New Black Knight Footage

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

"dislodge itself and enter a Polar orbit?" It was NOT "one of the Discoverer satellites" AND they definitely did not carry "space blankets"!

The thing is that the whole Black Knight thing is just a lot of disparate things that are not really linked but the proponents of this stuff are trying to cobble them all together.

This space blanket thing is the latest thing that they have seized on, relatively recently in the Black Knight "mythos" timeline, so have a good think about what you just posted.

[SNIP]

a reply to: oldcarpy

dude, your user nym suits you PERFECTLY, you old carpy

This space blanket thing is the latest thing that they have seized on

who's "they"? YOU are the guy who's providing freaking rocket trajectorys TRYING to PROVE it's "space junk/rocket parts"

The thing is that the whole Black Knight thing is just a lot of disparate things that are not really linked but the proponents of this stuff are trying to cobble them all together.

LMAO! "the proponents"? Aren't YOU one of "them" old mate?

You couldn't answer my questions SO now you change the topic so you can "backpedal" and say "well ... that's not really what I said"

[SNIP]

Like many other posters ITT who also use 'logical fallacies' to 'support' their assumptions and anecdotal 'evidence'

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

Seems as though you are just in this thread to bicker, insult other posters and ignore stuff like detailed responses.

You have had plenty of detailed and well articulated facts laid out for you so how about you actually address some of them for a change?

Please, do try to lay off the sarcasm, it makes you sound like a stroppy and particularly obnoxious teenager.

Attention:

While debating outside of the Political Mud Pit forum, ATS has a certain level of standard of civilty and decorum:

General ATS discussion etiquette

This means that we do not allow personal insults. We do not tolerate rude behavior, such as telling someone to "suck it", etc.

If you find that you can not communicate without including that type of behavior, you may need to take a break from posting.

Continuing to post in that fashion can result in not only have those posts removed, but having your posting rights removed.

Discuss the subject of the OP and not each other. Talking about each other is always considered Off Topic here on ATS.

This thread will be re-opened in a few minutes to allow members time to read this PSA.

Do not reply to this post.

Thread is now re-opened.

Pay attention to the above post.

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

LMAO! "the proponents"? Aren't YOU one of "them" old mate?

Err, no, I'm not. I thought I'd made it clear that I do not think that the Black Knight thing is real.

a reply to: oldcarpy

My apologies OC, I had you confused with JimOberg

I take it ALL back ... I'm kinda new here and the way the posts get linked can be confusing


However, would you "care to share" and TELL ME what WAS said? i.e.

You have had plenty of detailed and well articulated facts laid out for you so how about you actually address some of them for a change?

words are cheap and you've clearly got the time

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

Thanks - it's big of you to say sorry.

Beers all round.

a reply to: oldcarpy

mate, if I'm wrong or 'mistaken' I'm happy to be proven so! Otherwise I'll continue to be so!

And I don't want to mislead Or lie and IF I am found to be, odds on it's due to my incompetence, not malice

Honesty and the Truth are Very important to me, and (for me at least) admitting I was 'wrong' is NBD coz

It's The Truth and "the Truth is True, it doesn't nor cannot change' " and imma BIG fan of The Truth

IF we were all honest with each other, this world would be a LOT better, alas sh#t like Farceberk teaches people how to LIE with their "Philters" etc ... and in the "financial world" ,, you'd better Lie or nobody will do business with you! How FUBAR is that!?

and "half truths Are Whole Lies", that's why in court they make you swear to tell The Whole Truth, "half truths" are aka "lying by omission" e.g.
"Hey man, I saw your GF down the shops today, we had a coffee and shot the breeze" (and then we went and had a quickie) "she's a great girl, you're a lucky guy" (lmao inside!)

nonetheless, thanks for the reply, it's appreciated .... now, MORE BEER!

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
a reply to: JimOberg

so "you checked", nice. Then please explain these things (anomalies?) to me as the 'expert' you allude to be.

What is YOUR definition of an 'expert'? You seem to apply it pretty loosely to internet bloggers.

E.G. you must've discovered HOW the "space blanket" (which had yet to be invented) got where it IS? Yes?

