Is The Real Cause of the Columbia Disaster Being Suppressed?

[nick c]

hello saturnine,

As for copyrights and all that, any idea who actually has the pics now, is it NASA or the photographer?

I don't know for sure, but all the sites I have seen state that the image was removed at the photographers request. Who knows if there is a copyright? Most people would not ask for proof, but would just remove the image if the photographer threatened (explicitly or not) legal action. Think about it, if NASA owned the picture and demanded the image be removed, probably nobody would comply...it would attract media attention to the image, bringing attention to the photo and its' implications. That would defeat the whole purpose of 'just making it go away.'

To reiterate, several inconsistencies that make me scratch my head and say "hmmm?'

1. NASA sent a special representative on their own jet to procure the photos and camera.

2. The photographer initially (the site linked in the OP) requested that the photo be removed but implied that it was for sale:
"If you wish to license use of this photograph, I can
refer you to my licensing agent."
Now most websites would just remove the picture not wanting to incur the costs of purchasing its' use, but the owner of that website called the photographers bluff and inquired about the price of the photo:
"Please send along proof of your copyright and your
request for use fees."
The photographer than told him it was not for sale:
"I have no desire to license the image to you or anyone."
Why would he not want to sell the image? possibly he could not because he already sold the rights to someone else?

3. NASA dismissed the photo as the result of "camera wobble."
This is ludicrous, as anyone who knows anything about photography can tell, the Columbia's plasma trail is sharp and straight. Camera wobble cannot selectively distort a specific part of the image and not affect the rest of the image. Now NASA is not that stupid, anyone there who is an amateur photographer would know that camera wobble was not a reasonable explanation. That they gave that as an explanation, by itself, indicates a cover up.

So why do they just want this image to just go away?
What is their motivation?

nick c

[bdw000]

For those who have not heard, NASA stands for "Never A Straight Answer."

[bboyer]

hello saturnine,

As for copyrights and all that, any idea who actually has the pics now, is it NASA or the photographer?

I don't know for sure, but all the sites I have seen state that the image was removed at the photographers request. Who knows if there is a copyright?

Now that you mention there is probably just as good a chance that it isn't actually protected by copyright. It's been a while since I've reviewed any copyright material but last I knew I think all it takes is basically slapping a (C) and date on it. None of the images I've seen have the requisite notice stamped anywhere. It is extremely easy for anyone to "phish and phool" around, posing as someone or something they're not. There is a whole culture out there where this kind of game is nothing more than a slice of "caek." I'd imagine most webmasters and such wouldn't have deemed it a priority-enough issue to push it, even if they had the time to devote to getting at the truth of the matter. If someone wanted to devote the time to it, it'd be interesting to post it on a web page and then see what comes of it; and basically refuse to remove it without sufficient evidence being provided that whoever wants it taken off has the right and/or authority to so order it.

[mague]

Digital cameras easily create purplish plasma beams.
This one was taken by myself and was not digitally enhanced. The visual chip does this on its own.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Mague,
Nice clouds. Thanks.

[nick c]

Mague,
Nice photo, however....
That photo has absolutely no resemblance to the photo in question.
I would look at your picture and immediately diagnose it as lens flare.
The corkscrew in the Columbia photo clearly intercepts the plasma trail of the space shuttle, which then brightens and continues it's straight course. There is no way that it is a refractive effect of light on a lens or a response of a digital chip.
nick c

[mague]

Mague,
Nice photo, however....
That photo has absolutely no resemblance to the photo in question.
I would look at your picture and immediately diagnose it as lens flare.
The corkscrew in the Columbia photo clearly intercepts the plasma trail of the space shuttle, which then brightens and continues it's straight course. There is no way that it is a refractive effect of light on a lens or a response of a digital chip.
nick c

Since the original picture is gone i have to take it as you say.

I just noticed, when switching to digital cameras 2 years ago, that those cameras "see" things the analog cameras didnt see.

I think its possible that a discharge hit the shuttle. In the animists world the thunderbeings are higher gods and definetely would destroy a shuttle on re-entering if the shuttle carried something that was not welcome to earth

Is there any evidence that there was a thunderstorm below the spot where the shuttle was hit ? All photos online show a blue sky, but that doesnt tell anything, since the fragments had an agular flightpath and didnt fall down at 90 degree.