The "Black Knight" UFO and the Alien satellite's the real story (2014).

originally posted by: [post=17978089]
1. Right in front of them at the same altitude.

....
5. I know their names and their rank. But I've lost contact with them many years ago when they were assigned to other military facilities.

Thanks. Might be worth following up.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy ...

Any serous UFOlogist would start pressing against lense sizes in telescopes. I mean personally I'm tired of seeing film of planets and moons. Would be nice to see the hobby of amateur astronomy start making some progress. What about the geostationary satellites. Where are the pictures of these.

Sounds like you better visit www.satobs.org and see what the amateurs have been up to -- lots!!

originally posted by: Korg Trinity...


I would agree with you, you can indeed cover more ground in a retrograde orbit...

I do not think you understand the math as well as you seem to think.

Retrograde near-polar orbits are used for earth surface/atmosphere observations that prefer a consistent local sun time for repeated observations over long periods. The precise inclination depends on the operating altitude. These kinds of orbits are designed to let Earth's equatorial bulge twist the orbital plane backwards to match the daily shift of the Sun's position. As a result, ground illumination conditions remain much the same, allowing long-term comparisons to better detect changes.

It has nothing to do with 'covering more ground'.

originally posted by: VeritasAequitas
a reply to: Arken

en.wikipedia.org...

The Grumman Aircraft Corporation gave much importance to this mysterious “Satellite”, On September 3, 1960, seven months after the satellite was first detected by radar, a tracking camera at Grumman Aircraft Corporation’s Long Island factory took a photograph of the Black Knight.
The Grumman Aircraft Corporation formed a committee to study the data received from the observations made but nothing was made public.

So apparently an aviation company, who was bought by a military defense contractor, actually studied the 'Black Knight' satellite, and actually made a report on it.

Riiiight. So where are A-the report, or B-the pics? This story just keeps growing and growing, one unverified statement after the other, lol.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Korg Trinity...


I would agree with you, you can indeed cover more ground in a retrograde orbit...

I do not think you understand the math as well as you seem to think.

Retrograde near-polar orbits are used for earth surface/atmosphere observations that prefer a consistent local sun time for repeated observations over long periods. The precise inclination depends on the operating altitude. These kinds of orbits are designed to let Earth's equatorial bulge twist the orbital plane backwards to match the daily shift of the Sun's position. As a result, ground illumination conditions remain much the same, allowing long-term comparisons to better detect changes.

It has nothing to do with 'covering more ground'.

Then you have little in the way of visualization skills.

A retrograde polar orbit is the ideal orbit for observation purposes as it would in effect be able to cover the entire globe.

This may help you visualize...



As you can see if a satellite is in geosync (GSO) then it is in effect over a single spot. a prograde orbit (low earth orbit) is an orbit going in the same direction in effect as the rotation of the earth, and a Retrograde orbit is in any direction not in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.

A polar retrograde orbit get's to see more of the earth since it covers all vectors within it's own orbital motion coupled with the rotation of the earth.

In addition a polar retrograde orbit is also the most efficient as it can be relatively low in orbit to achieve even greater coverage.

Do you understand now?

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: Arken
a reply to: Wolfenz

Interesting and meaningful points, Wolfenz.

I try Arken ..

even though i tend, to miss some letters , words, spelling, or touching up on the grammar. usually i skip it LOL.

I make the attempt to get to the point of it all.. Arken


Hmm I Wonder, if anything was captured on film during the V2 Rocket testing launches during the late 40s

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

Then you have little in the way of visualization skills.

A retrograde polar orbit is the ideal orbit for observation purposes as it would in effect be able to cover the entire globe.

That's the hazard of getting your insights from a youtube video, alas. The white and red orbits are a symmetric pair at the same tilt, but one is retrograde. What the video omits is the same symmetric pair in near-polar orbit -- the green retrograde orbit should have been paired with another with the same tilt, but posigrade. Call it the ultraviolet orbit.

The ground coverage is a feature of the tilt to the equator, NOT the retrograde nature of it. A posigrade orbit with the same tilt would cover the exact same surface regions.

Can you visualize this?

This may help you visualize... [snip] As you can see if a satellite is in geosync (GSO) then it is in effect over a single spot. a prograde orbit (low earth orbit) is an orbit going in the same direction in effect as the rotation of the earth, and a Retrograde orbit is in any direction not in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.

A polar retrograde orbit get's to see more of the earth since it covers all vectors within it's own orbital motion coupled with the rotation of the earth.

And so would one in a posigrade polar orbit. Imagine the ultraviolet path not visible in the video.

In addition a polar retrograde orbit is also the most efficient as it can be relatively low in orbit to achieve even greater coverage.

