by Micron

Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:17 pm
Post subject: Shuttle Columbia was struck by Hyper-Lightning on Reentry
from ExperienceWindowsForum Website

recovered through GoogleCache Website


The disaster that brought the Space Shuttle Columbia to explode was originally reported to be a piece of foam, the size of a briefcase, that fell of one of the fuel tanks and punched a hole in the 8th heat panel on the left wing.

The Photos NASA won't yet release to the public concerning lightning apparently striking the Shuttle Columbia on reentry over San Francisco minutes before the breakup have been released in the United Kingdom on a TV documentary called Megalightning, to be shown on the Discovery Channel in the US soon.

The lightning is a new form called Sprite Lightning; see below image.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) reviewed the photos but claimed that the anomaly must be due to camera shake and not an actual lighting strike as no thunder storm was in the local area as had been seen in previous research on high altitude lightning. They think that the lightning followed Columbia's thruster trail as it contains negative ions, where as Sprite Lightning is Positive, and was attracted to the shuttles trail.

This lightning originates just outside of the earth in the Ionosphere, and shoots downward from space, which in its self is strange as normal lightning comes from the ground up.

I have posted these photos from the TV show below.


Since receiving these photos provided from Andy Robins (used from the documentary), I have requested the actual photos directly from NASA Administration through the Freedom of Information Act, but so far have not received anything.


The evidence within the photos is contrary to the CAIB expert evaluation which may be why the photos have been kept out of public scrutiny.

NASA dispatched former shuttle astronaut Tammy Jernigan, now a manager at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, to the San Francisco home of the astronomer to examine his digital images and to take the camera itself to Mountain View, where it was transported by a NASA T-38 jet to Houston, these images above were never released from NASA or the CAIB to the public.

Prior to the accident NASA set up an investigation committee to analyze the dangers of megalightning for space craft and air accident investigators have recommended a six-fold increase in the resilience of some aircraft construction materials to protect fully against the powers of this positively charged super-lightning which can fire above the clouds to a height more than 20 times that of Mount Everest.


Itís at least ten times more powerful than conventional, negatively charged lightning. Some experts fear some forms may eventually be found to be the culprit in a number of mystery disasters involving airliners and space craft.

New information in January 2005 based on the research of STS-107 (astronaut Ilan Ramon's experiments) shows a new form of high altitude lightning with no thundercloud activity called "TIGER" (Transient Ionospheric Glow Emission in Red ). The reason the experts and CAIB dismissed the San Francisco (corkscrew Lightning) photo was the lack of thunderclouds in the region and no other objective examples of this new form of lightning. My review of the TIGER event shows a similar pattern to the San Francisco photo - no thunderclouds in the region and a corkscrew bolt.

I have included the photos below of both the TIGER and the Hyper Lightning, a name I have given to the San Francisco bolt (Hyper-Lightning would be an artificially induced TIGER event which strikes a hypersonic vehicle without leaving detectable low-frequency sound waves - infrasound).


I initially thought the term Hobbit would do but the term had little to do with the anomaly.

The TIGER event also has a corkscrew behind it, difficult to see but it's there (I did some enhancement on the entire picture to better show the corkscrew) which starts right under the T in the word TIGER and travels left to right. Air ions charges do corkscrew with altitude as per my research in the Southern Hemisphere Study 1990.



What do you think?