UFO BBS/045

UFO BBS/045

File Name:	045.ufo
Author:	Unknown
Date:	Unknown
Posting BBS:	Unknown
BBS Main Page:	UFO BBS Main Page
Key Words:	UFO, Ufology, UAP

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