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.
Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.
I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.
I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.
You do realize they gave the NAME of the suspected satellite DOH!!!
Originally posted by sealing
Interesting. Does anyone want to take a guess as to
how many satellites in 1966 were "in a polar orbit" ?
Personally I say (maybe)2 satellites with a polar orbit, were up in 1966.
So what are the chances NASA would put a Gemini mission 3-4 miles
from a satellite? Especially with almost zero space junk at that time?
Any defensive driving instructor would take exception to following
something that close at 17 thousand miles an hour.
Anyway, It's a very low number and somewhat debated because of the Black Knight Satellite.
Don't take my word for it ask NOAA
Originally posted by GeneralChaos
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Please show where anyone other than the religious followers has attempted to deny the existence of Objects spotted in the sky that cannot be identified at the time of sighting.
Are you serious?
I am assuming you are joking or drunk,lol.
The problem with people expressing their absolute certainty over its nature, while having few clues about what real spaceflight is like, has concerned me mainly from the wasted brainpower and wild goose hostilities that have been engendered uselessly.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by sealing
Interesting. Does anyone want to take a guess as to
how many satellites in 1966 were "in a polar orbit" ?
Personally I say (maybe)2 satellites with a polar orbit, were up in 1966.
But what do the experts say? Check out the satellite catalogs at Jonathan McDowell's home page and you'll see DOZENS of polar orbit satellites beginning in 1959.
And there's no evidence these objects were in anything close to 'polar orbit'. Judging from their very slow fly=past of the Gemini they had to be in paths very nearly aligned with the Gemini.
So what are the chances NASA would put a Gemini mission 3-4 miles
from a satellite? Especially with almost zero space junk at that time?
Any defensive driving instructor would take exception to following
something that close at 17 thousand miles an hour.
Good point -- also supports the theory they are objects or materials coming off the Gemini or itsd booster -- which was observed and filmed to be venting excess propellant.
Anyway, It's a very low number and somewhat debated because of the Black Knight Satellite.
Don't take my word for it ask NOAA
Well, if you insist the NOAA was the only US agency launching polar orbit satellites, then for sure we shouldn't take your word for it that there were two or less. Google 'Discoverer' program.
Originally posted by redoubt
Give the world a break. The tether incident begs... nay, DEMANDS more than that simple boot lick of acceptance.
Originally posted by sealing
Well if I'm gonna debate, let it be with the most knowledgeable man we have
on the subject. And heck, really, for the record, I'm just thrilled you said I had a "good point" .
And I mean that with sincerity.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by redoubt
It has been shown on here before many times due to contrast and exposure (colour bleed) an object that appears to be behind another may not be, a prime example the crosses (fiducial) on the reseau of the Hasselblad cameras.
That OBJECT didn't pass behind the tether and was an out of focus object closer to the camera.
Think of the actual size of the thin tether and its essentially ZERO angular width at those ranges. Whatever is passing across the tether -- in front or in back -- isn't going to have its own real eyeball appearance affected at all.
Originally posted by Snaffers
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Why are you messing around with this "Tether Incident" stuff Arken?
Stop That
You are our --- MASTER OF ROCK ---
PS: Give me a fine mars rover thread Arken, like in them good ol' days
Originally posted by Arken
Coming soon (if possible when I finish with my job)
Stars for the laugh!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Arken
Sorry Arken but you really need to LOOK at these things and not believe what this youtube idiot tries to claim from his video
3rd line down
"could you give us an estimate as to how far that SATELLITE was yesterday.
Funny how he didn't highlight that from the page
That's at 4:02 on the video
edit on 29-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)edit on 29-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: line added
Originally posted by CavTrooper0430
reply to post by wmd_2008
You do realize that because something is referred to as a satellite, does not mean they are talking about what you are normally used to being called a satellite. A satellite by definition is an object orbiting another larger object. The moon is in fact a satellite as well. You cannot imply they are referring to something man-made simply because they use the term satellite, they could have used the same term for something alien or unidentified just because they acknowledged it was in a polar orbit.
I'm not saying also that I believe they are referring to something alien, only that one cannot draw any conclusion from their use of the term.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Sorry Arken but you really need to LOOK at these things and not believe what this youtube idiot tries to claim from his video
3rd line down
"could you give us an estimate as to how far that SATELLITE was yesterday.
Funny how he didn't highlight that from the page