Shuttle Pic--SIDE VIEW!

In your test image the lines for the bottom triangle are straight. The lines continue upwards to form a rhombus from the tips of the "wings," whereas in the video they come straight across until they form a lip underneath where the main engines would be.

You should try my experiment with your own camcorder then you'll understand why I completely reject the chance that this was the shuttle. By manually adjusting the zoom, focus, and exposure on my camcorder, I could make all sorts of different shapes, make the dividing line between light/dark move up and down, etc.

Before I did my experiment, I found a 3d model of the space shuttle on the web and created an image of it from beneath and behind in POVRay. One thing I noticed was that the shuttle, from this angle, is almost all dark. Another thing is that the "OMS pods" are way too far apart, too far apart to be explained by motion blur, etc.

At this point some of the "experts" I'm sure have already crafted replies calling me a stubborn a__hole and an idiot, but here's an important question: Is it possible that the shape of the aperture, being similar in shape to the shuttle from behind, caused some sort of magnification and sharpening affect?

You're not an idiot. To photography laymen (eg. me and you), the image looks like a view of the space shuttle at a particular orientation. Those who poured derision on our initial interpretation without explaining why are the idiots. I'll make sure to pour derision on them when they venture into my field of expertise in the future. FreedomCalls really went the extra mile in explaining what was going on and I appreciate it.

There is a way to settle this scientifically but it would involve getting data on a typical camcorder lens and shuttle dimensions. A shuttle has a wingspan of around 80ft and the Columbia was about 200,000ft away. I'd like to see one of the dismissive "experts" use this and the typical camcorder specs to show how much of a zoom was necessary to get an actual image of the shuttle.

Before I did my experiment, I found a 3d model of the space shuttle on the web and created an image of it from beneath and behind in POVRay. One thing I noticed was that the shuttle, from this angle, is almost all dark. Another thing is that the "OMS pods" are way too far apart, too far apart to be explained by motion blur, etc.

Thanks for all the work you've done, and to FreedomCalls. As to the darkness of the shuttle in your POVRay simulation, I think it's plausible that the shuttle was already glowing white hot at that point of its disintegration, the bottom still appearing dark because of the tiles. Whatever the case, there is an amazing set of coincidences, whichever interpretation turns out to be true, starting with the aperture resembling the shuttle, both in shape and color scheme.

NASA said yesterday that they may have an extra 32 seconds of data, so they may in the futrue know the orientation of the shuttle at that point.

Hi Jack. Don't loose heart - You are probably looking at a post-landing, but pre-next-launch image of the shuttle. It does comeback covered in ashen smudges, and it highlights the joints between the tiles. The ships are always very clean at launch.

"Uh guys.....the shuttle does re enter upside down."

It may initiate its de-orbit burn tail first, and possibly "upside down", but re-entry is a process that starts only after it has conventional upright, nose-first attitude.

Thank you fopr debunking this "flying sideways" notion.

It comports with the evidence that thie orbiter was (IIRC) 40 miles away from the camera, and would not be any more than a speck to the camera at that distance, regardless of its attitude.

Whoops! Sorry for the error. The post I am replying to now is the one that debunked the "flying sideways" notion.

Thanks for the Brain yesterday.

Here's a hot tip for you to try.

Space/Orbiter Simulator

Very useful post - thanks

AZ...FreedomCalls has the CORRECT analysis, make sure you read his posts on the topic...G

I had thought I was on one of FreedomCalls' posts when I replied, but my context was off. However, I appreciate both his analysis efforts and your original posting of this. Made for a nice forum overall, and I learned a lot about low-light video photography. Never know when these sorts of things may come in handy!

Sorry but your attempt to dispell this video capture's authenticity is 'tin foil' IMHO of course.
I saw the Fox video capture of the shuttle before the cameraman zoomed in, I saw the Fox video capture of the shuttle when the cameraman zoomed in, and, I saw the Fox video capture of the shuttle after the cameraman zoomed out.

It's the shuttle hurtling to it's doom in a southeasterly flight path. Wings are level and the nose is pointing south.

It is a dramatic capture of the shuttle, just moments from disintegration. It provides substantial information to NASA as to Columbia's demise.

Because of the fatal flight position of the shuttle, one can deduce that flight control is absent at this point in time. Redundant systems have failed.

The shuttle's angle of attack, fuselage first, is non-aerodynamic and the mach 18 forces acting upon the fuselage, more than likely, led to the physical destruction of the ship.

Sorry but your attempt to dispell this video capture's authenticity is 'tin foil' IMHO of course.

Look, I started my web page believing that the video actually showed the shuttle in some detail. There is nothing "tinfoil" in my decision that the video is actually a aperture/zoom/focus effect. I'm not proposing some sort of grand conspiracy or anything else. I've shown how, using my own camcorder, you can produce a similar effect by viewing a relatively bright point out of focus.

If you believe this is actually an image of the shuttle flying sideways, you have to answer the following questions:

1. Why are the OMS pods too far apart? No amount of motion blur would make them that far apart without also stretching the "wingspan", too. I tried to map a 3d view of the shuttle from beneath and behind to the still and couldn't.

2. Why is the shuttle oriented exactly perpendicular to the camera?

3. Why is there no change in the orientation of the shuttle during the zoom in?

4. Is the amount of zoom required to capture such detail available on a video camera, even one the pros use for TV stations? An optics expert should be able to guesstimate the amount of zoom necessary. I'm no optics expert.

