It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

website with clear picture

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
... The shuttle was moving at mach 10 or so -- and would have been out of range in less than a second.

Unless you are talking about it being shot down, since when is mach 10 faster than the speed of light?


Originally posted by Byrd
And I'd point out that the shuttle was well-shielded against such things. Florida is the Lightning capitol of the United States, and iNASA isn't going to risk having a very expensive rocket/ship getting damaged by lightning while sitting around on the launch pad or moving to and from the facility.

I would think that since the lignting they are proteced against is the "ground" lighting, and this is "air" lightning, they wouldn't expect it. They are almost two totally different types, 1 million volts compared to what? Sure they may be protected from the air-to-ground lightning, but maybe not from the air-to-air lightning ...

[Edited on 5/26/04 by xenophanes85]



cma

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
look at the facts from the ACTUAL shuttle mission log. Come on people, it is 1000000 to 1 that lightning was the main cause.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
could use some help please
I have uploaded the images but the urls are not working when they come up

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by signa]



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Columbia was NOT downed by lightning and Challenger was not shot down! Both were failures of their design and failures by NASA to pick up on the hints of possible problems.

Apollo 12 was struck by lightning durring launch and still made a successful mission to the moon.



posted on May, 26 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Columbia was NOT downed by lightning and Challenger was not shot down! Both were failures of their design and failures by NASA to pick up on the hints of possible problems.

Apollo 12 was struck by lightning durring launch and still made a successful mission to the moon.


this was not the ordinary type of lightning that regulerly hits planes ect, its much more powerful and lasts up to 10 or more seconds (so u can see that would be alot of energy). so in conjuction with the damage done to columbia on lift off... it might of just contributed to the disaster. There was a photo on this documentry showing a purple coloured lightning bolt intercepting columbia's plasma trail wich i still haven't been able to find
also there was aparently a sound in columbia's flight path that was picked up by sesitive equipment and it has the same profile if i remember right as a certain type of lightning (bit confused if its a sprite or the positive charged lightning bolt thats part of the sprite
mabe someone can clear that bit up for me??) anyway at the very least this documentry made me open to the posability that this powerful version of lightning could have destroyed or more likely contributed to the destruction of the columbia space shuttle.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I saw the documentry too, unfortunatly I can't find the photo on the internet of the lightning hitting the shuttle. It is true though - they have discovered new forms of lightning, and it is more powerful and hits for a longer period of time, beyond the design specs of current aircraft/shuttles.
Ironically, one of the missions that was being undertaken by Columbia was the recording of electrical storms for later analysis relating to these newly discovered forms of lightning.
They also had a guy that has infrasound equipment, who used to monitor for secret nuclear tests during the Cold War, who confirmed he had heard an event just prior to the brake up of the shuttle.


[Edited on 27-5-2004 by AgentSmith]


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Everyone who is saying, 'no it is not lightning,' please give some information on why you believe this is not the case.
How could NASA protect against it if the don't fully understand it? It's impossible, they can't.
The lightning is not just flash and thats it. It's like a hugely powerful burning torch burning a hole in whatever it hits.
From my understanding, the lightning would stay 'stuck' to the space craft because it is attracted by oppositely charged ions. This means the shuttle isn't able to outrun it because it's like a giant magnet for the lightning. Also as someone mentioned previously, there was a sound picked up on very delicate instruments that matched the signature of the sprites accompanying 'thunder.'

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   
There is one requirement for sprites, jets and elves...a storm system.

So...can one of you lightning proponents give meteorological evidence of a required source for the lightning?

That would be a first step in my mind.


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Yes, the signature recorded by the equipment used for detecting nukes.
There was also photgraphic evidence.
As of yet I havn't been able to find them but I am looking.
Does a storm system (basically, thunder clouds) need to be present?
I thought it was seperate as it is so high up.

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
No, it is not separate. It is an electrical emission from the top of a storm system. It doesn't just come out of no where. You understand also, that you have to place this storm system at a point that something is happening that would cause the crew to NOT be able to detect this strike, right? I mean, you can't say, it happened on orbit and they just didn't notice. Also, I have read nothing concerning sprites, jets and elves that even hint at them emitting as far as LEO. All photographic evidence from shuttles/station whatever, are looking DOWN at them. They're not hundreds of miles tall. So, basically now you have to find a storm system that is within the entry path of the shuttle.

**hint** I don't think you're going to.


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   


Also, I have read nothing concerning sprites, jets and elves that even hint at them emitting as far as LEO.

