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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by A5H

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


Really, NO, you're not. I feel like you're genuinely trying to back with fact the statements made in the original post. Now, if your response was "because I said so" - then you'd be stupid...lol.

Here's the deal. There were a couple or so really informative posts on the first page that gave a great deal of scientific fact behind sprites/jets/elves. Fact is, they eject in the 10's of miles above a storm system (20-30 miles up maybe). The shuttle is 300+ miles up. So like I said before, in order to get the shuttle down to the point a sprite could hit it, you have to be in the reentry phase...and there were no storm systems in the re-entry path that day.




posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
and there were no storm systems in the re-entry path that day.


Is it not at all possible for these occurances to happen without a storm? Do we know enough about the lightning to assume this? I couldn't see it being a Russian attack, the U.S would have retaliated, it's crazy.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is pathetic. Time to put an end to this ridiculous thread. The Colombia disaster was HUMAN ERROR. END OF STORY. I'll post a summary of the article tomorrow, since the magazine "SpaceFlight" Vol 46 No 6 is in the library and they don't have a website.

Anyways in conclusion to this while the people here at ATS discuss some past issue, other things are happening which are more important which stem from the Colombia disaster.

From Same Magazine
NASA claims to be no longer servicing the Hubble Space Telescope(HST). The HST is to die in 2008. Servicing missions were banned, because of safety reasons(paricularly Colombia disaster).
The astronauts who helped to deploy and service the HST are protesting NASAs decision.
***A sevice mission in 2006 would extend the life expectancy of the the HST to 2012, therefore getting 4 more years of service out of it.***

opinion
Therefore the Colombia disaster was a huge setback to NASA as they have decided to play it safe and not take any risks. In other words manned missions to Mars are highly unlikely, even if NASA had the technology. They're looking into more logical aspects of space exploration, like taking celebrity on trips to the space station.(which will soon start getting mass media attention)



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Hi all!

I saw the TV programme too, which was on our Channel 5 last night, the subject being "Megalightning". There were, indeed, suggestions that lightning *might* have had some effect on the Sapce Shuttle.

Searching Google, I came across this which contains this quote:

"Just as Columbia is over San Francisco within the ionosphere, entering sunlight, crossing a potential current sheet, while in a high right bank, with greater than normal vortexes created by the left double delta wing, as the solar wind shockwave hits the magnetosphere, an astronomer takes a picture of Columbia overhead and captures a luminous purple corkscrew object hitting the Shuttle. (My emphasis)

The apparent lightning strike was probably following the highest charged area of the shuttle which may have been the vortexes coming from the left double delta where the two angles of the delta meet, due to the right banking of the Shuttle at the time. Whether ionization, heat or even sound from this apparent lightning discharge, the problem was small to begin with such as one of the airtight seals opening, sensors within the wheel well indicate only slight temperature rises at first. The Soviet shuttle Buran, made after but based of the Space Shuttle design, showed that the heat shield was prone to acoustic (sound) testing causing the Soviets to redesign their heat shield."

I haven't, as yet, found the photograph that was shown on the programme, but thought this extract from the article might help this topic?


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Pathetic?
Dude what is your problem.
www.worldnetdaily.com...
Can you comprehensively explain this away?
Do you even know what this lightning is and does?

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Another reference here:

"Federal scientists are looking for evidence that a bolt of electricity in the upper atmosphere might have doomed the space shuttle Columbia as it streaked over California, The Chronicle has learned.

Investigators are combing records from a network of ultra-sensitive instruments that might have detected a faint thunderclap in the upper atmosphere at the same time a photograph taken by a San Francisco astronomer appears to show a purplish bolt of lightning striking the shuttle. "



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Interesting: www.google.com...



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
This tragedy happened because, as video evidence clearly shows, foam hit the space shuttle on launch, damaging one of it's wings. I watched a documentary filmed in NASA about it. They were conducting tests, the hole caused by a piece of foam what they estimate to be the size that struck the space shuttle is amazing, it's absolutely huge (cant remember how big off hand)
Upon entering the Earth's atmosphere, the space shuttle heats up to such a level that the gases directly underneath it become a plasma, (this is used in fusion). They managed to 'burn through' this hole and the temperature cooked the space shuttle inside out.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Does anyone know the outcome of this photo's analysis? I don't remember reading about it in the CAIB document.

URL: www.abqtrib.com...

Abstract:
The photo was taken by an amateur astronomer in San Francisco, who asked to remain anonymous. He handed the photo and his camera over to NASA this week.

NASA hasn't released the photo to the public because it is still examining it, NASA Space Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore said in a Houston press conference Friday afternoon.

"We're still trying to determine the photo's validity," Dittemore said.

A journalist from the San Francisco Chronicle reported seeing the image before NASA Astronaut Tammy Jernigan picked it up.