Oh shivers! Oh, no, you did not!

I thought I had, here: www.jamesoberg.com...

IF you HAD then you CAN "explain" the FACTS I've listed (and linked) below, no?

Putting that word in ALL-CAPS doesn't guaranty the statement is actually true.

So, would you care to share "how a product first produced in 1964 was not only ON a 1959 'space craft' BUT was ALSO ABLE TO "dislodge itself and enter a Polar orbit?" It was NOT "one of the Discoverer satellites" AND they definitely did not carry "space blankets"!

How on Earth do you imagine I even claimed that this happened? I've already been zapped here by my own careless attribution of comments on this thread, we all need to try harder to make sure we're criticizing statements by the correctly-identified posters.

AFAIK Discoverer satellites did not carry thermal blankets, but they WERE placed in near-polar orbits since early 1959. And one errant film canister did wind up in a slightly higher orbit in that same inclination [about 80 to 84 degrees], and after a new radar detection system became operational in late '59, that capsule was detected and initially was of unkbown origin. It stayed in orbit a few more years before burning up.

First developed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in 1964 for the US space program,[2][3][4] the material consists of a thin sheet of plastic (often PET film) that is coated with a metallic reflecting agent, making it metallized polyethylene terephthalate (MPET)

Congratulations, this time you actually have stated a verifiable fact [lower case]. It is totally irrelevant to the dispute about the BK fable.

The story of the Black Knight made its media debut in the 1940′s when the St. Louis Dispatch and The San Francisco Examiner wrote about the “Satellite” on May 14th 1954.

.... they wrote about a claim by a guy selling a UFO book. BTW, 1954 was not in the 1940's.

On August 23, 1954 the technology magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology released a story about the Black Knight Satellite that angered the Pentagon who were trying to keep the information secret.

...and the evidence the 'Pentagon was angered' is exactly... uh, what?

NASA has released official images which apparently show the Black Knight Satellite. eol.jsc.nasa.gov... NASA Photo ID -STS088-724-66

NASA has released photos AND videos of the blanket dropped during an International Space Station assembly EVA by STS-88 astronauts. One of the videos actually shows the cosmonaut inside the shuttle taking the 70-mm photos. They even released a photo of the bare external trunnion pin that the blanket was supposed to be installed on, and they flew a replacement blanket on the next shuttle, and then released photos of it being installed on the trunnion pin in question.

BUT 10 yrs later said: "A 1998 NASA photo is believed by some to show the Black Knight satellite, but NASA has stated that this is likely space debris, specifically a thermal blanket lost during an EVA mission. " EXCEPT THAT NOBODY HAD DONE AN EVA in 1957!

The blanket was dropped in 1998. Nobody ever said it was seen in 1957.

In 1957, Dr. Luis Corralos of the Communications Ministry in Venezuela photographed it while taking pictures of Sputnik II as it passed over Caracas.

Show us the photo where you can see a blanket.

In 1957, an unknown “object” was seen “shadowing” the Sputnik 1 Spacecraft. According to reports, the “unidentified object” was in Polar orbit.

The Sputnik was in a 65 deg inclined orbit, not a polar orbit.

In 1957, the United States nor the Russians possessed the technology to maintain a spacecraft in Polar Orbit. The first Polar-orbiting satellite was launched in 1960.

In 1957, nobody ever reported seeing anything in 'polar orbit'. The first US satellites in that type of orbit appeared in 1959.

The story of the Black Knight made its media debut in the 1940′s when the St. Louis Dispatch and The San Francisco Examiner wrote about the “Satellite” on May 14th 1954.

1954 was not in the 1940's.

In the 1960′s the Black Knight satellite was located once again in Polar Orbit. Astronomers and Scientists calculated the object’s weight to be over 10 tons which would be at that time the Heaviest Artificial Satellite to orbit our Planet.

Objects in orbit weigh zero tons. Early in the Space Age the Soviets and the US put objects in orbit with masses of several tens of tons [for example, R-7 cores and Atlas main stages]. You're confused by only measuring payload mass. And nobody had a reliable way of estimating mass just by observing from a distance.