I couldn't answer these questions with any confidence. Maybe you can. I would like for this to actually be an image of the shuttle flying sideways. It would explain the break up although it wouldn't be of help in determining the cause of the disaster.

There is nothing "tinfoil" in my decision that the video is actually a aperture/zoom/focus effect.

So your aperture/zoom/focus effect is what I'm seeing on the video. ? Is there no object or subject ? Is this just an effect ? Sorry friend, I saw a subject in the video.

I guess you are willing to ignore the smoke/debris trail ?

I guess you are willing to ignore the material that can be seen coming/burning off the shuttle about half way through the video ?

Before the cameraman zooms in, we see the same image that dozens of other amateur and professional cameramen took of the shuttle. There is a bright glow which looks like fire/flame/explosion, as the shuttle streaks across the sky.

The reality of this effect appears to be caused by the sun glinting off the ship, as the effect disipates once the cameraman zooms in on the shuttle.

FWIW I haven't seen any other captures that zoom in. Every other capture had basically the same appearance of a glowing, burning image, with a smoke trail following the ship's path.

The image captured, shows the ship prior to disintegration, due to the position of the cameraman on the ground and in relation to the re-entry position of the shuttle, which is intact, (prior to it's break up).

It's possible that a later capture will show, not only the glow or burn appearance, but a disintegrating shuttle when viewed at magnification. This would be due to the passing of time and the obvious fact that the shuttle would be further down range and well into catastrophic break up.

1 Why are the OMS pods too far apart ?

This is like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife ? It looks like a shuttle to me. Not a spacecraft, not a frisbee, not a street light, not an experimental single engine aircraft, not an aperture/zoom/focus effect, but the shuttle. In what little detail one can make out, it appears proportional, realistic, and actual. 2 Why is the shuttle oriented exactly perpendicular to the camera ?

You use the term exactly as if there is something suspicious about the shuttle's position. Why can't the ship be perpendicular to the cameraman ? The cameraman is more or less perpendicular to the shuttle. It's a non issue. No mystery. That is (the point in time and space) where the ship passed over the earth, AND, it is also, simply the place on the ground where the camerman happened to be inhabiting the planet, when the ship passed by in the flight position it was in.

It could have been upside down, tumbling, spinning, rolling, nose facing cameraman, or on any other random degree of inclination in relation to the three axis mentioned.

3 Why is there no change in the orientation of the shuttle during the zoom in ?

There wouldn't be a change in orientation because of the zoom in. Why would there be ? Can you explain ? The line of sight doesn't change. The angle is the same.

4 Is the amount of zoom required to capture such detail available on a video camera, even one the pros use for TV stations?

The zoom was what it was. My guess is that it is at least 6X, but maybe as much as 20X. It appeared to be automatic and very smooth. As far as detail, it went from a round glowing unidentifiable object to a shape recognizeable as the shuttle with little in the way of minuit detail.

I believe NASA will use this video in their investigation and I believe in the days, weeks, and months to come, they will reference this video capture repeatedly.

So your aperture/zoom/focus effect is what I'm seeing on the video? Is there no object or subject? Is this just an effect? Sorry friend, I saw a subject in the video. I guess you are willing to ignore the smoke/debris trail? I guess you are willing to ignore the material that can be seen coming/burning off the shuttle about half way through the video?

No one is disputing that the video shows the shuttle reentering over Texas with the contrail and breakup beginning at the end. What IS in dispute is whether the zoomed-in portion of the video actually shows the shuttle in detail.

This is like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife ? It looks like a shuttle to me. Not a spacecraft, not a frisbee, not a street light, not an experimental single engine aircraft, not an aperture/zoom/focus effect, but the shuttle. In what little detail one can make out, it appears proportional, realistic, and actual.

It is NOT proportional. The "OMS pods" are way too far apart. Here's a comparison:

They don't match.

You use the term exactly as if there is something suspicious about the shuttle's position. Why can't the ship be perpendicular to the cameraman? ... You use the term exactly as if there is something suspicious about the shuttle's position. Why can't the ship be perpendicular to the cameraman? ... There wouldn't be a change in orientation because of the zoom in. Why would there be? Can you explain?

What is suspicious is that the "shuttle" appears to be pointed exactly away from the camera. Of course, it could have been pointed that way but it is odd that the zoom-in captured it in exactly that orientation. Also, the orientation doesn't change. If the shuttle was spinning out of control, it should have changed orientation to some degree in the video. It doesn't.

The shuttle had a speed of mach 18, give or take. I would venture a guess that such a speed could easily distort it's image, epecially when viewed from such a distance. The zoom feature (magnification factor) and the quality of optics would play a role in how clear the image appeared to the viewer. Heat would be a factor as well.

It seems like the argument is being shifted from- the image is of an aperture/zoom/focus effect vs the image is of the shuttle, to- it's an image of the shuttle yet details are inaccurate so... it's what ? I honestly don't understand the point of this debate any longer ?

I think it's down to splitting hairs.

I do not dispute the lack of detail in the image, nor do I dispute that the image is somewhat distorted.

Looking at the image that you provided, one can easily reason that the shape of the wings from the captured video image doesn't replicate the shape of the wings in the graphic provided. It doesn't change my mind about what I believe I see.

Finally we don't know how much of the shuttle may already be missing (deformed) as it is captured on video at this particular point in space and time.

I concede a draw. As Roberto Duran might say- No mas ! No mas !

bttt