New Black Knight Footage

originally posted by: JimOberg
I also checked up on the original satellite that this capsule came off of:
Discoverer 6, launch 19 Aug 1959 19:24 GMT
orbit 207 km x 846 km at 83.9° inclination, period 95.10 min.

Then I DOUBLE-CHECKED with Jonathan McDowell, the satellite catalog master at the Cambridge Astrophysical Observatory, and he corrected me as follows:

This was actually Discoverer 5's capsule, SRV 111. It was SSN 26, COSPAR 1959 Epsilon 2.
The first surviving archival TLE set shows it in a 194 x 1531 km orbit on 1960 May 1, but an orbit of 218 x 1700 km was cited in the Sat.Sit.Report for Feb 15. Attached are my notes on the mission


0.0.1 Discoverer V (1959 ε 1)

Mission 9002 (DISCOVERER V) reached orbit on 1959 Aug 13 using Agena 1029. The Agena
again reached burnout due to propellant exhaustion, but this time velocity was sufficient. Orbit
mass of the Discoverer was 870 kg (or 793 kg per DOD msg to WH). Mission 9002’s camera
failed on the first orbit because it got too cold. The SRV for Mission 9002 was ejected as planned,
but a spin rocket failure meant it fired its retro in the wrong direction, sending the capsule to an
orbit with an apogee of over 1700 km; it reentered in Feb 1961.

KH-1 Mission 9002
Date Time Event Orbit
1959 Aug 13 1900 Launch by Thor Agena A V Pad 4
1902 Thor MECO (T+2:42)
1902 Thor VECO (T+2:51)
1903 Thor sep (T+2:58)
1904 Agena 1029 burn (T+4:46)
1906 Agena 1029 cutoff (T+6:43) 220 x 734 x ? (VCR [ ? ])
217 x 739 x 80 (RAE) 94.2
214 x 731 x 79.9 (SATCAT)
Camera failed, rev 1
1959 Aug 14 0833 94.07 215 x 732 x 80.0
1959 Aug 14 2142 SRV ejected (wrong orientation)
1959 Aug 20 0657 93.59 192 x 707 x 80.0

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
.....Not to mention it's in a POLAR orbit unlike ANY other 'satellite' aside from some "space junk"
But hey, they say imma "conspiracy theorist!" but IDK man

As shown by tracking data, the Discoverer satellites ALL went into 80 to 84 deg inclination orbits, near polar, exactly.

Your claim that there weren't ANY other satellites in that kind of orbit is untrue. Whover told you that lied to you, probably figuring you would let them get away with it. And you did. Why are you so eager to act deserving of their apparent contempt for your good sense?

a reply to: JimOberg

Nice job.
Hard solutions are a beautiful thing.

a reply to: JimOberg

What I'd say is you're an eager-believer sucker for fable-spinning UFO writers and websites. And once you've fallen for any particular scam [you list several in your comment], it becomes a matter of ego-defense to just refuse to concede you could have been foolish enough to fall for such trickery.

LOL Ad hominem attacks are the Best you have for your first reply?

No amount of projection will change my mind . . . at least I can think for myself

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

at least I can think for myself

Despite all evidence to the contrary?

a reply to: ManyMasks

I don't really care that much about the BK satellite it's an interesting CT though to contemplate then drop, as it can't be proved.

How is the story ideas and claims of the black knight satellite a conspiracy theory ?

Without wild speculations how its even a conspiracy theory given the numerous definition of the term I fail to see how it fits as one with wild speculation based on ignoring facts

a reply to: InhaleExhale

eh do you even know what a theory is never mind a CT?

do you know what a hypothesis is?

do you know what a FACT is?

how about semantics....

nothing can be proved, reality is how the individual perceives it and every individual is different.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: InhaleExhale

eh do you even know what a theory is never mind a CT?

do you know what a hypothesis is?

do you know what a FACT is?

how about semantics....

nothing can be proved, reality is how the individual perceives it and every individual is different.

Yes to all your questions but we aren't talking philosophy and metaphysics are we, no we are talking evidence based things.

So how are the Black knight stories classed as a conspiracy theory?


Without wild speculations that require ignoring facts about the stories and claims made about it?

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: InhaleExhale

nothing can be proved, reality is how the individual perceives it and every individual is different.

Okay, if you want to go the metaphysical route.....

Then maybe I'm a butterfly having an elaborate dream, and the entirety of human existence is just all made up by me and what I perceive. Therefore the Black Knight doesn't exist because it is just a figment of my butterfly imagination.

Problem solved.
/thread.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
nothing can be proved, reality is how the individual perceives it and every individual is different.

You posted a statement ['no man-made satellites in polar orbits'] that I showed was provably untrue.

Grow up and deal with it. Somebody tricked you. It happens.

You don't have a universe where that statement is true. There is no such universe.

a reply to: JimOberg

Did I, I don't remember positing that Jimbo...
Help me remember

a reply to: Box of Rain

Now we're talking, i don't think it exist in my universe either because I have no proof, one way or the other.... But it's possible!

