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.

 

Visual aid to help put to rest the "Black Knight" photos.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
ATS is the only forum where this evidence would be demanded, provided, distrusted, tested, defended, and in the end accepted at a level of agreement never attained anywhere else. At its best it was a conflict of honest and sincere assessments over verifiable evidence never before collected and simultaneously considered, but the sparks gave off lucid light, and the smoke was dispelled by the common breath of all the players. Dang! but we should do this more often.




posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
You really should have posted the video, once you see it floating, spinning and twisting around it becomes obvious that it's the same object in the STS 88 photos.

The video has been posted before and I believe gets glanced over. Showing a few comparison photos within a post gets the message across in an alternative way.


I find some of these responses quite funny. The intense passion to want to believe so badly that this is something alien, clouds any type of logical thinking. You're faced with an answer through statements, videos, and photos, yet you still refuse to accept it. Even with the relatively low quality of the video and the stills I've taken from that video, the similarities between the two are far too close to just write off. If you are on the fantasy side believing this is some sort of craft, alien satelitte, etc., being defensive and refusing to accept anything outside of what you want to believe, is typical and expected. I guess this is geared more towards the believers that will study a subject like this logically. Understanding that viewing any photo or video of a supposed UFO, or anything alien, is to be approached with an Earthly, boring, mundane explanation first. Not the other way around. And as we found out in this particular situation, the answer was an Earthly one. Unfortunately, some people are stubborn and form their initial opinions either just by what something looks like, or from UFO folklore and refuse to let go of that opinion even if the evidence shows otherwise.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 




nope, because under your post freelance_zenarchist posted a video of the supposed part. This is clearly filmed in the shadow of the shuttle, as you can see earth side that is toward the shuttle is lit, and there aint no reflections at all on the astronaut nor any on the shuttle itself, and still the supposed shuttle part is white and not black as you would suggest it is in shadows.

Still no good explanation why the object is black in the "BKS" pictures and white in the shuttle detail pictures.

Again I like to point out to the OP. I am not one who 100% belive that what we see in the "BKS" photos is a picture of an ancient alien satelite drifiting in space. However, I am not 100% certain and convinced that it is a object humans made in the early 80´s- mid 80´s that drifted away from a spaceshuttle. And these stills AND the video didnt do anything to make me more or less either way of the story. Allthough, I must confess, for every "bad" proof I see of one side of the story, the more I tend to lean to the other side as being true.
edit on 8-8-2013 by Nettlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Nettlas
 




Still no good explanation why the object is black in the "BKS" pictures and white in the shuttle detail pictures.


It's in a shadow coupled with a bright backdrop.

Hopefully this image illustrates what I mean:









edit on 8-8-2013 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
the thermal blanket is white on one side and reflective silver on the other side. i guess the black looking color is because the reflective color is on the outer side and reflects space which is more or less black at all.

it would have been great if those pictures would really show an ancient satellite specially as this is one of the cases which couldnt be debunked for a long time and where we had high resolution pictures taken by nasa.

the truth is that the pictures show nothing else than a thermal blanket lost by the crew of STS088. photographed in a serie of about 5 pictures starting with STS088-724-065. each picture in the serie shows a different shape of the object which also supports a thermal blanket. if you dont know the distance of the object to the photographer, it looks like a gigantic solid satellite.

this is a great example on how such stories are are put to live. take those official nasa pictures add some stories including famous names like nikola tesla and duncan lunan talking about a 12600 years old satellite message and here you go.

i think its great to be open minded and to believe such things are real, but when there is a solid explanation you should use your open mind to accept what its most obvious. this isnt a fight between believers and sceptics, this is about to find the truth.

thank you guys from ATS again for bringing light in this case also when i would have loved to know this thing is a freaking ancient alien satellite ;-)
edit on 8-8-2013 by siemis because: added some text.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Nettlas
 


It was charred by the swam gas.
2nd



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The part no-one has answered about this floating debris is this. In the past a tiny fleck of paint 100s of times smaller than that debris has pitted windows and damaged the skin of a spacecraft in orbit. Yet, we are meant to somehow believe that, they just went.."Aww shucks, don;t worry just another piece of junk travelling at several thousand miles an hour that could deff out and totally destroy a billion dollar satellite or kill people on a manned mission".

I believe and my lil scutter Jimbo I'm sure can confirm this, there are conventions of space junk and this should be large enough to have been entered into the catalogue so future missions might avoid it? If so, what's its' number cos, i've been through the online catalogues and there's nothing I can find, report wise contemporaneously, that fits this objects description.

Given that, and given Jimbos seeming reluctance to provide us with a simple straight answer and point us to the specific record of this "junk" you can see why people will speculate this is just NASA living up to their nom de plume "Never a straight answer". The fact is, the net been around for 2 decades and this photo has been attracting attention for half that time and still NASA can;t be bothered to just make an official statement with the commensurate official reports to put this one to bed. No, it seems they'd rather have their lil scutter do his Yoda impression on forums such as this and rely on self appointed "google search experts" and their claques to answer for them.

