The Black Knight Satellite

reply to post by bluestreak53


ridiculing the topic at hand was - and i guess still is - unwelcome in this forum. there are better ways to make your point than using silly jokes about anti-matter and black holes.

if you want to be taken seriously, get serious. otherwise, neither you are, nor are your replies.

as for my opinion, i didn't research this topic that much. on the other hand, the fact that US government has shown interest in this topic, as well as the fact that NASA has changed the explanation of it several times, seems to suggest that perhaps there is some truth hidden in this story, and unless you've been up there, or have the capability to track every single near-earth object, you cannot be sure.

and if you think that NASA or US government will tell you everything about what is out there, well. think again.

reply to post by jedi_hamster

the fact that US government has shown interest in this topic

When?

as well as the fact that NASA has changed the explanation of it several times

When?

This dispute always ends the same way.
The history of Polar orbiting satellites is apparently
not etched in stone. NOAA says this ;
www.ospo.noaa.gov...

The world's first meteorological satellite was launched from Cape Canaveral on April 1, 1960. Named TIROS for Television Infrared Observation Satellite, it demonstrated the advantage of mapping the Earth's cloud cover from satellite altitudes. TIROS showed clouds banded and clustered in unexpected ways. Sightings from the surface had not prepared meteorologists for the interpretation of the cloud patterns that the view from an orbiting satellite would show. From April 1, 1960 to July 2, 1965, ten TIROS satellites were launched. The satellites ensured continuity of data throughout the early years. The first four TIROS satellites had an inclination of 48 degrees and the next four had an inclination of 58 degrees, thus they were not polar-orbiting. The last two TIROS were the first polar-orbiting meteorological satellites. The next series of satellites, named ESSA (for Environmental Science Services Administration) were launched from February 3, 1966 to February 26, 1969. Nine satellites in the ESSA series were launched during this time. These satellites were also polar-orbiting satellites.
So how could we have a POE satellite when the black knight was tracked long before
it was possible?

NOAA says it wasn't possible until about 1965.
The dates don't mesh. We're military space ambitions 6 Years ahead
in Polar orbiting capabilities? I doubt it.

reply to post by Phage



Read the thread .

reply to post by sealing

So how could we have a POE satellite when the black knight was tracked long before
it was possible?

NOAA says it wasn't possible until about 1965.

Excuse me, where does it say that?

Do you know what POE(S) stands for? Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite. Environmental, meaning observing the environment. The article you linked is about the history of weather satellites, not all satellites.

Remember this reply when you first brought it up?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gideon70
reply to post by Phage

 

Read the thread .

I have been.
Since page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Gazrok

This is not just some urban legend. You can go to NASA's own site and see the images. They classify it as space junk, and have an official explanation (which we will discuss later on). Basically, this is an UNKNOWN satellite that is obviously artificial. First, some images of the Black Knight satellite so you can see just what we are talking about here:

Done to death. I know I am late to the party. I will read each page and end up back here, if my opinion stands I won't edit it.

One thing I can't remember about the lore, is did it come before or after the space junk hit NASA pages?

Most importantly, in a logical argument, there is some secretive satellite floating around, why does NASA post a dozen pictures of it. And, most importantly, why does it look different in nearly every photograph.

The official reason is space junk, which, said explanation identified most of the pieces back when this first arose.

Unless a amateur astronomer accidentally found it up there, and NASA somehow managed to find out about this independent guy, and then they repositioned another satellite so they could photograph it and label it space junk.... uh, yeah.

Occam's Razor


Edit to add. The lore pre-NASA photos is interesting. But I think by trying to connect the two it's a foolish attempt at searching for answers within anything that might be close enough to fool the average observer.

It's this picture.

And a few others I saw when the story first came out that made me just smack my head. It looks like space junk.

reply to post by boncho



So I take it you are a space junk expert ? What are your credentials ?

I predict your answer will be "No" & "None" .

So tell me , what leads you to believe it is space junk ?

Never Assume .When you do , it makes an ASS out of U and ME .

reply to post by Gideon70

So tell me , what leads you to believe it is space junk ?

In the words of...um...you: Read the thread.

sealing
This dispute always ends the same way.
The history of Polar orbiting satellites is apparently
not etched in stone. NOAA says this ;
[snip]
So how could we have a POE satellite when the black knight was tracked long before
it was possible?

NOAA says it wasn't possible until about 1965.
The dates don't mesh. We're military space ambitions 6 Years ahead
in Polar orbiting capabilities? I doubt it.

As has been explained to you time and time again, you are using your own self-imposed ignorance as 'proof' for your own 'doubts' [the word you're looking for is 'delusions']. The US DoD was putting satellites into polar orbit since 1959, I have the news clippings in my scrapbook from that time.

Your inability to even get well-documented historical facts correct throws all your subsequent claims into the ash heap of fantasy.

Sheesh.

Like to give us all the story of Cooper and the green object and the "official explanation" Jim? You know, people might begin to believe you have some sort agenda with regards to Cooper and the Black Knight sightings. Like to explain how Cooper could imagine something the Muchea tracking station in Australia was watching at the same time? Why were news reporters forbidden to ask questions about the incident in the immediate aftermath of Cooper's flight?


To say the government had no interest in it is utter tosh. Wasn't "Dark Fence" under Captain W E Berg used to track an object in 1960 and later claimed it was something fired from Vandenberg even though, all early reports said, the object was 5 times the size of anything man had managed to fire into space in 1960?

Gideon70
reply to post by boncho

 

So I take it you are a space junk expert ? What are your credentials ?

I predict your answer will be "No" & "None" .

So tell me , what leads you to believe it is space junk ?

Never Assume .When you do , it makes an ASS out of U and ME .

There are people here who are school-of-life experts in filtering out junk from gold, on Earth or in space. Try to learn from them.

The reason that rational, informed people have been persuaded that this 1998 series of photographs by cosmonaut Sergey Krikalyov out the overhead window of the aft flight deck of STS-88, during the first ISS assembly mission [for which BTW I got a 'Sustained Superior Performance' award for leading the orbital design team], is that the pictures mesh perfectly with two video feeds of the nearby drifting small object [one from in cabin handheld, one from a mounted external camera], photographs of the thermal cover in fabrication pre-flight, photographs of other thermal covers after installation on the Node-1's trunnion pins, and verbal descriptions from astronaut Jerry Ross who dropped it during the installation of several others. Tracking data from NORAD also identifies the object and its rapid decay and burn-up shows it was very light and flimsy.

People who seem to enjoy playing with your mind seem to have counted on you being so gullible you never thought to actually check out the story, or maybe just not smart enough to think you ought to have. I suggest they have contempt for your intelligence and I am dismayed that you seem so eager to validate that assessment.

FireMoon
Like to give us all the story of Cooper and the green object and the "official explanation" Jim? You know, people might begin to believe you have some sort agenda with regards to Cooper and the Black Knight sightings. Like to explain how Cooper could imagine something the Muchea tracking station in Australia was watching at the same time? Why were news reporters forbidden to ask questions about the incident in the immediate aftermath of Cooper's flight?

What 'green object'? Cooper has always made it clear this story is BS and people who fell for it were victims of a hoax. Want to see his letter to me? Do you have any letters from him saying different? Or ANY quotes from HIM telling that MA-9 May 1963 fable?

Right Jim, so there was never any news black out, even though, through my father a journalist, I checked this up in the late 70s and was told by journos it was true.? Even though, in the early 80s i listened to the transcript of a call from Australia from a tech who was on duty that time who said "100% we saw another object moving in an opposite direction to the American capsule"? So I've spoken to people who were there, or listened to the tape of a person who was there and you joined NASA when Jim?

FireMoon
Right Jim, so there was never any news black out, even though, through my father a journalist, I checked this up in the late 70s and was told by journos it was true.? Even though, in the early 80s i listened to the transcript of a call from Australia from a tech who was on duty that time who said "100% we saw another object moving in an opposite direction to the American capsule"? So I've spoken to people who were there, or listened to the tape of a person who was there and you joined NASA when Jim?

Extraordinary new evidence, FM, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

How can serious students of these reports verify it?

Any names of journalists you checked with who told you it was true. I checked with Jay Barbree, Jerry Hannifin, and Sue Butler who were there then, they all agreed with Gordon Cooper [who was also there] that the story is nonsense.

You say you "listened to a transcript" -- an odd choice of words -- so where is the transcript, who is the tech? You've listened to the tape of an anonymous person saying it -- where can we hear that tape?

Surely you expected to be asked these questions?

draknoir2

andy1972
reply to post by draknoir2

 

As your clearly the expert on the subject...you tell me...what is the object exactly, what DOES it represent...

I didn't post it... you did. I would expect there to be some reason behind it.

Guess not.

READ THIS or this if you like....a nice insight to precolombian "vimanas"

andy1972

draknoir2

andy1972
reply to post by draknoir2

 

As your clearly the expert on the subject...you tell me...what is the object exactly, what DOES it represent...

I didn't post it... you did. I would expect there to be some reason behind it.

