Re: Columbia, sprite, photo

[khobar]

Kent Betts > wrote in message
...
> > A while back there was a report of an amateur astronomer taking a photo
of
> > an electrical discharge event contacting Columbia. Was that photo ever
> > released?
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> A fellow with a Nikon digital camera took a pic of the Coumbia that had a
blue
> fleck new the orbiter. The photo is still his private property. Best
guess is
> that it is a camera abberation, consistent with prior examples.
>
> The sprite hypothesis was based on this story, and is still a hypothesis.
There
> is no photo that has been shown to contain an electrical discharge or a
sprite
> associated with the Columbia.
>
> For that matter, the CAIB is tending toward wing damage due to foam
separation
> as a rool cause.

Thanks everyone for the input. I had not followed the story closely and only
the other day started looking again, briefly. I originally thought there was
a single photo, but apparently there was a series of 5 photos taken
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/02/MN221641.DTL).
Since the CAIB was focusing on the foam I figured the importance of the
photo(s) would be nil and thus would have been made public. Oh well...

Paul Nixon

[Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:22:55 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:33:37 GMT, "Terrence Daniels"
> wrote:
>
>>I think the guy who took the photo wanted compensation or some other sort of
>>condition from NASA and/or the CAIB before he'd allow it to be released
>>publicly. I think The Authorities basically told him to suck it in response.
>>It would be interesting to see it but I don't think it's going to happen.
>
>...I went back through my archives from the first month or so of FAQ
>inputs. According to one source I've got that's dealing with the CAIB,
>the word that was floating around as of mid-March went something along
>these lines:
>
>...Apparently the guy was at first really afraid of being dragged into
>the kook realms if his photo turned out ot be an artifact. Before he
>turned his photo and camera over to NASA, he apparently negotiated a
>deal whereby NASA would keep his identity a secret, and reveal it and
>release the image if and only if the CAIB was convinced it was a "real
>lightning bolt/coronal discharge" and not an artifact. Otherwise, he
>and the photo would remain a cypher.

This is the story I've heard all along.

>...The compensation story came a bit later, when the guy apparently
>also asked that if the photo appeared to be a real deal, he and not
>NASA and/or the CAIB, would have sole rights to determine the release
>and disposition of the image. Seems by this time he was getting a lot
>of offers for "exclusive rights" to the photo from some really
>high-caliber publications, such as the _National Enquirer_ or the
>_Star_. Apparently his anonymity was assured, but unless you're Deep
>Throat that doesn't always work.

This part I hadn't heard before. From an inside source?

>Either way, apparently the CAIB's
>made it clear that any images that come their way become their
>property under federal laws involving accident investigations of this
>nature.

True.

>About that same time the CAIB also issued statements to the
>effect that the "bolt" was a digital artifact of a type that the
>particular model of camera was prone to experience. After that, both
>the photo and the anon photographer sort of disappeared.

I'll have to ask for a cite for this one. I read the CAIB press releases when
they came out and I don't remember anything about this. THe only place I saw a
reference to it being an artifact is not a CAIB site but at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30904 but I couldn't
find any reference anywhere else.

[OM]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:32:49 GMT, "Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to
\"s\"" > wrote:

>>...The compensation story came a bit later, when the guy apparently
>>also asked that if the photo appeared to be a real deal, he and not
>>NASA and/or the CAIB, would have sole rights to determine the release
>>and disposition of the image. Seems by this time he was getting a lot
>>of offers for "exclusive rights" to the photo from some really
>>high-caliber publications, such as the _National Enquirer_ or the
>>_Star_. Apparently his anonymity was assured, but unless you're Deep
>>Throat that doesn't always work.
>
>This part I hadn't heard before. From an inside source?

....Yup. One of two. Both also said that one of the board members was
rather concerned that the "mystery photographer" wasn't explained up
front that the CAIB owned the photos once they got their hands on
them, per FAA regulations regarding accident investigation evidence.

>>About that same time the CAIB also issued statements to the
>>effect that the "bolt" was a digital artifact of a type that the
>>particular model of camera was prone to experience. After that, both
>>the photo and the anon photographer sort of disappeared.
>
>I'll have to ask for a cite for this one. I read the CAIB press releases when
>they came out and I don't remember anything about this.

....Orbity, I'm going to see if I can find that cite, but it may take a
day or two. I quoted that from memory from one of the press conference
transcripts, where one reporter asked about that photo not too long
after the enhanced version of the Starfire photo was released. IIRC,
it was never in any of their actual press releases or official
announcements, but one of the press conferences. Jim Oberg might be
able to recall this one quicker than I can pull up the cite.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:58:59 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:

> ...Yup. One of two. Both also said that one of the board members was
> rather concerned that the "mystery photographer" wasn't explained up
> front that the CAIB owned the photos once they got their hands on
> them, per FAA regulations regarding accident investigation evidence.

Why do FAA regs matter? This isn't an FAA investigation. It's a NASA
investigation, so NASA regs apply.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

[OM]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:21:20 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 04:58:59 -0600, OM
><om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
>wrote:
>
>> ...Yup. One of two. Both also said that one of the board members was
>> rather concerned that the "mystery photographer" wasn't explained up
>> front that the CAIB owned the photos once they got their hands on
>> them, per FAA regulations regarding accident investigation evidence.
>
>Why do FAA regs matter? This isn't an FAA investigation. It's a NASA
>investigation, so NASA regs apply.

....It's my understanding that the FAA regs apply because it's being
treated as an aircraft mishap. Apparently the photos are covered under
the same laws that render debris from the breakup as Federal property.
But seeing as how Mary's rarely wrong on this, I'll pop a line to my
sources and verify that they meant FAA and not NASA.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr