The Black Knight???

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
How hard is it to believe that a civilization much like our own sent a satellite out on a mission to find life, we have done the same thing. Voyager made it out of our solar system and it only took 35 years, so how far will it have gone in 13k years? After all, the black knight was relaying a map of a star map from 13k years ago, so who knows when that satellite actually reached Earth and started orbiting? It has been relaying messages back to it's home planet for at least 50 years (possibly thousands of years), I think after 13k years they have evolved enough to be able to travel back and forth between here and Epsilon Bootes.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wheelindiehl
How hard is it to believe that a civilization much like our own sent a satellite out on a mission to find life


There are some people on this site that believe intelligent life does not exist on this planet, let alone another.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chemicalbrother

Originally posted by Wheelindiehl
How hard is it to believe that a civilization much like our own sent a satellite out on a mission to find life


There are some people on this site that believe intelligent life does not exist on this planet, let alone another.


There are some people on this site who believe other people on this site are proof of that theory.

Just teasing!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wheelindiehl
....After all, the black knight was relaying a map of a star map from 13k years ago, ....


Be careful, the sent 'message' as worded, is fiction. The star map interpretation is one of many explanations for a radio anomaly in the 1920s that may not even be artificial. And if it is, supporters of the theory believe the probe is in high Earth orbit well beyond visual or radar tracking range -- in other words, NOT the hypothetical 'Bl;ack Knight'. Seems to me, a lot of varied rumors have been tied together into a kludge myth that really explains nothing.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
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.
edit on 8-11-2012 by AutOmatIc because: spelling


Somebody is conning you, and no, I don't think it's ME. Those photographs were taken by Jerry Ross and Jim Newman on STS-88 of a tool bag accidentally dropped overboard during a spacewalk on the very first ISS assembly mission. NASA's never made any secret of that, as I recall it was shown in real time over public-access 'NASA TV'.

Why is it so easy for fable-makers to misrepresent and falsify ordinary space events, to thrill their target audience? And how smart do you think the fable-makers believe their targets are, if they expect them to fall for such clumsy hoaxes? Look in the mirror long and hard, please.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wheelindiehl
 


Not hard. But there are only so many reasons for NASA to have an alien craft on their public website.

Example:
NASA posted it to test a future disclosure process.
Someone posted it by accident.
Someone went rouge and posted it.

And how can we be sure that it is the same sat mentioned decades before?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda

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.


Discoverer satellites and stranded capsules were thought to be responsible for some stories of 'unknown satellites' at that time. Please keep in mind that in the very early Space Age, most people -- even 'experts' -- weren't yet familiar with all the vagaries of low-orbit motion. Even planetarium directors.

And the skies were full of vehicles with high desire for going unrecognized, or misinterpreted. I remember my own 'first UFO' in 1959, hanging 60,000 ft above the Hudson River just north of NYC, at dusk. Within half an hour, a network of HS friends had plotted azimuths from different directions to locate it. Nobody ever owned up to it. It eventually went red and faded out, as the sun set at its altitude.

So trying to turn siome random observations of lights crossing the night sky into some phantom satellite, half a century later, strikes me as a fool's errand.

edit on 8-11-2012 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I would like to point out that, at one of the links early in this thread, I read that this satellite was recovered and taken to a facility underwater for examination. This was done, it was written, because the researchers felt this would be the safest way to examine it.

Everyone who had "prolonged contact with it" got cancer including Carl Sagan.

I will review the links and edit this post and add the link for reference.

EDIT: Black Knight Satellite
edit on 11/8/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by subjectzero
I would like to point out that, at one of the links early in this thread, I read that this satellite was recovered and taken to a facility underwater for examination. This was done, it was written, because the researchers felt this would be the safest way to examine it.

Everyone who touched it got cancer including Carl Sagan.

I will review the links and edit this post and add the link for reference.




Please do, as that sounds like an interesting read,

This actually sounds familiar ( could have read it previously on ATS or some other fringe website)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by subjectzero
I would like to point out that, at one of the links early in this thread, I read that this satellite was recovered and taken to a facility underwater for examination. This was done, it was written, because the researchers felt this would be the safest way to examine it.

Everyone who had "prolonged contact with it" got cancer including Carl Sagan.



Just how would it be 'recovered' if it was supposed to be in polar or retrograde orbit? The Space Shuttle never was able to fly into such orbits.

Show some class. Using a dead guy's coffin as a grandstand for promoting some cockamamie myth, that includes painting him as a liar, is not nice.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I don't know you. You don't need to be rude to me if you don't like what posted.