So can a polar posigrade orbit. When the first spy satellites were launched into polar orbits, their mission lifetimes were so short that the orbital shift -- a few degrees per day -- made no impact, so 72 to 81 degrees were OK. . But long-duration payloads required shifting to polar retrograde [94 to 96 degrees] to maintain uniform illumination. Check the historical records.

The high inclination gave good coverage, not the posigrade/retrograde feature.

So something at 135 degrees -- 45 retrograde -- had no particular ground coverage advantage simply by being retrograde.

Do you understand now?

Back at'cha, good buddy.

Peace, Korg.

Truth,
"RNDZ GPO" [rendezvous guidance & procedures officer, Mission Control]

a reply to: Phage

"heard enough" after 3 minutes of a 14 minute video?? At least you aren't being close-minded.

a reply to: Rob48

You pretty much hit the nail right on the head. The inclination (measurement of the angle of orbit in relation to a plane of reference of an object part is absolutely right, but retrograde describes the direction of the rotation. A retrograde orbit rotates in the direction opposite of the object being orbited, prograde spins in the same direction as said body. Most artificial satellites are placed into retrograde orbit, but not necessarily all of them. I do believe that naturally occuring satellites like debris tend to be prograde though, but there are exceptions to this as well, like one of Saturn's Moons, Phoebe.



Edit: I posted this before reading the last two pages of the thread where you clearly depicted you understand these things already Rob, lol. Oh well, FWIW I'll leave it for reference for those who don't. Cheers and carry on

thanks for that interesting documentary. fascinating to think huge unkown satellites might have been up there for awhile back then. the most interesting thing i heard in the video was this;

"in 1954, Captain Howard T. Orville, head of the President's weather control commision at the Whitehouse.."

(emphasis added).

a reply to: JimOberg

A bit harsh don't you think? I mean his reasoning was a bit off, but the observation is correct (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, as well). If you're rotating in the opposite direction of an object, will the ground not pass by more quickly than if you're spinning in the same direction?

a reply to: Rob48

What I don't understand is how a few mysterious satellite sightings from the 1950s/1960s have mutated into a 13,000-year-old "Black Knight"?

Right, goes without saying on ATS that the same group responsible for alien technology thousands of years ago (notice I didn't mention the PTB this time) remains in secret control of the technology forever.

The Black knight orbit was probably designed to not be easily calculated (with a little help from tether technology).
What should be the smoking gun is the whereabouts of the downlink facility for such a satellite?

A brief search for a later used downlink signal 1,420 MHZ found an obscure reference by a 1955 UFO searcher.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Operation Cyclops sounds too close to the German name "Wotan" the WW2 beam located near Fliegerhorst Deelen.
Maybe they used quantum entanglement or some other obscure protocol that could not be easily discovered?

a reply to: Cauliflower

You do realize the word "satellite" is just used to describe something in orbit, and not necessarily a conventional satellite used to transmit data, right? What makes you believe that there even is a "downlink" site here on earth?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Do you understand now?

How interesting...You are asking a man who worked at NASA if he understands what retrograde orbit is.

This is going to be fun to watch.

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: JimOberg



A bit harsh don't you think? I mean his reasoning was a bit off, but the observation is correct (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, as well). If you're rotating in the opposite direction of an object, will the ground not pass by more quickly than if you're spinning in the same direction?

Sweet talkers are not necessarily your friends!

In practice, nobody puts satellites into 135 deg orbits because they are better observing platforms. The only reason Israel has to do so is that all regions east, north, and south from them are occupied by hostile powers who would LOVE to obtain debris from failed launches. So they have to launch WEST across the Med.

The STS-88 mission was the first shuttle flight to assemble the ISS, it met up with a Russian module. I had the enormous pleasure of leading the orbital design team in Mission Control prior to its launch. Let me find a link to a book chapter of mine ["Star--Crossed Orbits"] that described the dynamical considerations, AND the diplomatic ones -- here it is: www.jamesoberg.com...

My buddy Jerry Ross, on his EVA, dropped one of four thermal blankets. Those weird photos became part of the 'Black Knight' lore.

As a kid I was a space nut and watched the speculations on 'unknown' stuff in orbit. I saw the slow-flashing Sputnik booster. I kept scrapbooks. Nobody really knew how to measure and verify many of the observations, there were teams of enthusiasts everywhere looking for anomalies [and Commies!] and for the most part spotting high-altitude aircraft, or occasional meteors. Predictions for next day observations were shaky like weather forecasts, and many factors -- such as the oblateness of Earth -- had effects that were different from expected. There was no way that confusion and honest misunderstanding was NOT going to pollute the raw data base, and it took several years to work out reliable techniques. Once things settled down, there weren't any more 'phantom satellites' except occasional Soviet secret launches.

