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: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Just to keep the record straight for ATS members - there are cube shaped satellites. MSAT and the Boeing 601's... come immediately to mind... Russkies have had some too.

Vic




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Skylab was probably the biggest manmade thing to fall out of the sky. It was about 75 tons, but does anyone know how big the biggest piece was after it crashed into Australia in 1979?

In the realm of mysterious satellites I found an entry in a book I've been reading by David Southwell published by Barnes&Noble.




The mysterious Black Night satellite of 1960, found orbiting the Earth even though no one had rockets large enough to launch something of that size


He states that in February 1960 a station of the North American Defense Syatem picked up the radar echo of an undocumented satellite, causing panic throughout the US military. They were worried because there was no intelligence that the USSR had launched a new satellite, or had the ability to launch something 15+ tons into polar orbit. The US was at least 4 years away from having the capacity to do so. Aparrently the Soviets went into panic also, knowing that they had not launched it and that the US couldn't have either. The satellite was tracked for three weeks by the superpowers and other countries such as Sweden before it vanished. Southwell states that author Philip K. Dick wrote about the object, renaming it "valis" or "zebra" as oppsed to the "Black Knight" American nickname based on British rocket program.

We're hearing a lot about the Darfur region lately, a synchronicity?

Then of course there is the most likely explanation to all of this. Transformers are real and the "All Spark" is really what we're talking about here.


[edit on 29-11-2007 by jackinthebox]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


Thanks for the info. I did not know about that. I did a search at space.com and found the info. I could not find info for them before 2002. Did they have cubesats in 1967?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
It could have been a larger piece constructed in space then later fell. With as many times NASA's launched vehicles into space from that date to now they could have a death star up there for all we know.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Has no one paid attention to the fact the document (outlining the 3 ton debris that SURVIVED reentry) is dated 1967 (or earlier)?!


YET...

We retyped the exact document in this thread... dated 1973 or 1972 (don't have it in front of me and I am READY for bed) that was a report put out by the Department of State for the US Congress, that CLEARLY says (though I paraphrase here since the exact is in THIS thread) "we have NO RECORDS of any American or Soviet originating debris, that survived reentry, greater than 640 (642?) pounds"?!


Please folks...

[edit on 11-30-2007 by Springer]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Are you guys making it out to los angeles?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Skylab was probably the biggest manmade thing to fall out of the sky. It was about 75 tons, but does anyone know how big the biggest piece was after it crashed into Australia in 1979?


There`s a pic at the bottom of the wiki page in the link below,click it to enlarge for a idea of how large it is.

From the descriptions of this thing in Sudan doesn`t come close to what was left of Skylab.

I remember the time quite clearly here in Western Australia,people were quite concerned about having space junk falling on them.

Esperance council (bottom of WA) where most of the debris landed fined NASA 400 bucks for littering


Skylab
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 30-11-2007 by gps777]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
168 tons. The Russians.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Ta-da! - I present to you....

Sanger Amerika Bomber/Silverbird

Its a filthy great whacking long shot from out of left-field, but hey - this is a conspiracy site and we all love a good conspiracy


Actually, I'm not suggesting that whatever it is that was recovered is this particular thing, but its an interesting thought to ponder that this thing was for real, and the technology and design for such a thing was around and the engines were going into full testing in 1941 before things got canned.

The more likely scenario - and I imagine this is completely possible but I've not done the maths on it, is that the Nazi's unwittingly inserted a couple of V2's into orbit without realising it. That or they did manage to test a couple of their "Project Amerika" missiles, some of which were designed with the alternate use of orbital insertion in mind.

Just a thought, anyway



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
And points work like currency how? You guys are literally trying to pay personal researchers in ATS points. hahaha

In that case, can I trade mine to some other members to have them do my dirty laundry?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
ok

im going to enter the speculative realm of black ops.

by 1967 they would have developed technology such as
electro static levitation.......
en.wikipedia.org...
www.padrak.com...




To completely understand the significance of what was said about the B-2, one must first become familiar with Brown's work. Beginning in the mid 1920's, Townsend Brown discovered that it is possible to create an artificial gravity field by charging an electrical capacitor to a high-voltage.(2) He specially built a capacitor which utilized a heavy, high charge-accumulating (high K-factor) dielectric material between its plates and found that when charges with between 70,000 to 300,000 volts, it would move in the direction of its positive pole. When oriented with its positive side up, it would proceed to lose about 1 percent of it's weight.(3, 4) He attributed this motion to an electrostatically-induced gravity field acting between the capacitor's oppositely charged plates. By 1958, he had succeeded in developing a 15 inch diameter model saucer that could lift over 110% of its weight!(5) Brown's experiments had launched a new field of investigation which came to be known as electrogravitics, the technology of controlling gravity through the use of high-voltage electric charge.

www.etheric.com...

