. They had to know what the high tire pressure temperature readings meant, and had to realize that the shuttle wasn't flying "true". But then again, since they were firstimers, maybe they didn't suspect a thing.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks for the info!

[KneelBeforeZod]

dont forget reciprocity failure.

although I don't have a video camera...does it affect consumer level video.

I keep wanting to buy a video camera, then stop when I can't figure out anything I would tape.

[timestax]

bttt

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings GRRRRR, PokeyJoe, FReepers, et al:

THANK YOU!

for efforts presenting the subject thread photographs. Without curious FReepers, this would be a boring medium.

[timestax]

bump to the top

[Justa]

A few points to consider:

-Do you have substantiation that the 'apeture' referenced is in fact the one used in the camera which took the video (minor point there)?

-The shuttle was falling, not flying through the atmosphere. As such it's underside is it's leading-edge. A sideways orientation of an object falling at 40 degrees is by no means an unstable orientation. The shuttle's underside has a slightly convex design, it will orientate itself perpindicular to atmospheric pressure during descent. If not it would require constant adjustment during descent to maintain proper orientation against the atmosphere. It has a stable design. Given pressure the underside will orient itself perpindicular to the flight path. Like a space capsule, it makes little difference which way it is facing.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Have you been taking the Ted Postel correspondence course in video interpretation?

[plsvn]

My initial interpretation is that the image is focused, and then as the camera zoomed back it became out of focus.

When this photo was taken, the Shuttle was at least 50 MILES from the observer. Think about it... 50 miles! No small, hand-help camera, could photograph the Shuttle in such detail as people are describing here. This is simply an OUT OF FOCUS IMAGE. When the photographer zooms back, the focus becomes sharp, and the shuttle is a bright SPOT as it should be when using a simple, hand-held, camera.

This reminds me of a story, from back in the 1960s, when amateur astronomers were showing the general public the planet Mars through a telescope. One person climbed up a ladder to get to the telescope eyepiece. It was explained to this person to get a better view they could turn the focus knob to make the image clearer. The person turned and turn and turned the knob until at last they got an image they "liked." When that person came down off the ladder, the amateur astronomer climbed up the ladder to see what the person was looking at. The person had completely defocused the image to make the image into an out-of-focus BLOB of large size.... the small, focused, image of Mars was hopelessly lost in the blur. That's exactly what's going on here. The Shuttle was 50 miles at least away, and a small hand-held camera in NO WAY can magnify the Shuttle vehicle to the size being described by some people here.

[jaugust]

But was it a small hand-held camera? No one has really indicated what type of camera was actually used. And as I said in my post it was my "initial" interpretation. I have stated in later posts my skepticism until someone in the position to know (such as an investigator) can say one way or the other what was going on during this time. Thanks for your input.

Regards.

[mikegi]

Keep up your skepticism! I'm going to retract my interpretation that these images are of the space shuttle. I've updated my webpage to include this still image from a video I shot tonight:

I wanted to see what the combination of out-of-focus, zoom, and aperture settings would do to a bright point of light when viewed through my camcorder. It's conclusive to me that what's seen on the FoxNews video is exactly what FreedomCalls went to great lengths to describe in his posts.

[FreedomCalls]

Thanks for your support. If you look around others have been misled by the same video and are drawing similar incorrect conclusions. I cannot argue in all the threads. Thanks for the picture you posted on your web page. It's even more drastic of an effect if you brighten up your example a little. Here I have done it for you.

This shows a striking similarity to the image in question. Thanks again, and I'm sorry if I seemed a little "grumpy" yesterday, but my emotional state was not at its best due to the circumstances.

You know, I was thinking about the Pleides constellation today. It consists of seven stars closely grouped together. It is called the "Seven Sisters." When you see it think of the seven lost souls of Columbia.

[Howlin]

Hey, I'm glad you're back. Do you recall some posts last night when people were discussing how far you could see on the horizon?

[FreedomCalls]

No, I'm sorry I didn't read those. What was the question? If it was how far you can see, well, the answer to that is that it depends on your height above ground and the height of the object you want to see.

[Howlin]

I was wondering if, for instance, you were in eastern California, using a telescope to look at the shuttle, how "far" away from you it could be before you lost sight of it.

[jaugust]

Please see posts 144 148 151 and 153

[Alberta's Child]

I just saw the updated image on your website. Great detective work!!

[Chesterbelloc]

Do you know if the guy in Owen's Valley California was using a telescope? He is just a little east of me.

I was just outside with my two older kids figuring out where we were when the shuttle went past and the path it took in the sky. It passed behind some pine trees on part of its flight path past us. I asked both of them if they saw anything that looked like it fell away/off the shuttle. One said no and one wasn't sure. My 42 year old eyes didn't see anything, but I was pretty excited because it was such a cool sight that I may not have noticed anything unless it was obvious. Now, I wish I had video taped it. I was planning on it, but didn't bring the camera out with me.

[spodefly]

Good job in trying to appeal to logic. When I came to this thread thinking that there was an actual picture of the shuttle taken by a high-magnification lens, I was amazed to see people seriously discussing an out of focus abberation created on a video image taken from 40 miles+ away, and seeing numerous details in it, and formulating opinions based on it. It reminds me of those people that see a cross in a church window (caused by the light refracting in glass) and take it as a 'sign'.

[Moonman62]

That's very convincing. The only problem is I just saw replays of this video on Geraldo's show, and it was also very convicing for the other interpretation. They appeared to freeze and enlarge the same frame you did on your web page, but their resolution was a bit better. I could clearly see three circles where the main engines should be in the correct configuration, not straight across as some have assumed. I can see a "lip" underneath the main engines. I can see the concave curve of the "wings." There are two black dots on either side of where the main engines are that could be the pods for the orbital engines, although a bit too far apart.

In your test image the lines for the bottom triangle are straight. The lines continue upwards to form a rhombus from the tips of the "wings," whereas in the video they come straight across until they form a lip underneath where the main engines would be.

At this point some of the "experts" I'm sure have already crafted replies calling me a stubborn a__hole and an idiot, but here's an important question: Is it possible that the shape of the aperture, being similar in shape to the shuttle from behind, caused some sort of magnification and sharpening affect?