85 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
85 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: UFO's and the SHUTTLE FILE: UFO43
|
|
|
|
PART 2
|
|
|
|
Note that the bright light in upper left is some sort of camera
|
|
anomaly and is not an electronic horizon marker as alleged by
|
|
Hoagland. There is no such thing as an electronic horizon marker.
|
|
Is the object behind the atmosphere? Hoagland argues that
|
|
analysis of the imagery shows the object is physically behind the
|
|
atmosphere. But I disagree. It is NOT seen through the
|
|
atmosphere:
|
|
|
|
First, consider the brightening effect. Computer analysis is
|
|
shown which alleges that the brightening of the object while
|
|
below the airglow layer is analogous to the brightening of stars
|
|
setting behind the airglow layer. This allegedly implies that the
|
|
object, like the stars, is behind the airglow layer.
|
|
|
|
This argumentation is false because it posits the wrong causation
|
|
mechanism for brightening ("passage of the light through
|
|
atmosphere"). This should be obvious since at the airglow
|
|
altitude (40-60 miles) the atmosphere is already extremely thin
|
|
and the lapse rate (the drop in pressure per rise in altitude) is
|
|
already much reduced over the value at lower altitudes (that is,
|
|
crossing the "airglow boundary" does NOT significantly change the
|
|
atmospheric density the light ray is passing through). If density
|
|
WERE the true cause of brightening, the effect would markedly
|
|
peak at a lower altitude (as soon as the beam rose above total
|
|
obscuration), then drop rapidly as atmospheric density dropped,
|
|
and show NO NOTICEABLE CHANGE in dimunition rate as it crossed
|
|
the airglow layer because the density of traversed air wouldn't
|
|
change much either at that region.
|
|
|
|
The actual connection for the object's brightening is the
|
|
absolute brightness of the airglow layer in the background. The
|
|
object is brighter when it is against a bright background, just
|
|
as stars are brighter. This is not an effect of a light ray
|
|
transiting the airglow region and somehow being strengthened.
|
|
Instead, I believe it is an effect on the camera optics of the
|
|
summing, pixel by pixel, of all brightness within the field of
|
|
view. A bright object with a dark background will not throw as
|
|
many photons on the individual pixels of the camera as would a
|
|
bright object with a half-bright background. The camera's vidicon
|
|
system will respond to light in the background by brightening the
|
|
small point-source objects observed in that region, either lying
|
|
behind or crossing in front of that background. Repeat: crossing
|
|
in front of that airglow.
|
|
|
|
This is confirmed by other checks. Observers can note that other
|
|
drifting point-source objects, clearly starting well below the
|
|
horizon line, also brighten as they traverse the airglow region.
|
|
NOTE: Hoagland's argument that the dimming beyond the airglow
|
|
disproves NASA's contention that the object is nearby and sunlit,
|
|
since as it gradually rose "higher into the sunlight" it should
|
|
brighten, not dim, is false. Once in full sunlight, no further
|
|
brightening occurs. Sunrise only lasts as long as it takes for
|
|
the sun (0.5 degrees wide) to rise above the horizon, at the
|
|
orbital angular rate of 4 degrees per minute (that is, 360
|
|
degrees in a 90-minute orbit), which comes to just 7-8 seconds,
|
|
which anybody should have been able to figure out. Of course this
|
|
is different from ground rates, which depends for the sun's
|
|
angular motion on earth's rotation rate (4 minutes per degree, 16
|
|
times slower than spaceship orbital rate). This argument reveals
|
|
Hoagland's unfamiliarity with basic orbital flight conditions and
|
|
implications.
|
|
|
|
Notice that no mention is made by Hoagland of the clear absence
|
|
of expected refractive effects of being behind the atmosphere. As
|
|
is known by anybody who's watched sunset/moonset at a flat
|
|
horizon, the atmosphere creates significant distortion in the
|
|
bottom .2-.4 degrees of the image. The lowest layers demonstrate
|
|
a vertical compression of 2:1 or greater. This is also shown on
|
|
pictures of "moonset" from orbit. If the STS-48 object were
|
|
really travelling nearly parallel to the horizon but somewhere
|
|
behind the atmosphere, this would be visible by analyzing its
|
|
flight path. As it rose its line of travel would markedly change
|
|
as atmospheric refractive effects disappeared. This does not
|
|
happen, which strongly suggests that the object is NOT behind the
|
|
atmosphere.
|
|
continued in part (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |