The Black Knight???

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by sealing
But in reading it, there is no way it was ours because of the time line. Also I know there was one other
player, Russia, but I really doubt they had PO satellites in 1960 as well.

Look harder. Prepare to be amazed at how wrong and uninformed were the assumptions you based your assessment on, and how much work you need to do before you're ever so confidently wrong about any other UFO story again. Accept this as a teachable moment.

Notice, too, the general miasma of shared-ignorance of the rest of the imaginative enthusiasts whose like-minded views encouraged you, unjustifiably.

Learn to do it yourself -- and the first step is to realize you NEED to do it, and you CAN do it. Trust me just this one more time, and charge forward.

Well I did look myself. And Im all for learning and not repeating mistakes.
I went to the only space fairing nation besides Russia at that time for my historical research.

I count on NASA to tell me who was putting polar orbiting satellites in orbit.
And according to them in 1960 it wasn't them .
They tried, but the soonest I can surmise is 1964 for a true Polar orbiting satellite.
These satellites are listed as the FIRST polar orbit attempts.

The signal from the Black Knight can not be NASA's
and most almost certainly was not Russia's.
So who am I missing?
What was creating the Black Knight signature on radar?
And was it brought up again in this Harvard article?

www.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Thunda
But in fact, by far the majority of the early Discoverer missions failed (numbers 4-12, then 14-17), and none of them displayed the characteristics of the 'Black Knight'

"Failed" to return the capsule to Earth, perhaps -- but they mostly got into orbit, and sometimes the 'failed' capsules were ejected into separate orbits difficult to track.

That's what you're trying to say, right?

No, thats not what I was 'trying' to say- I certainly wouldnt say they 'mostly' got into orbit by a long shot, but if you insist, lets examine them;

Discoverer- Mission Failed- Failed to Achieve Orbit
Discoverer 1- First object in polar orbit (Woo Hoo- well done CIA/DoD)
Discoverer 2- First three-axis stabilized satellite; capsule recovery failed
Discoverer 3- Mission Failed- Failed to orbit
Discoverer 4- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 5- Mission failed. Power supply failure. No recovery.
Discoverer 6- Mission failed. Retro rockets malfunctioned negating recovery.
Discoverer 7- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 8- Mission failed. Eccentric orbit negating recovery.
Discoverer 9- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 10-Mission failed. Destroyed just after launch due to erratic attitude.
Discoverer 11-Mission failed. Attitude control system malfunctioned.
Discoverer 12-Mission Failed.Failed to orbit
14 & 15 were successful! Hooray!
Discoverer 16-Mission failed. Attained orbit successfully. Capsule sank prior to retrieval.
Discoverer 17- Mission failed. Satellite failed to separate from booster. Failed to achieve orbit.

So thats 10 out of the first 17 (which were the only ones I mentioned) that failed to attain orbit- 2 of the 17 gained orbit but failed in the mission. Even the most generous count couldnt call that 'mostly'.

And are you suggesting that some of these anomalous observations were 'observations of high-altitude planes that weren't officially registered with the FAA' ?(I assume you mean the U2, maximum operating altitude 70,000 ft?). I think, even in the 'dawn of the Space Age', they would be able to tell the difference between an aircraft at high altitude and an orbiting object.....

reply to post by sealing


I think he is trying to say (In a very roundabout way) that it was the CIA/DoD's project Discoverer/Corona project that was in polar orbit at that time: en.wikipedia.org...

That and high flying aircraft...I think.....

Originally posted by JimOberg
You have done me a great favor, in providing me a link i had not seen -- and one that Lunan had not shared with me. I will most definitely follow up. Again, thank you, and keep up the 'tough love' critiques, they benefit everybody.

Here's Duncan's reply, he cites a website that might be worth dropping in on...

Again, thanks for the jab to update myself, it was needed!

In the USA on the ‘News from Bootes’ website, Robert Teague is still backing my original interpretation of the LDE patterns and trying to get more out of it, to deduce the movements of a number of Bracewell probes and their makers around this part of the Galaxy. He has some interesting ideas and I chip in to the discussion from time to time, but for my money now, if there is anything to epsilon Bootis it’s a time marker, telling us when visits were happening here.

Originally posted by sealing
Well I did look myself. And Im all for learning and not repeating mistakes.
I went to the only space fairing nation besides Russia at that time for my historical research.
I count on NASA to tell me who was putting polar orbiting satellites in orbit.
And according to them in 1960 it wasn't them .
They tried, but the soonest I can surmise is 1964 for a true Polar orbiting satellite.
These satellites are listed as the FIRST polar orbit attempts.
The signal from the Black Knight can not be NASA's
and most almost certainly was not Russia's.
So who am I missing?
What was creating the Black Knight signature on radar?

Once again, your faulty assumptions have misled your investigation.

Make this a 'teachable moment'.

You'll be a better investigator if you are more careful in your going-in assumptions.

Originally posted by sealing
What was creating the Black Knight signature on radar?
And was it brought up again in this Harvard article?
www.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Sorry, I can't get that link to work -- please check it.

Originally posted by Thunda

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Thunda
But in fact, by far the majority of the early Discoverer missions failed (numbers 4-12, then 14-17), and none of them displayed the characteristics of the 'Black Knight'

"Failed" to return the capsule to Earth, perhaps -- but they mostly got into orbit, and sometimes the 'failed' capsules were ejected into separate orbits difficult to track.

That's what you're trying to say, right?

No, thats not what I was 'trying' to say- I certainly wouldnt say they 'mostly' got into orbit by a long shot, but if you insist, lets examine them;

Discoverer- Mission Failed- Failed to Achieve Orbit
Discoverer 1- First object in polar orbit (Woo Hoo- well done CIA/DoD)
Discoverer 2- First three-axis stabilized satellite; capsule recovery failed
Discoverer 3- Mission Failed- Failed to orbit
Discoverer 4- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 5- Mission failed. Power supply failure. No recovery.
Discoverer 6- Mission failed. Retro rockets malfunctioned negating recovery.
Discoverer 7- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 8- Mission failed. Eccentric orbit negating recovery.
Discoverer 9- Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.
Discoverer 10-Mission failed. Destroyed just after launch due to erratic attitude.
Discoverer 11-Mission failed. Attitude control system malfunctioned.
Discoverer 12-Mission Failed.Failed to orbit
14 & 15 were successful! Hooray!
Discoverer 16-Mission failed. Attained orbit successfully. Capsule sank prior to retrieval.
Discoverer 17- Mission failed. Satellite failed to separate from booster. Failed to achieve orbit.

So thats 10 out of the first 17 (which were the only ones I mentioned) that failed to attain orbit- 2 of the 17 gained orbit but failed in the mission. Even the most generous count couldnt call that 'mostly'.

Funny, I've tried counting your list three times and I always get TEN successes out of 16 launches, plus one MORE [#13] which for some reason you left off your list, which is 11/17 or 65%, which I think is 'mostly' by common usage. Where am I calculating it incorrectly?

And on some of the failed recoveries, the capsules went into different orbits and remained there for some time.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by sealing
What was creating the Black Knight signature on radar?
And was it brought up again in this Harvard article?
www.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Sorry, I can't get that link to work -- please check it.

Sealing might be referring to this,

adsabs.harvard.edu...

It is a 2000 publication.



Derivatives of Black Knight Technology
Authors:
Hill, N.; Wright, D.
Publication:
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 53, p. 307-318
Publication Date:
00/2000
Origin:
JBIS
Keywords:
Space history, British rocketry, satellite launchers, propellant technology, space policy.
Abstract Copyright:
(C) 2000: British Interplanetary Society
Bibliographic Code:
2000JBIS...53..307H


abstract page here,

www.jbis.org.uk...

You need to garner the rest...hold on here's the rest,

www.spaceuk.org...

So yes this is one Black knight that fits the bill, and seemingly it worked.

reply to post by JimOberg


Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, but we are talking about success in achieving an orbit suggestive of the Dark Knight, not launches, which would be irrelevant to the discussion.

You are correct in one thing, I did manage to miss Discoverer 13, which is classified as a hit! "Tested capsule recovery system; first successful capture."

So, a recount of unsuccessful orbit attempts (ie, the ones that are being suggested that may have been 'misidentified' as Black Knight due to their orbit) gives us 9 (0,3,4,7,8,9,10,12 & 17). The number of orbits achieved but mission fails is 5 (2,5,6,11 & 15) and the successful missions numbered 4 (1,13,14 & 15) which gives us 9 as well (if we include discoverer 11 as a successful orbit achieved, which is recorded as "Mission failed. Attitude control system malfunctioned.", so it may or may not have achieved a correct orbit for any length of time)

Anyway, I would suggest that if you say a number of things 'mostly' were or did something, it would need to be around 75%. Like if you said a field of a 100 cows were 'mostly black', but 50 of them were brown, then that wouldnt be an accurate description, or at least, misleading.

Also, Im yet to find any information that states that these missions orbited in the reverse direction at twice the speed of all other satellites at the time (the speed would seem to be counter productive to a photographic spying mission). Perhaps you could provide me with a link?

Originally posted by Thunda
So, a recount of unsuccessful orbit attempts (ie, the ones that are being suggested that may have been 'misidentified' as Black Knight due to their orbit) gives us 9 (0,3,4,7,8,9,10,12 & 17). The number of orbits achieved but mission fails is 5 (2,5,6,11 & 15) and the successful missions numbered 4 (1,13,14 & 15) which gives us 9 as well (if we include discoverer 11 as a successful orbit achieved, which is recorded as "Mission failed. Attitude control system malfunctioned.", so it may or may not have achieved a correct orbit for any length of time)

Come on, this is too sloppy to base any productive speculating on.

Let me cite the 'TRW Space Log 1996', edited by Tina D. Thompson

These vehicles were given UN 'international designators' as successful satellites.

Discoverer-1 [you call it '0' for some reason] 1959-02A successful orbit
Discoverer-7 1959-10A successful orbit
Discoverer-8 1959-11A successful orbit
Discoverer-17 1960-15A successful orbit AND capsule recovery

Discoverer-11 achieved a stable orbit where it lasted a typical lifetime before decaying. Your speculation about its orbital 'correctness' is baseless.

What happened?

reply to post by JimOberg


Really? A CIADoD project to use spy satellites was 'given a UN 'international designators' as successful satellites? Wow....I suppose, later on, the project became more successful in achieving orbits, but continued to have problems achieving its main goal of returning good quality photos- and that is outside the time frame we are discussing.

Well, we really are arguing semantics here, but Discoverer 0, the first launch, probably just known as Discoverer but I added the 0 so it wasnt confused as discoverer 1 is recorded thus:

Mission No. Cover Name Launch Date NSSDC ID No. Alt. Name Camera Notes
R&D Discoverer 21 Jan 1959 1959-E01 1959-E01 none Mission Failed. Failed to achieve orbit

I described Discoverer 1 in my post as "Discoverer 1- First object in polar orbit (Woo Hoo- well done CIA/DoD) "- please re-read the post to confirm.

Discoverer 7:

9004 Discoverer 7 07 Nov 1959 1959-010A 1959 KAP KH-1 Mission failed. Failed to achieve orbit.

Discoverer 8:

9005 Discoverer 8 20 Nov 1959 1959-011A 1959 LAM KH-1 Mission failed. Eccentric orbit negating recovery.

I did mistake 16 for 17, which is recorded as :

9011 Discoverer 16 26 Oct 1960 1960-F15 1960-F15 KH-2 Mission failed. Satellite failed to separate from booster. Failed to achieve orbit.

But 17 is recorded as this:

9012 Discoverer 17 12 Nov 1960 1960-015A 1960 OMI KH-2 Mission failed. Obtained orbit successfully. Film separated before any camera operation leaving only 1.7 ft (0.52 m) of film in capsule.

(Source: Robery Perry (October 1973). "A History of Satellite Reconnaissance: Volume I - Corona ". Central Intelligence Agency.)

You will have to forgive some typo's as Im doing this on a phone, and jumping between pages is somewhat difficult, but I stand by my original point- this is still nowhere near 'mostly', and by your reaction, I seem to have touched a nerve.

No data on the orbital direction and speed?

'Discoverer' satellites ranged in inclination from 80 to 90 degrees [pure polar] with periods between 92 and 96 minutes. They would have been showing brightness of maybe mag 2, to dimmer, unless they also happened to be venting fuel [rare]..

Let me check on Discoverer-0, that's an interesting datum.

But we have established that there WERE manmade polar orbit satellites in orbit in 1959-1960, contrary to recent assertions by some non-thorough investigators who proclaimed there were NOT any. Good work.

"Once again, your faulty assumptions have misled your investigation.

Make this a 'teachable moment'.

You'll be a better investigator if you are more careful in your going-in assumptions."

~ Jim Oberg

Did you learn that from your LA Battle gaff?

Here at 1:47 is a video of you lying right to our face.



www.youtube.com...


You are calling the LA event a fairytale.
If that is not deception what is it.

There are only 2 ways for us to look at you Oberg.
You are a liar or you are completely clueless when it comes to alien UFO's.

I am going with door number 1.
Since your reputation is in the toilet, it would be best if you are getting paid a good size bonus by NASA to lie for them.

And don't you just love your Youtube fans:

• was custards last stand fairy tale? it was war time, ppl see and hear things, sometimes there sometimes not. no surviving wittnesses. James Oberg, you are abusing your postition to make ppl believe what you want, faker. liar




• In response to James Oberg, NBC News "Space Consultant"
Witness, Battle of Los Angeles, Feb 25, 1942
Albert W. Metz, 13 years old at the time
C. Scott Littleton, PH.D., Father was air raid warden
and Dorothy Matich to name a few witnesses who are still
alive. Sorry dude.
canadiankewldude


This was going great and then Jim Oberg comes on....a literal paid debunker. Oberg makes a living doing shows and writing books debunking everything and anything that jury is still out on. As reputable as the guys who yell UFO at every passing bird.
Turbo05Dodge


1:47 There we go there's the debunker! Every UFO must be debunked! The sheeple must remain ignorant sheep. These debunkers are all uncreative Imbeciles but this one is the ultimate! It says its silly? No surviving witnesses!?!?!? How can you even argue with a piles of sub **it like that? What its saying is so devoid of truth and logic you can't argue with it. Its completely incoherent lies. It doesn't even attempt to come up with a good sounding story. It would be like arguing with a cow turd.
MrGeorgeJettison


I like how they always put on 'commentators' that have the best alternative explanation that usually ignores all the facts in favor of wild speculation.
You'd think they would try harder at being convincing.
worldcitizenreporter



ATTENTION: this so called "Space Consultant" MR.JAMES OBERG is a ****ing "PAID" "DisInformation Consultant" for NASA as my fellow Teammates of Para-Ufologist friends & associates have long since discovered & "They" (the NASA Professional Secret Military Equipment Space Services Agency)will do everything unethically possible to keep "You & I" from knowing what's really been going on upon the Moon & Yes even other Planets since 1962!!
Sonny Fales

• The debunker sounds more out of whack than the report! Small u small oh just ***k off. When they are proved real I want to see that guys face wobble....
OssyTuber


• who is fat **s debunker they always a have on is that all he does talk ***t or does he have a day job
axle09999

Ha, I read the thread title and thought this was going to be about Obama

reply to post by JimOberg


Interesting Jim. So are you stating that you think the black knight was one of ours? If so, then I can tell you the pictures of the object(s) are reeeeally interesting...and look nothing like any satellites I've ever seen.

Reading this thread today always been interested in The Black Knight , then was watching Dark skies and this cropped up just thought it would interest the OP if true or not . starts at about 1 min the bit that`s interesting .

reply to post by jademegjosh


I have posted on this quite a few times in great detail, if you want to know more look it up on my profile or through search by tahnya86.

Originally posted by JimOberg
'Discoverer' satellites ranged in inclination from 80 to 90 degrees [pure polar] with periods between 92 and 96 minutes. They would have been showing brightness of maybe mag 2, to dimmer, unless they also happened to be venting fuel [rare]..

Let me check on Discoverer-0, that's an interesting datum.

But we have established that there WERE manmade polar orbit satellites in orbit in 1959-1960, contrary to recent assertions by some non-thorough investigators who proclaimed there were NOT any. Good work.

Once I read about Discoverer, I never doubted they were indeed on a polar orbit. However, with the periods you describe, not to mention the brightness, and size of the satellite I dont think they can be responsible for Dark Knight. Also, Grumman were well in with the DoD at the time, yet were totally puzzled by the object and went to great lengths to track & photograph it- Im sure someone in the know of the Discoverer program would have had a 'quiet word' with Grumman and tell them not to waste their time if Discoverer was resposible for the Dark Knight sightings and tracks.

its real its to monitor people in protection,and its of alien origin

"A science fiction writer infamous for his heavy drug use eventually living out a sci-fi story"

I can't help but focus on this more than anything else.