"The description I heard of it was a corkscrew shape with purple luminosity that sort of deflected off the shuttle," said Mark Stanley, a Los Alamos scientist who has talked to sources that have seen the photo. "My own opinion is that it's an optical effect caused by streaking of the camera. It's hard to be explicit about what it could be without seeing the image, but I'm skeptical."


A5H

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Thanks Genya.
I also found a link saying that the photographer gave the photos to Nasa fo analysis. And that he would not make them public until it was finished.

Ash



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by A5H
Thanks Genya.
I also found a link saying that the photographer gave the photos to Nasa fo analysis. And that he would not make them public until it was finished.

Ash


You're welcome ASH!! As I said, I saw the programme too, so knew you weren't "telling porkies"!!


The programme *did* feature the alleged photgraph (from what we were told!) and, had I have had my wits about me, I would have taken a screenshot - I didn't of course (few wits here!!
)

And, going off topic - next weeks programme on the "Moon hoax" should be very watchable too....



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer
... opinion
Therefore the Colombia disaster was a huge setback to NASA as they have decided to play it safe and not take any risks. In other words manned missions to Mars are highly unlikely, even if NASA had the technology. They're looking into more logical aspects of space exploration, like taking celebrity on trips to the space station.(which will soon start getting mass media attention)


So you are saying because of the Columbia tradgedy, they arent going to use spacecraft to go to Mars, yet they are going to send celebrities into space? How is that any safer? Just becasue a celebrity is onboard the craft is now invivncible?

[Edited on 5/28/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Tesla howitzers Russian's Saryshagan Howitzer

www.cheniere.org...

www.tldm.org...

Nikola Tesla - all information on the man and his work was classified by the government after he made claims of having developed unstoppable superweapons. .. a death ray.
BTW A5H thanks for bringing this subject up.


[Edited on 27-5-2004 by signa]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   
signa

Great. Thanks for the links, but what is your point? I'm assuming you are just going to insinuate this without actually coming out and stating it???



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I would just like to ask people to check A5Hs link at the end of page 2 before posting. It gives a good idea of what were talking about and has a lot of the info that was on this documentary plus a bit more and as always its best to come to these topics with an open mind before making any decision, after all isnt that what science is about looking at all the information at hand (even if you dont like it) and trying to prove or disprove the idea/concept with the willingness that either one could be right.
The only way to get to the truth is to not judge something before you research it.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Um yeah but have you seen the video of the piece falling off the ET(external tank) and smashing into the leading edge of the left wing, the left wing was where the censors first starting picking up problems, and the smoking gun was the hole they were able to create after the fact by those tests that were so publicized.


CASE CLOSED!!!!!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viper85
I would just like to ask people to check A5Hs link at the end of page 2 before posting.


The problem I have with that link is that he doesn't think " a few missing tiles" could have caused enough problems. It didn't lose a few tiles, there was a hole in the leading edge of the wing. Interesting idea but the impact test showed that the foam blasted a suitcase size hole in the test wing.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duke_Nukem

Originally posted by Viper85
I would just like to ask people to check A5Hs link at the end of page 2 before posting.


The problem I have with that link is that he doesn't think " a few missing tiles" could have caused enough problems. It didn't lose a few tiles, there was a hole in the leading edge of the wing. Interesting idea but the impact test showed that the foam blasted a suitcase size hole in the test wing.


i agree (i saw the vid of the test) i just thought that it would be best for anyone before they post to just read through it to get an indepth idea of the ideas were talking about in this thread.....but i must admit after reading from both sides it got me thinking could this of happened (wich i dought but it has opened the possibility in my mind that it could have).



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Um yeah but have you seen the video of the piece falling off the ET(external tank) ....CASE CLOSED!!!!!


Yes, no worries there jrod - saw the video, no disputing the damage caused and the resultant analysis and enquiry. No axe to grind at all.

However, what is being relayed here is the information gleaned from a TV documentary that featured on UK TV on Weds evening. This was concerned with "Megalightning", and this thread has covered lots of information about sprites, etc, that the programme covered.

During the programme (indeed at the end of the programme) a discussion took place about the *possibilty* of a lightning strike having contributed to the Shuttle disaster. The links to various articles referencing this occurance have been given already, so I don't think there's any need to repeat them?

So, in effect, we're *not* trying to say that the Shuttle disaster *was* caused by lightning, but rather that the possibilty has been discussed by people (including NASA, apparently) following a documentary broadcast in UK.

So, "case closed" may well be the situation - the possibilty of Megalightning being involved, however, *has* been discussed - and probably discounted - as a being a contributory factor.

I hope that helps?


EDIT: Typo's!!


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Genya]



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Have we not already concluded that this was not possible as it was a clear day?







 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join