[CTRL] COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION CONTROVERSIES
-Caveat Lector- --- Forwarded message follows --- To: Distribution list suppressed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Jim Rarey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date sent: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:28:32 -0500 MEDIUM RARE by Jim Rarey February 20, 2003 COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION CONTROVERSIES If the conclusion in the Columbia tragedy is not controversial, the investigators themselves will more than make up for it. What with NASA spokespersons contradicting each other, theories being put forth, then dismissed only to be postulated again and finally admitting to the obvious, if the public isn't confused, they aren't paying attention. And this doesn't even involve the so-called "independent " panel appointed by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Early on the first hypothesis was that tiles had come off that were damaged on takeoff. Then, that was dismissed since that had been investigated a day or two after liftoff, using projections and simulations. A few days later that theory was put back on the table since no better theory arose. That is, no theory they were willing to consider. Two photographs, one taken in California and the other in Nevada, showed the shuttle being hit by significant electrical discharges of some kind. NASA's first reaction to the California picture was that something may have been wrong with the camera or it was jiggled (although on a tripod) when the photo was snapped accounting for the lightning- like streak that appeared to hit the Columbia. However that theory died when the camera manufacturer tested 1.000 identical cameras (which were digital contrary to initial reports, thus not requiring film to be developed) and could not duplicate the phenomenon. That was before the Nevada photograph surfaced. Then the theory was advanced that the bolt of electricity could have been a "Pixie" a fairly common phenomenon where, in certain weather conditions, electrical discharges jump from clouds to the Ionosphere and vice versa. That was immediately discounted by outside scientists and meteorologists (who are also scientists, before I get any hate mail) pointing out that there were no clouds or adverse weather conditions at that time. NASA has on several occasions delayed shuttle re-entry to avoid storm conditions. Since then, NASA and the media have been doing their best to ignore both images. Then NASA officials pointed to the fact that, up until then, no debris had been found west of Texas, which didn't support the eyewitness who said he saw pieces breaking off the shuttle over California. However, yesterday (Wednesday) NASA finally admitted the obvious. The shuttle started to break up over California. Of course any first year physics student, or even common sense, would tell one that pieces coming off an object traveling at 21 time the speed of sound at an altitude of more than 43 miles, would not touch down anywhere near where they came off. NASA also pledged that any further information would be released through the "independent" panel. The NASA charter for the panel has already been revised three times in incremental efforts to give the perception of independence from NASA. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has made all the appointments. In this writer's article of Feb. 8, it was pretty much established that the panel, as it was constituted then, was loaded with military brass with connections to the Air Force directed energy weapons programs. It has been acknowledged that one of the experiments carried out on the Columbia was the release of two miniature satellites into space from the shuttle. Called "picosatellites" developed by defense contractor The Aerospace Corporation and funded by DARPA, they are the precursors of inspector satellites to spy on other full-size satellites. A local sheriff in Texas has reported some of the shuttle debris recovered is radioactive. So far there has been no confirmation or denial from NASA. One science writer claims an experimental night vision multi-spectral telescope that was powered by a new isotope used in nuclear power named Americium -242 was used in the Columbia's orbiting around the earth to evaluate vapors in Iraq evidencing night-time disposal of chemical weapons material. The panel has a momentous task to sort everything out and didn't really need the unnecessary controversies it has brought on itself (or been visited on it by O'Keefe's appointments). For starters, a NASA spokesperson said O'Keefe appointed the panel the day after the Columbia crash. However, O'Keefe later told the press that the panel was in place before the Columbia tragedy as part of a contingency plan following the Challenger disaster. Two appointments made over the weekend have stirred the pot. The first, Sheila E. Widnall, a MIT professor seemed innocuous enough although she is also a former Air Force Secretary in the Clinton administration. We now find that she also was a paid consultant to the Boeing Corpor
[CTRL] COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION CONTROVERSIES
-Caveat Lector- MEDIUM RARE by Jim Rarey February 20, 2003 COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION CONTROVERSIES If the conclusion in the Columbia tragedy is not controversial, the investigators themselves will more than make up for it. What with NASA spokespersons contradicting each other, theories being put forth, then dismissed only to be postulated again and finally admitting to the obvious, if the public isnt confused, they arent paying attention. And this doesnt even involve the so-called independent panel appointed by NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe. Early on the first hypothesis was that tiles had come off that were damaged on takeoff. Then, that was dismissed since that had been investigated a day or two after liftoff, using projections and simulations. A few days later that theory was put back on the table since no better theory arose. That is, no theory they were willing to consider. Two photographs, one taken in California and the other in Nevada, showed the shuttle being hit by significant electrical discharges of some kind. NASAs first reaction to the California picture was that something may have been wrong with the camera or it was jiggled (although on a tripod) when the photo was snapped accounting for the lightning-like streak that appeared to hit the Columbia. However that theory died when the camera manufacturer tested 1.000 identical cameras (which were digital contrary to initial reports, thus not requiring film to be developed) and could not duplicate the phenomenon. That was before the Nevada photograph surfaced. Then the theory was advanced that the bolt of electricity could have been a Pixie a fairly common phenomenon where, in certain weather conditions, electrical discharges jump from clouds to the Ionosphere and vice versa. That was immediately discounted by outside scientists and meteorologists (who are also scientists, before I get any hate mail) pointing out that there were no clouds or adverse weather conditions at that time. NASA has on several occasions delayed shuttle re-entry to avoid storm conditions. Since then, NASA and the media have been doing their best to ignore both images. Then NASA officials pointed to the fact that, up until then, no debris had been found west of Texas, which didnt support the eyewitness who said he saw pieces breaking off the shuttle over California. However, yesterday (Wednesday) NASA finally admitted the obvious. The shuttle started to break up over California. Of course any first year physics student, or even common sense, would tell one that pieces coming off an object traveling at 21 time the speed of sound at an altitude of more than 43 miles, would not touch down anywhere near where they came off. NASA also pledged that any further information would be released through the independent panel. The NASA charter for the panel has already been revised three times in incremental efforts to give the perception of independence from NASA. NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe has made all the appointments. In this writers article of Feb. 8, it was pretty much established that the panel, as it was constituted then, was loaded with military brass with connections to the Air Force directed energy weapons programs. It has been acknowledged that one of the experiments carried out on the Columbia was the release of two miniature satellites into space from the shuttle. Called picosatellites developed by defense contractor The Aerospace Corporation and funded by DARPA, they are the precursors of inspector satellites to spy on other full-size satellites. A local sheriff in Texas has reported some of the shuttle debris recovered is radioactive. So far there has been no confirmation or denial from NASA. One science writer claims an experimental night vision multi-spectral telescope that was powered by a new isotope used in nuclear power named Americium 242 was used in the Columbias orbiting around the earth to evaluate vapors in Iraq evidencing night-time disposal of chemical weapons material. The panel has a momentous task to sort everything out and didnt really need the unnecessary controversies it has brought on itself (or been visited on it by OKeefes appointments). For starters, a NASA spokesperson said OKeefe appointed the panel the day after the Columbia crash. However, OKeefe later told the press that the panel was in place before the Columbia tragedy as part of a contingency plan following the Challenger disaster. Two appointments made over the weekend have stirred the pot. The first, Sheila E. Widnall, a MIT professor seemed innocuous enough although she is also a former Air Force Secretary in the Clinton administration. We now find that she also was a paid consultant to the Boeing Corporation. Boeing and its joint venture partner Lockheed Martin in United Space Alliance manage both the space station and shuttle programs. The joint ventur