What? The constilation? It was IN the atmosphere not outside of it.
Oh and the sprites ARE NOT going upwards, they travel down from high up in the atmosphere. It was originally thought they fired upwards but this is not the case.
And, how would the crew notice before hand? They are travelling at vast speeds and concentrating on landing. As far as I'm aware the shuttle does not have a system for detection of sprites within the atmosphere.
Also when(if) it hit the shuttle I'm sure it would take out all electronic systems. This would be why the crew couldn't tell control what was going on.
What do you think happened then valhall?

Ash


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   
And also not all photgraphic evidence of sprites is taken from air/space.
There was a lab that had cameras that pointed above the clouds and picked up something like 250 sprites in 1 night.

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by A5H


Also, I have read nothing concerning sprites, jets and elves that even hint at them emitting as far as LEO.

Ash


LEO = Low Earth Orbit - where the shuttle is



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There is one requirement for sprites, jets and elves...a storm system.

So...can one of you lightning proponents give meteorological evidence of a required source for the lightning?

That would be a first step in my mind.



It is true that there were no storm systems around. If any of you remember, there was a crystal clear blue sky on that morning. Has anyone seen the video captured by witnesses?



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
heres something to think about.

astronauts are told they have a 1% (that is to say a 1 in 100 chance) of being killed on a mission.Challenger was mission 13 and Columbia was mission 113.curious eh?


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   
That is very strange.
I am trying to find evidence of the lightning strike now.
Those who think I'm wrong, could you please give me some links to back-up your conclusions?

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Okay, folks... (me, too) if you're going to bring up a point, do give us references that we can check out. So far the initial statement ("saw it on a documentary") isn't really corroborated.

Could we have some links to who and what and where so we can actually check out the science behind the claims?

So, for the unlikeliness of lightning doing any damage:


How safe are you from lightning inside an airplane? Commercial airliners are generally quite safe during electrical storms. A commercial airliner is on the average struck by lightning twice per year. Not to worrythe metal skin of the plane conducts the current on the outside like a Faraday cage. Fuel tanks are now designed to prevent entry of electrical charges. The last major U.S. commercial airliner crash caused by lightning was more than 35 years ago. Flying through a thunderstorm can be a bouncy and sometimes unnerving experience. But while the up- and downdrafts can be a potential hazard, you at least don't have top worry much about lightning. If struck by a bolt, the current is largely directed around the outside of the aircraft's metallic skin. Passengers might see a flash, hear a bang, but as for a shock, or worse, not to worry. Since today's commercial airliners are well protected from lightning strikes, a direct strike usually causes little or no problems. Usually. On August 4, 1992, a DC10 flying from Denver to Minneapolis flew into a thunderstorm. It took a direct hit. In addition to burned out electronics, some of the rivets on the fuselage were damaged. The plane landed safely but mechanics had a lot of work to do.

www.fma-research.com...&A.htm

The site has other information about lightning and weather as well. This particular site matches other information from science sites about lightning.

Another good site with lots of details in easy-to-read format:
forums2.vmacedonia.com...

(some quotes from that site):

The last confirmed commercial plane crash in the U.S. directly attributed to lightning occurred in 1967, when lightning caused a catastrophic fuel tank explosion. Since then, much has been learned about how lightning can affect airplanes. As a result, protection techniques have improved. Today, airplanes receive a rigorous set of lightning certification tests to verify the safety of their designs.

and...

Every circuit and piece of equipment that is critical or essential to the safe flight and landing of an aircraft must be verified by the manufacturers to be protected against lightning in accordance with regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or a similar authority in the country of the aircraft's origin.


So if you're arguing lightning, you ALSO have to provide proof that NASA deliberately ignores all the FAA safety regulations for a vehicle designed to travel through US airspace.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Byrd]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Oh and the sprites ARE NOT going upwards, they travel down from high up in the atmosphere. It was originally thought they fired upwards but this is not the case.


When has the scientific world acknowledged that Sprites and Elves move down from the Ionospere towards the ground ? Check out this link detailing research by the Columbia crew themselves

luna.tau.ac.il...

Also look at

home.student.utwente.nl...

www-star.stanford.edu...





A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Yes, I'm trying to find some links.
Sorry people, they are hard to find. I had never seen the footage before that was used in the documentary.
Also the lightning going downwards was shown but i'm not sure if it was 'sprites'. Alot of different types were mentioned.
As for Nasa being able to protect against it. How could they? If they hadn't fully studied and understood it then they would not know the consequences. As for the regulations, there are none! Commercial jets can withstand less than 1/6th the power of sprites.
I am still looking for links but there seems to be none.
I know I'm probably coming across a bit stupid here, but I really aren't.
I'm just having trouble locating sources.

Appologies,
Ash


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join