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 *
 **********************************************

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.altexxanet.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.