Guess not.

READ THIS or this if you like....a nice insight to precolombian "vimanas"

edit on 9-10-2013 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the links. I am familiar with the "Ancient Aliens" angle on those artifacts... not seeing any mention of Vimanas in either, though. So I guess my original question remains unanswered.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, you know as well as I do, or you simply haven;t truly investigated UFOs anywhere near as deeply as you claim you have, that there are reams of tapes and testimony that was and has not been published because the witnesses were, suddenly "warned off". Nothing too heavy of course, just phone calls saying stuff like " It would be a shame if your pension was to suddenly have problems arriving in your bank account wouldn't it?"

The same journo who told me about the news blackout then asked me a very strange question. "Have you ever wondered why they asked Roald Dahl to write a James Bond script?"

That's Roald Dahl friend of Ian Fleming and who served with Fleming in military intelligence during world war 2. The same Roald Dahl who took a story that was, ostensibly about the break down in co-operation between Britain and the USA on an intelligence level and turned it into a story about mysterious forces owning their own space programme that was "kidnapping" both Russian and American spaceships.

Now that's just coincidence of course it is Jim only, a couple of years back, I was talking to a lecturer in "Film History" and they told me that Dahl's original script, the agency kidnapping spaceships was meant to have been some shadowy organisation with serious hints at it being "non human", only the film's producers thought that was "too much". All absolute coincidence of course.

So, back to transcripts. Those of us who were actually out there trying to bring information into the public sphere during the 1980s and 1990s, not making up excuses, came across an interesting phenomenon. On several occasions, when genuinely interesting insider information came peoples' way, the people providing the information were "got at". in retrospect it is now known that people within the field of Ufology, were tipping off the authorities about the identity of these "whistle blowers" and no-one as some of the more paranoid were assuming, was being phone tapped on a regular basis, although some were on an ad hoc basis.

Now, none of these whistle blowers were providing "the smoking gun" that "proved" the existence of UFOs however, their testimony did cast huge doubt on the "official explanations" given about certain incidents. Which does rather beg the question why? Why were they silenced when they all their evidence did was just show that, the MOD and the likes of NASA were tell some porkies about certain incidents? Given all the whistle blowers made it plain that, they would not have offered the information had it threatened nationals security only, they were sick of seeing the MOD just lie about certain incidents, why were they "leaned on"?

There are undoubtedly UFO writers who have adopted the "Damn the torpedoes , full steam ahead" policy towards these incidents and by and large, they have been hung out to dry and left looking rather foolish when, instead of forcing people to "go public", those self same people have turned round and said "I was mistaken" or recanted altogether and denied they ever said a word claiming, it was someone masquerading as them who made the initial contact or that their information was wrongly quoted and out of context.

That's not my style, even though I could name the journo who gave me my details and they are now deceased, I have no intention of doing so on a public forum as, even now, I feel it would be dragging their name into a sphere they had no wish to be publicly linked to.

Anyone who wonders what I mean should ask themselves this. The recent spate of "ask me anything" how much have you learned that wasn't already public knowledge? There's a sizable trenche of regulars on this site who have noted just exactly what questions were and were not, answered. That's the game Jim, I've been part of it for longer than I care to remember. However, those of us who work without any portfolio are fully aware of how those who do come with baggage are not always to be taken at their word and blind loyalty means at times, they will claim black is white, if they think admitting black is actually black, impinges on their perception of national security.

The GUT's epic thread and truly essential reading about The Aviary, makes it clear in no uncertain terms, what I am talking about here and hinting at is fact rather than, supposition.

FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, you know as well as I do, or you simply haven;t truly investigated UFOs anywhere near as deeply as you claim you have, that there are reams of tapes and testimony that was and has not been published because the witnesses were, suddenly "warned off". Nothing too heavy of course, just phone calls saying stuff like " It would be a shame if your pension was to suddenly have problems arriving in your bank account wouldn't it?"

So your basic answer is, "The dog ate my homework", but you should be given an 'A' anyway, even thought you won't even reveal your true identity. How often do you get away with such shenanigans, even here?

Let's move the Cooper discussion over to the Cooper thread, OK?

reply to post by JimOberg


Yeah Jim, rather than you're whole "trust me, I worked for NASA" stance. You're just grasping at straws as you drown now Jim, so let's call it a day? I have said time and time again on this forum. The search for the truth about UFOs, such as the truth might be, is about a personal quest. Ask the right questions of the right people and you shall be told and yet, you won't have a single piece of tangible proof to offer the general public. I have personally spoken people way above your level Jim and their information frankly, shows just where you are coming from.