......in order to reduce the amount of energy needed to launch any object into orbit.
the anti mass affect would also allow that object to survive re entry.

giving the technological and industrial advancement america had over any other county at the time,i would say the clandestine black ops complex would of the usa would have had the most capacity to launch the largest object into space.

the maximum weight obtainable to orbit?,well thats beyond my realm, i dont know what power supplies they had to fuel the anti mass effects.the more juice they had,the more mass they could have negated.

if they had alternate high tech forms of propulsion,coupled with an anti mass effect,huge objects could have been flown,this sudan object could have been a fragment of a larger system.



[edit on 30-11-2007 by welivefortheson]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
The 'secret' designation for large ballistic missiles and space launchers consisted of the letter R followed by a sequential number, followed by letters indicating a modification to the basic design (e.g. R-1, R-2, R-3, R-5; R-5M for modernised or maritime version, R-14U for universal version, etc.). This number sequence originated in the late 1940's and was shared between a Russian team under Chief Designer Korolev and a 'guest' German team under Groettrup. The German team knew their own designs only under a 'public' system of 'G' (for Groettrup) numbers. Unknown to them, the designs had a parallel secret 'R-' designation. The first two designs, the R-1 and R-2, were joint efforts. Korolev made sure he had the 'lucky' odd numbers (R-3, R-5, R-7, R-9, R-11, but not R-13!), while the Germans were assigned numbers beginning with 10 (R-10, R-12 through R-15). By the mid-1950's the German group was disbanded and additional Russian design bureaux were set up for rocket design (Glushko, Makeyev, Yangel). The lower even 'R-' numbers were reassigned to German designs and the unused designations from R-8 and up were re-used for the designs of the new bureaux . A second sequence was begun for solid propellant missiles with the 'RT-' prefix in the late 1950's when development of these began (raketa toplivniy, solid fuel rocket). A series for orbital weapons launchers (GR-, 'global rocket') was begun but the only missile deployed in this system retained its R- designation (R-36-O, 'O' for 'orbital').

In the 1960's consistent use of the sequence began to break down after 39 numbers had been allocated. The Chief Designers wanted to 'trademark' their designs with unique designation series. First, Chelomei introduced his own sequence of 'UR-' (universal rocket) designations. Korolev introduced his 'N' sequence for future space launchers (N=nositel = carrier rocket). Yangel, taking a leaf from Boeing, decided to 'trademark' his rockets by using the series R-16, R-26, R-36, R-46, R-56 for major projects. Thus he skipped ahead, leaving whole blocks of numbers unused. Nadiradze began his own series of solid propellant rockets with the 'Temp-' designation. The assignment of new numbers within this system ended with the reorganisation of the Soviet missile industry in 1966. Thereafter missiles replacing earlier designs given suffix letters indicating modification of an existing design, even if the missile was completely new
And also maybe this is what your looking for-----


The N1 Moon Rocket, Type G-1e or SL-15
In 1960, Sergei Korolev proposed a giant booster capable of launching 40 to 50 metric tons (88,000 to 110,000 lb) into low Earth orbit. This projected rocket, with ten times the payload capacity of the existing Vostok booster, was called the N1. V. P. Glushko, the Soviet Union's premier rocket propulsion expert, felt that it would be prohibitively expensive to build immense oxygen-hydrogen engines like the F-1's that would power the American Saturn V. Instead, he proposed large engines burning unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UMDH) and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). These propellants, used in the American Titan, are storable and ignite on contact. But they are less efficient than Liquid oxygen and kerosene, and are highly toxic. Korolev instead chose to power the lower stages of his super booster with liquid oxygen and kerosene. Glushko took his technology to the Chelomei design bureau, which selected his engines to power the UR500 Proton booster. Korolev turned to the design bureau of Nikolai Kuznetsov (NK) for the N1's engines. In its original form, the first stage of the N1 was to be propelled by a ring of 24 engines. Air would be vented into the space inside the ring, where external combustion of exhaust gasses was supposed to augment the rocket thrust.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Has no one paid attention to the fact the document (outlining the 3 ton debris that SURVIVED reentry) is dated 1967 (or earlier)?!


YET...

We retyped the exact document in this thread... dated 1973 or 1972 (don't have it in front of me and I am READY for bed) that was a report put out by the Department of State for the US Congress, that CLEARLY says (though I paraphrase here since the exact is in THIS thread) "we have NO RECORDS of any American or Soviet originating debris, that survived reentry, greater than 640 (642?) pounds"?!


Please folks...

[edit on 11-30-2007 by Springer]


Please back with max scarcasm. Reentry? Got any tangible proof of it's arrival via re-entry? I don't think so Tim. I await correction. Got any first hand witnesses? Got anything other than what others have had for quite some time? What's "new" here?

I applaud the effort and hope you find something new that isn't already on other sites... the "new" (for me) IS the "effort" claimed. Tough work. Especially if one's pay cheque is based on research and not "click-through percentiles".

Best of luck in NM... rifling through those "documents". Please... don't denigrate "your" resources Mr. "TEAM ATS"... not everyone is "smart" and revolutionary like you and "gets it" your way, right away, right now. Like biz-types and that bean counter who can't give a straight comment without turning it into a comedic-drama, I suspect you will have zero in the way of academic citing and less than zero on new data. I discount nothing and your efforts are appreciated... I empathize with your grasping at research straws 40 years on.

Oh yeah, research. Publish or perish... or will the results be in something I can buy when your done? Perhaps it only matters as much as one's entertainment threshold can tolerate? Anyone can look through docs especially those which may reside in "limbo", your "seizing" on the mass is small apples and doesn't really contradict anything of substance.

Mr. Stone's possession of these according to "Crak" hundreds of thousands of documents is what one might expect... are you putting forth "his" data or do you have unlimited unfettered access. Is any money or other tender changing hands between ATS and Stone? If so how much?

For a person who values critical thinking Springer, one might expect a little less of "vested interests" or potential conflict of intertests - or potential "pollution of the well" - it's a bit obvious dude. I'll put this ATS episode in the Kit Green "experimenting with journalism" category.

I took the time to contact the Juba Post and an Arab language newsie not far from El Fashir to inquire about local first hand info on "the cube" and the "reentry". I will report if I receive a response from that war torn area. Life expectancy in the Darfur is short so "live" witnesses may be a little challenging to procure.

Vic


[edit on 30-11-2007 by V Kaminski]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
A quick google brought up this info sorry if its the compitition but this is what I found:

www.ufoarea.com...

www.members.tripod.com...

Seems to be a cover up by the Airforce as to exactly what was recovered.

a three ton cube shaped object made of soft metal.


JSR

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
And points work like currency how? You guys are literally trying to pay personal researchers in ATS points. hahaha


lighten up there Anubis......
we're just having fun. some people like to do these kinds of things. for free. and we are hardly professional researchers.

if people lend there time.....for free....and those asking, have not promissed any compensation for time spent.....where is the rub?

are you not having fun?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I would say probably India. They are so waaaaay ahead of us in technology.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Has no one paid attention to the fact the document (outlining the 3 ton debris that SURVIVED reentry) is dated 1967 (or earlier)?!


YET...

We retyped the exact document in this thread... dated 1973 or 1972 (don't have it in front of me and I am READY for bed) that was a report put out by the Department of State for the US Congress, that CLEARLY says (though I paraphrase here since the exact is in THIS thread) "we have NO RECORDS of any American or Soviet originating debris, that survived reentry, greater than 640 (642?) pounds"?!


Please folks...

[edit on 11-30-2007 by Springer]


I don't think that "catching" someone out on this is going to force disclosure. The person quoted is likely dead or lost in time by now, so all you'll get is a weasel move of "I don't know why Mr. X would have said that". Or you could get a variation where questions and demands for disclosure are turned aside with "That was the Cold War era, so we couldn't tell the truth because those commies would have used it to bury the west."

Whatever you have, if it's complicated enough to have to be explained to this CT crowd, then you don't have a snowball's chance in DC (same place, polite word) of getting public support for a disclosure. Besides, Ollie North proved that lying to Congress won't get you much punishment.

Good effort team, and I'll be very interested in seeing this documented researched nine ways from Sunday here on ATS.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
H "we have NO RECORDS of any American or Soviet originating debris, that survived reentry, greater than 640 (642?) pounds"?!


Please folks...

Remember that all man made objects sent into space are not build for a reentry (Except of course the shuttle, but that's not a sturdy build). Anything around our globe at this point, would shatter on reentry, and be broken into tiny bits (Even ISS).
Imagine a large craft built to being able to take of and land on its own account, that would definately have to be build in a lot stronger way, and could, prehaps, end up as a 3 ton debris on reentry, especially if it crashed half-way down like Columbia.

I would also remind you, that most records we have available that could lead us to a craft that could lift 3+ tons into space, are *official* ones! On top of that, even if they could lift something that large into space at that time, and did it, why on earth would they drop it down again? O_o The place of touch down is the best place for the US government though. Im just pondering a bit about something the size of 3 tons, still holding up, after a reentry through earths atmosphere and a fall of 10.000+ kilometers, no matter what it was (UFO conspiracists insert something here)...



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


In 1962? Were they constructed out of 3 tons (6,000 pounds) worth of 2"x4" cubes?


Assuming the field estimate was right in that these 2"x4" cubes were made out of aluminum, can you imagine how BIG that baby had to be to weigh in at 6,000 pounds?!

I would love to find out what happened to the photographs and the sample that was "cut with difficulty" (that's odd for aluminum, it's very easy to cut aluminum). You know these items were stashed, I can't believe they were "lost" or destroyed, which means someone knows where they are.

That being said, if the thing was 1960's terrestrial technology it certainly isn't worth worrying about now (technology has advanced just a little since then) so they should just bring it out and let us all have a look.

Springer...



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 



Your sour grapes and sad lack of a sense of humor notwithstanding, we have completely unfettered access to ALL the documents, Clifford is NOT getting paid and we certainly will not be charging anyone to see this stuff. Have you not noticed the new forum titled FOIA?
Do you see a fee for entry?

I am glad to know that the GREAT V Kaminski has decided we will learn nothing new and we are simply wasting everyone's time.


Springer...



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join