I wrote about what I read and I edited my post to include the link to where I read it.

If you have a personal issue with me please address it in a private PM to me.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Thunda

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.


So trying to turn siome random observations of lights crossing the night sky into some phantom satellite, half a century later, strikes me as a fool's errand.

edit on 8-11-2012 by JimOberg because: typo


Hardly just some 'random observation of lights' as you put it, and for a 'fools errand', you seem to be dedicating a great deal of effort to debunking it.

Its not like we just dug up a one off 'lights in the sky' sighting after 50 odd years and said- "Ooo look at this- this is slightly unusual"- It was a mystery at the time and has never been fully explained, much as some people would like to have us believe that it has.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by subjectzero
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I don't know you. You don't need to be rude to me if you don't like what posted.

I wrote about what I read and I edited my post to include the link to where I read it.

If you have a personal issue with me please address it in a private PM to me.

Thank you.


Thanks, I just saw and read the link. I found it to be highly imaginative, but counter-factual in all checkable particulars.

For example, the author incorrectly asserts that the US and Russia were unable to launch polar orbiting satellites in 1960, when we've just established here that the US did -- and had. So all of the author's subsequent arguments based on this bogus 'factoid' collapse, don't you agree?

If you read the exchanges that established the existence of US polar orbiting satellites in that time frame, why did you cite a link to a TIME magazine story that identifies the mysterious object seen that year with the Discoverer-5 mission -- but not mention the refuation of the author's main thesis, by that fact?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I'm not some kind of super expert on this satellite or any other. I heard about this "bird" and searched for it on ATS and read the thread, following and reading the included links.

I'd appreciate it if you would CLIMB DOWN OFF MY BACK NOW.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The Monolith’s energy affected Apollo 10′s instrumentation, so that its crew almost didn’t get back. As soon as the film Apollo 10 took came back to Earth, those Intelligence compartments which deal with UFOs were busy poring over information from the Monolith.



The offered link contains this passage:




The government then used an early secret military space shuttle to go get the Monolith itself. This covert military spacecraft flew years before the first “official” NASA Shuttle’s public flights in 1981. The spaceplane is operated by a secret military astronaut program out of Vandenburg Air Force Base, California, among other locations.

The second flight mission of this unacknowledged military shuttle retrieved the Monolith, and brought it back to Earth in 1972 for study.

After being retrieved, the Monolith was then transferred to a secret research facility. Scientific analysis of the Monolith was conducted at this domed underwater facility located north of Abaco, the northernmost of the Bahamas Islands.


Cool story. What shread of evidence is there, that we can check, that it's anything but confabulated ravings by a person whose other claims are so wild and preposterously incredible, they are barely mentioned in the article.

A extraordinary single claim by an anonymous speaker, absent supportive evidence, is woefully inadequate to persuade any rational person -- please do better.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by subjectzero
reply to post by JimOberg
 

I'm not some kind of super expert on this satellite or any other. I heard about this "bird" and searched for it on ATS and read the thread, following and reading the included links.

I'd appreciate it if you would CLIMB DOWN OFF MY BACK NOW.


Nope. You are promoting a claim that involves accusations of major deceit by prominent scientists, and all you have to back it up is you read it on a UFO website? Shame on you. Argue for any theory yhou like but do so based on hard evidence, not on your own open-minded gullibility.

Or is smearing strangers -- and those helpless to respond to you -- some sort of recreational ego-boost that gives you a thrill?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Who are you that you think you can be so nasty to other people here?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

You're sick.
edit on 11/8/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Hey I never heard of this theory before...very interesting...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
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.
edit on 8-11-2012 by AutOmatIc because: spelling


Somebody is conning you, and no, I don't think it's ME. Those photographs were taken by Jerry Ross and Jim Newman on STS-88 of a tool bag accidentally dropped overboard during a spacewalk on the very first ISS assembly mission. NASA's never made any secret of that, as I recall it was shown in real time over public-access 'NASA TV'.


Why is it so easy for fable-makers to misrepresent and falsify ordinary space events, to thrill their target audience? And how smart do you think the fable-makers believe their targets are, if they expect them to fall for such clumsy hoaxes? Look in the mirror long and hard, please.



Wow time travelling tool bags I am well impressed STS-126, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost a briefcase-sized tool bag in one of the mission's EVAs

Photo of toolbag
edit on 8-11-2012 by FireMoon because: To add information





top topics
 
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join