It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Information Needed - win 10,000 points

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


I believe the Russians could lift the most into orbit(20,000ish kg) with a rocket called UR500"Proton".
After 67 the US Saturn V was the heavy weight lifter.
EDIT: oops too late!! should have read entire thread


[edit on 29-11-2007 by SKUNK2]




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Hmmm... photos were taken. So were samples. El Fashir. 2 inch by 1 inch "cubes" tightly fastened together and covered in a "silk-like" material. Doesn't sound like a human "satellite" circa 1967, August 3rd. No markings. Interesting.

Vic



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
that is the doc that I can't get to SO due to size issues.

Now, here's the oddity. On July 13, 1972, a report was written by the Dept. of State. Subject: Q&A with regard to the Soviet Space objects which fell in the middle west.

Questions asked by US Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 92D Congress, 2nd Session, Staff Report, May 1972.

Skipping unrelated stuff and heading to #9
"Q: Have any fragments as large as these ever come back to earth from US or other Soviet Satellites?
A: We do not have any record of a US fragment or of another Soviet fragment as large as the largest COSMOS 316 fragment surviving re-entry. The largest COSMOS 316 fragment is approximately 4 ft by 4ft and weighs 640 pounds."

This document is a hole punched, declassified Department of State document that was sent to Mr. Stone. The hole punched docs are not meant to be sent out, this is the only copy they would have.

Significance - not what we can send out but that nothing that heavy has ever re-entered, according to this document. Odd, since they did recover that large aluminum 3 ton job.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I see ok ... so something crashed in the Sudan but no one knows what it was...I found a story about it so far.

Other

Also appear ATS had already peaked into this subject....here.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
here's the deal. we have a document regarding the retrieval, from the Sudan, of a 3 ton object which fell from space. the shape and size are odd, given the lack of markings as well. so, what we're looking for is anything that might aid us in what this could be.

that sadi, when I get back to town, y'all will be getting bumps from me for the wrong direction and the additional assistance provided.


I emailed the doc to SO who will, in turn, put it here as soon as possible.


The link I provided above also links to pictures of payloads for each launch for each year. If you know what it may have looked like we may be able to figure out which payload fell in Sudan by comparing the pictures.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
European Launcher Development Organisation:

Coralie rocket: 4 August 1967
Engines 4 Vexin-A
Thrust 28,000 kgf -one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 newtons
Specific impulse 277 s
Burn time 96 seconds
Fuel UDMH/N2O4

wiki

sat-net

drawings

maybe it was this?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
It was an alien probe device. The lack of markings would be a good indicator.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Damn! I had all kinds of data on rocket launches and payloads...

oh well.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Fabric covered aluminum that survives re-entry? Um? Er? Ah? Aluminum "goes away" starting at 350 F. Fell off a truck works... maybe an airplane or other non-orbital conveyance. If the "recovered" item was aluminum it should be all melted and not likely covered in fabric. Bizzarro.

Vic


JSR

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
two things that interest me.

1. nothing that big has ever survived re-entry.

if by that, they mean burned up on re-entry, how did this object remain cube shaped.

2. lack of markings could be due to re-entry. maybe burned off?

------------edit-------------

vic makes another good suggestion.
how are they sure it came from space?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by JSR]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
In 2002 this was considered by some as a hoax...


Originally posted by Byrd
He found it wherever the hoaxers posted it.

Yes, it's a hoax. Someone's taken THIS image from Smoking Gun (or something very like it) and tweaked it:
www.thesmokinggun.com...

Notice that the real one (on TheSmokingGun.com) doesn't have image artifacts on it. It's also got various stamps on it, indicating who got it and so forth.

Secondly, the language is wrong. In sending telegraphs in that era, certain common words (a, the) are dropped.

But hoaxers wouldn't know this.

Another point is that if it was real, it would probably have been sent in code.


Great work Rhain.
Whatever, I love the chase...

Vic



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


Yes I do to. I like to search for these mysteries by using odd search word combinations. This kind of stuff get my blood running, hehe.


sty

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
sure we have to consider the secret space programs on both sides - american and russian.An extraterestrial civilisation would not crash if they would have enough technology to reach us..unless if it would contain some "seeds" and it would be designed to crash..



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
4ft by 4ft cube weighing 640lbs!? Not the kind of geometry any country would want to send to space for ballistic reasons. This reminds me of Tegunsta event.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Hmmm, interesting points all around. Another point to note is that an object that heavy - 3 tons - would have left an impact crater, caused some kind of earthquake. And if it was a man-made satelite, how did it not end up in pieces?




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
In 2002 this was considered by some as a hoax...



Yes, but they were almost certainly wrong...

I posted various details relating to this document (and the related US Government "Project Moondust") in several posts in that thread ("A cube shape UFO"), including posting:

(1) References to various relevant discussions in several UFO books, including one by Clifford Stone;

(2) a link to the relevant document on the Defence Intelligence Agency's website. It can be seen at page 52 of 148 at the link below:
www.dia.mil...

I can post more information if anyone is interested, when time permits.

Kind Regards,

Isaac



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Is it possible that pieces from Roswell or such were launched into Space in 1967? Due to contamination or some other reason?

Or maybe to help a broken ship get out of earth's gravity?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


This is a Q&A on US or Soviet satellites. If this wasn't from either country then the question was answered correctly. If you ask a specific question you get a specific answer. That is how I understand the ways of the gov't.

Great DIA link btw.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by V Kaminski
In 2002 this was considered by some as a hoax...



Yes, but they were almost certainly wrong...

I posted various details relating to this document (and the related US Government "Project Moondust") in several posts in that thread ("A cube shape UFO"), including posting:

(1) References to various relevant discussions in several UFO books, including one by Clifford Stone;

(2) a link to the relevant document on the Defence Intelligence Agency's website. It can be seen at page 52 of 148 at the link below:
www.dia.mil...

I can post more information if anyone is interested, when time permits.

Kind Regards,

Isaac


When time permits please do... LOL. Be sure and point out the obvious to us non-professionals Koi. We don't have the anti-shallowness offered by your sort. Nice out of context quote. Looks good... quite professorial and professional.

Vic



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
15 - Phoebus 1B

This February 1967 test built on the previous Phoebus 1A test, reaching power levels of 1500 MWt for 30 minutes, with an additional 15 minutes at lower power levels.

Check it out

Nuclear Rocket Propulsion

www.fas.org...

[edit on 29-11-2007 by nuke_c]



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join