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: JimOberg

Did I, I don't remember positing that Jimbo...
Help me remember

Because it wasn't you (I think.) It was JohnnyJetson:

Not to mention it's in a POLAR orbit unlike ANY other 'satellite' aside from some "space junk"

Post

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: JimOberg

Did I, I don't remember positing that Jimbo...
Help me remember

Because it wasn't you (I think.) It was JohnnyJetson:

Not to mention it's in a POLAR orbit unlike ANY other 'satellite' aside from some "space junk"

Post

Harte

Dang, I'm the guy in the wrong universe -- definitely my mistake.

First, sincere apologies at the misdirectd criticism.

Second, MORE apologies for my carelessness.

The upsdide is that I went and dug out some new stuff on the 1960 'Dark Intruder' story that I could share. I hope that this SOMEWHAT atones for my error.

Otherwise, chagrin and well-deserved embarrassment at my end.

a reply to: JimOberg

It takes a big man to admit a mistake, so it's cool

a reply to: Outlier13



Black Knight. The real deal. Ancient astorlogy.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: JohnnyJetson

at least I can think for myself

Despite all evidence to the contrary?

Like what, exactly?? And NOT some of your anecdotal 'evidence' lol

A '"smart (#rse") like yourself should be able to QUOTE some of it, no?

C'mon sunshine, how about some PROOF rather than your OPINION?

a reply to: JimOberg

so "you checked", nice. Then please explain these things (anomalies?) to me as the 'expert' you allude to be.

E.G. you must've discovered HOW the "space blanket" (which had yet to be invented) got where it IS? Yes?

Oh shivers! Oh, no, you did not!

IF you HAD then you CAN "explain" the FACTS I've listed (and linked) below, no?

So, would you care to share "how a product first produced in 1964 was not only ON a 1959 'space craft' BUT was ALSO ABLE TO

"dislodge itself and enter a Polar orbit?" It was NOT "one of the Discoverer satellites" AND they definitely did not carry "space blankets"!

First developed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in 1964 for the US space program,[2][3][4] the material consists of a thin sheet of plastic (often PET film) that is coated with a metallic reflecting agent, making it metallized polyethylene terephthalate (MPET)

Linky

BTW:

The story of the Black Knight made its media debut in the 1940′s when the St. Louis Dispatch and The San Francisco Examiner wrote about the “Satellite” on May 14th 1954.

On August 23, 1954 the technology magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology released a story about the Black Knight Satellite that angered the Pentagon who were trying to keep the information secret.

NASA has released official images which apparently show the Black Knight Satellite. eol.jsc.nasa.gov... NASA Photo ID -STS088-724-66

BUT 10 yrs later said:

A 1998 NASA photo is believed by some to show the Black Knight satellite, but NASA has stated that this is likely space debris, specifically a thermal blanket lost during an EVA mission.

EXCEPT THAT NOBODY HAD DONE AN EVA in 1957!

In 1957, Dr. Luis Corralos of the Communications Ministry in Venezuela photographed it while taking pictures of Sputnik II as it passed over Caracas.

In 1957, an unknown “object” was seen “shadowing” the Sputnik 1 Spacecraft. According to reports, the “unidentified object” was in Polar orbit.

In 1957, the United States nor the Russians possessed the technology to maintain a spacecraft in Polar Orbit.

The firstPolar-orbitingg satellite was launched in 1960.

The story of the Black Knight made its media debut in the 1940′s when the St. Louis Dispatch and The San Francisco Examiner wrote about the “Satellite” on May 14th 1954.

In the 1960′s the Black Knight satellite was located once again in Polar Orbit.

Astronomers and Scientists calculated the object’s weight to be over 10 tons which would be at that time the Heaviest Artificial Satellite to orbit our Planet.

The Grumman Aircraft Corporation gave much importance to this mysterious “Satellite”, On September 3, 1960, seven months after the satellite was first detected by radar,
a tracking camera at Grumman Aircraft Corporation’s Long Island factory took a photograph of the Black Knight satellite

That's one YUGE "space blanket" ... or they were SO close they could've taken MUCH Better photos.

Why are there NO 'other' photos of this infamous 'satellite'?

Donald Keyhoe even said there were two artificial satellites orbiting earth at the time

Why can't the ISS get some ''decent footage'' of the thing ?

Hmmm? WHY is it that they're NOT in The Position to 'see' it --- or ANY other 'surveillance satellite" can take HighRes photos of it?

They CAN .. have, just not for 'us useless eaters' (you're included JO) to see.

I won't be holding my breath for a reply Jimmy

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: JohnnyJetson

at least I can think for myself

Despite all evidence to the contrary?

Like what, exactly?? And NOT some of your anecdotal 'evidence' lol

A '"smart (#rse") like yourself should be able to QUOTE some of it, no?

C'mon sunshine, how about some PROOF rather than your OPINION?

What, proof that you "can't think for yourself"? Which is what I was commenting upon. Sunshine.

The proof of that is in your own posts. Smartypants.

Why can't the ISS get some ''decent footage'' of the thing ?

Probably because they have better things to do and don't take guff like this seriously?