It's a rod created for their own back so excuse for me for not shedding any tears when they, NASA, are called out on something and no, "eye rolling and being patronising" does not help the PR one single iota. i's a simple question. Show us the relevant entry in the inventory for "space junk" pertaining to this object?
edit on 8-8-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 




In other words, there are parts of the Dark Knight compared to totally different objects on the left and on the right. In my humble opinion, this thread fails to debunk the mysterious object in question


You nailed it



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I have to admit, it really does look like the part from the shuttle. I have to do numerous views in 3 dimensions while looking at 2 dimension drawings, while at work. it can be a strain to do this, and have found that a lot of people have trouble viewing something 2-d and tranforming it into 3-d in their brain. Same thing applies here.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
The part no-one has answered about this floating debris is this. In the past a tiny fleck of paint 100s of times smaller than that debris has pitted windows and damaged the skin of a spacecraft in orbit. Yet, we are meant to somehow believe that, they just went.."Aww shucks, don;t worry just another piece of junk travelling at several thousand miles an hour that could deff out and totally destroy a billion dollar satellite or kill people on a manned mission"...


If you would stop being stubborn about exposing yourself to background facts about space flight -- to replace your imaginary misunderstandings -- you would move a lot closer to reality. I recommend my "99 FAQs", but you can obtain the information [with more difficulty] at many websites devoted to explaining space flight.

Your question indicates such an avalanche of misconceptions that the character-count limit here makes a full explanation impossible.

The simple hint is that the dropped thermal cover was floating along with the shuttle at a relative speed of less than a foot per second. Can't you see that in the videos? Or have you refused to even LOOK at the videos?

Other space debris items from other satellites can reach relative speeds of several MILES per second -- that's what gives a grain of sand the impact force of a 38-cal bullet.

This has to do with the need for at least minimal 'orbital velocity' to remain in orbit. Despite what you may think you know, satellites don't just 'escape Earth's gravity' and drift around out there.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Encore
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 




In other words, there are parts of the Dark Knight compared to totally different objects on the left and on the right. In my humble opinion, this thread fails to debunk the mysterious object in question


You nailed it


And the testimony of Jerry Ross, the guy who dropped the thermal cover on his spacewalk, somehow is supposed to be ignored? Or the hand-held video that Sergey Krikalyov took from inside the cabin?

How much evidence do you have to deliberately erase from your mind -- or refuse to allow in, in the first place -- to maintain the delusion these images show something mysterious?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Excellent job. I certainly conceded the identity of the object in the photos, in that thread. This analysis really helps show exactly what the debris is.

Still doesn't do much for the mystery of the reports of the dark satellites though...but I'm thinking the evidence points more towards misunderstandings and miscommunication during early space exploration....rather than alien satellites.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Yes Jim, cos If I'm travelling at 60 mph on my bike and hit a bee coming the other way at 5 mph that never does any damage does it? It might surprise you Jim however, there are people who aren't scientists, who have a basic grasp of the laws of physics. You on the other hand, spent how many years working for an organisation that seemed to be in denial about those laws when it came to all manner of health and safety considerations. I understand why, you don;t break new barriers without taking risks and yes, I see why NASA at times, simply blind sided questions there might have been serious legal compensation ramifications and we'd be going nowhere fast without taking such risks.

You see, I remember standing on the bridge of a "Cross Channel Ferry" and remembering my dad's words about the landing craft he commanded. I mused on how, "If this thing ever goes bow down into a wave I hope they've fitted proper sluices and catered for that in its' design". I dismissed the thought on the basis of, "hey who the chuff am I they wouldn't let 1000s of people daily risk their lives in something with so basic a design fault".... Well then the "Herald of Free Enterprise" sank and my dad turned out to have been 100% right about "An accident waiting to happen". So forgive me when I tend to have a rather cynical attitude towards the platitudes handed out by "big corporations and governments" about what is and what isn't; safe.
edit on 8-8-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Yes Jim, cos If I'm travelling at 60 mph on my bike and hit a bee coming the other way at 5 mph that never does any damage does it? ... editby]


Are we reading the same thread?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nettlas

By the way, why is the colour of the object black in the "BKS" photos, and white in the shuttle detail photos?


That's very easy to answer

Take a meter reading for exposure on the paper and you get this.



Take a meter reading for exposure of the BRIGHTER background you get this.



That's the real problem on here with Alien/NASA threads that are about images or video if you don't know the FUNDAMENTALS of photography you can jump to the wrong conclusions luckily on here many members like myself know a great deal about the subject.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Humm...why debunk what could be a satellite...??? But anyway, I don't see how a few objects with a few similar angles translates to the what folks are calling the Black Night...this guy is taking images of somewhat oblong and rectangular objects and trying to connect them to one image? I would love to see it and I could care less if it's a top secret satellite or not but I'm just not seeing the resemblance...


This was no ordinary satellite in dispute.
Unless an 11,000 year old alien satellite makes people yawn.
And the photos may be solved, but the story?
Not so much



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Thanks for clearing that one out in a simple and effective way. I can buy that the camera they used to shoot the debris, object whatever floating around in space was calibrated to take a light reading from the vaccum of space, right?

I still dont, however see the resemblance of the shuttle deatail in the picture, and the object floating in space. I have no problem visualizing 2D object in 3D. But this thing I just cant make out. Sorry, I just cant.


And while this might be proof of what we see in the pictures, it still doesnt explain squat about the mystery around the BKS and its story.

Thanks for all the posts everyone.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nettlas
 


No not the vacuum of space the Earth's atmosphere behind look at my first picture paper correctly exposed the sky is over exposed in the other picture the sky is correctly exposed so the paper is under exposed.

Seriously you can't see the areas of both objects connected by the red lines



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Good example.

Explains it better than I did.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Good example.

Explains it better than I did.


Thanks for that
Like I said lots of us on here are keen photographers some are even professional, if you don't know how things work or are done in photography/video is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion unfortunately that's what many ufo/alien/NASA threads revolve around and some on here don't like getting their bubble burst!




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join