69 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
69 lines
3.8 KiB
Plaintext
|
SUBJECT: UFO's and the Shuttle FILE: UFO44
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
PART 3
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Since the arguments for great range to the object all fail, the
|
||
|
|
conclusions based on angular motion converted to physical motion
|
||
|
|
also fail.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
What is the "flare" in the camera that precedes the change in
|
||
|
|
motion of all the objects? I believe the flare in the lower left
|
||
|
|
camera FOV is an RCS jet firing, not per Hoagland an
|
||
|
|
electromagnetic pulse effect. There are several reasons: it does
|
||
|
|
not look like any known electromagnetic video interference; it
|
||
|
|
looks just like previously seen RCS flares; and the Hoagland
|
||
|
|
counterargument about an alleged need for pointing changing is
|
||
|
|
not valid.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
First, while it is true that EMI can affect electrical equipment,
|
||
|
|
such pulses would not lie in any localized region of a television
|
||
|
|
screen but would blitz the whole image. Anybody whose TV has ever
|
||
|
|
been blitzed by lightning knows that the effect does not confine
|
||
|
|
itself to the corner nearest the lightning. Also, far more
|
||
|
|
sensitive electronic equipment aboard the shuttle, including
|
||
|
|
computers which were counting the pulses of individual cosmic
|
||
|
|
rays striking their circuits, were not affected by the event
|
||
|
|
(otherwise, the entire television transmission would have been
|
||
|
|
knocked out). So Hoagland's explanation is magical and
|
||
|
|
unrealistic.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Second, the optical appearance of RCS jet firings is well known
|
||
|
|
and familiar to experienced observers, and they look just like
|
||
|
|
the flash in question. These have been observed and videotaped on
|
||
|
|
every shuttle mission, from the crew cabin, from payload bay and
|
||
|
|
RMS cameras, and from cameras on nearby free-flying satellites,
|
||
|
|
and from ground optical tracking cameras as well.
|
||
|
|
Third, Hoagland's argument that the line of travel of stars down
|
||
|
|
to the horizon should have been kinked by the jet firing is plain
|
||
|
|
ignorant. During attitude hold coast periods, the shuttle
|
||
|
|
autopilot maintains a "deadband" of several degrees, slowly
|
||
|
|
drifting back and forth and, when the attitude exceeds the
|
||
|
|
deadband limit, a jet is pulsed to nudge (NOT "shove") the
|
||
|
|
spaceship back toward the center of the deadband. The angular
|
||
|
|
rates induced by these 80-msec pulses are as follows:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
ROLL .07 deg/sec
|
||
|
|
PITCH .10 deg/sec
|
||
|
|
YAW .05 deg/sec
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Note that the star motion would have changed direction ONLY IF
|
||
|
|
the orbiter's pointing attitude was shifted to the right or left.
|
||
|
|
If shifted up or down, only a slight change in star motion rate
|
||
|
|
would occur (this appears to be the way the jet plume is actually
|
||
|
|
directed) but so would horizon motion, so it would have to
|
||
|
|
measured as absolute screen position. If shifted in or out, no
|
||
|
|
change at all would be observable. This is all based on pure
|
||
|
|
geometric considerations overlooked by Hoagland.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
After ten seconds, even in the worst case (pitch motion inducing
|
||
|
|
pure crossways angular motion), the star track would only have
|
||
|
|
diverged a single degree from the former straight line. This is
|
||
|
|
visually undetectable on the images shown by Hoagland.
|
||
|
|
So the fact that he sees no change in the star motion tracks does
|
||
|
|
not disprove that the pulse was an RCS jet.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|