Making up legends out of phantoms lurking in shadows has been a human cultural passion since the first mariners and over-the-next-hill wanderers. It should have come as no surprise that the space frontier would give rise to the same imaginary bestiary.

The surprise is, that with all the solid information now at the fingertips of the online world, these kinds of reality-deficient myths cling to life in the minds of many who don't take full advantage of the gigabits of the world's wisdom [and foolishness] available to them. Space is thrilling enough without wild goose chases into dead ends.

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: Rob48
..... Most artificial satellites are placed into retrograde orbit, but not necessarily all of them. ....Oh well, FWIW I'll leave it for reference for those who don't. Cheers and carry on

Except for observing satellites -- military and civilian -- in low polar orbits, which tilt over just a bit to obtain the 'sun synchronous' orbit that twists in space at the same angular rate that the Sun moves across the celestial sphere [360 degrees every 365.24 days], and a handful of Israeli satellites [special case -- all other directions closed off politically], everything else from every spaceport on Earth goes into prograde orbits. The energy bonus is too big to throw away.

What if it was a satellite from a previous advanced civilisation and holds all the information and technological of this Advanced long gone civilisation... The US Russia and now china are hacking into this satellites on board for information

I'm going to give Spielberg a call

a reply to: JimOberg

Hahah, LOL at the sweet-talkers part. You do have a good point there, though. I didn't realize that you worked for NASA, that's pretty awesome. I'm just a bit of a physics/math/space/numbers nerd who's just starting to dive into the wide world of astronomy and the like. You're absolutely right too, It's kind of hard to dispute when someone literally knows the person who is more than likely responsible for the anomaly. I don't know if it was you Jim or someone else earlier, but whoever mentioned the possibility of multiple unknown objects being bunched into one giant misconstrued tale dubbed the BKS, I agree. I think at some level there's a certain level of truth to the notion of there being, at some point in time, unknown objects orbiting the planet. Now whether they're "alien" in nature, a result of lack of knowledge/technology at the point in time that they were observed, or something else entirely, is a different story.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
That satellite would have to be pretty low for any Amateur Astronomer to see.

The sky is just that damn big, and the amateur telescopes that small.

Satellites are just out of reach of most things below 60 inches, their magnitudes are atrocious, and if they are not in a close earth orbit the problem just gets exponential.

originally posted by: Rob48

If I lie on a lawn chair in my garden at night I can see dozens of satellites passing over with nothing but a pair of Mk1 Baby Blues, and I live in the light-polluted southeast of England.

/sarcasm
Omg this is the best news ever!

Now I can take the gloves off and just start slapping amateur astronomers around for NOT getting us pictures of Earth orbiting satellites.
/end sarcasm

Has anyone seen any pictures yet.
Other than a single streak across a field of stars.
How did they solve the tracking problem?


Mike

a reply to: JimOberg

Oh yeah, so since you worked for NASA, don't be surprised if I slaughter your inbox w/ astrophysics questions. I just bought Kerbal Space Program and am addicted hahaha.

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: JimOberg



Hahah, LOL at the sweet-talkers part. You do have a good point there, though. I didn't realize that you worked for NASA, that's pretty awesome. I'm just a bit of a physics/math/space/numbers nerd who's just starting to dive into the wide world of astronomy and the like. You're absolutely right too, It's kind of hard to dispute when someone literally knows the person who is more than likely responsible for the anomaly. I don't know if it was you Jim or someone else earlier, but whoever mentioned the possibility of multiple unknown objects being bunched into one giant misconstrued tale dubbed the BKS, I agree. I think at some level there's a certain level of truth to the notion of there being, at some point in time, unknown objects orbiting the planet. Now whether they're "alien" in nature, a result of lack of knowledge/technology at the point in time that they were observed, or something else entirely, is a different story.

Thanks for your kind note.

It's because I'm certain there ARE humongous surprises awaiting us OUT THERE that I get so revved up about the waste of false alarms and detours. Not only does it waste a lot of enthusiasm and brain power and imagination hereabouts, it tends to burn out the best young minds who really DO need to be watching for real weirdnesses. Watching the skies, and correctly interpreting and reacting to future surprises, is going to be a make-or-break test for our civilization, perhaps our species. Getting mired in regurgitated Donald Keyhoe confabulations [as I was, as a teenager -- but grew up] is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Watch the skies! It's sheer awesomeness out there, even without the aliens [yet!]. And if you're into it, it's a wild ride for a career choice.