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 satellite

Did the tiny dot carry a neon sign with its name on it?

That's one YUGE "space blanket" ... or they were SO close they could've taken MUCH Better photos.

Who ever said the earlier claims had anything to do with the STS-88 blanket?

Why are there NO 'other' photos of this infamous 'satellite'?

Probably bcause it was never there?

Donald Keyhoe even said there were two artificial satellites orbiting earth at the time

True, he said that.

Why can't the ISS get some ''decent footage'' of the thing ?

Maybe because it's not there?

Hmmm? WHY is it that they're NOT in The Position to 'see' it --- or ANY other 'surveillance satellite" can take HighRes photos of it?

This is a fairly typical excuse -- the absence of evidence for something is PROOF the something exists because the coverup is so effective.

They CAN .. have, just not for 'us useless eaters' (you're included JO) to see.

That's your theory. Show us proof.

Also explain why amateur satellite watchers around the world have never seen such an object? See www.satobs.org

I won't be holding my breath for a reply Jimmy

You can finally breathe now.

No 1950s 'alien satellites'

a reply to: JimOberg

seems I Hit a Nerve jimmy for you to put ALL that effort into 'dissecting' my post

btw, I'll "dissect" your's later, when I have the time, but for now'

Like I said


"I won't be holding my breath for a reply Jimmy"

and YET you reply!!!



"You can finally breathe now."


do you 'know' what the word won't means jimmy? If so, why did YOU make that comment? lol

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
a reply to: oldcarpy

mate, if I'm wrong or 'mistaken' I'm happy to be proven so! Otherwise I'll continue to be so!

And I don't want to mislead Or lie and IF I am found to be, odds on it's due to my incompetence, not malice

Honesty and the Truth are Very important to me, and (for me at least) admitting I was 'wrong' is NBD coz

It's The Truth and "the Truth is True, it doesn't nor cannot change' " and imma BIG fan of The Truth

IF we were all honest with each other, this world would be a LOT better, alas sh#t like Farceberk teaches people how to LIE with their "Philters" etc ... and in the "financial world" ,, you'd better Lie or nobody will do business with you! How FUBAR is that!?

and "half truths Are Whole Lies", that's why in court they make you swear to tell The Whole Truth, "half truths" are aka "lying by omission" e.g.
"Hey man, I saw your GF down the shops today, we had a coffee and shot the breeze" (and then we went and had a quickie) "she's a great girl, you're a lucky guy" (lmao inside!)

nonetheless, thanks for the reply, it's appreciated .... now, MORE BEER!

That's all very nice I'm sure but it has nothing to do with the Black Knight..

The Black Knight is still a load of old tosh cobbled together to try to make it seem an actual thing, which it isn't.

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
a reply to: JimOberg

seems I Hit a Nerve jimmy for you to put ALL that effort into 'dissecting' my post

btw, I'll "dissect" your's later, when I have the time, but for now'

Like I said


"I won't be holding my breath for a reply Jimmy"

and YET you reply!!!



"You can finally breathe now."


do you 'know' what the word won't means jimmy? If so, why did YOU make that comment? lol

+ you posting this further up the page is just laughable

mate, if I'm wrong or 'mistaken' I'm happy to be proven so! Otherwise I'll continue to be so!

yet you continue being so after being given so much to look over.

And I don't want to mislead Or lie and IF I am found to be, odds on it's due to my incompetence, not malice

how much time have you spent on reading about this from a skeptical point of view?

It seems like none.

give it a try if anything you post is sincere

a reply to: InhaleExhale

how much time have you spent on reading about this from a skeptical point of view?

a LOT more than you have even had the chance to

It seems like none.

"it seems like" --- show me some EVIDENCE to support your "seems like" OR keep your pathetic attempts at rhetoric to yourself --- you say they are in my other post ....

c'mon bring it ... like jimmy, lots of Words, NO "meaning" or information of ANY value

why am I not surprised when the BEST you've got is a "logical fallacy" called 'argumentum ad hominem"

attack THE FACTS not the writer





what does that actually mean?

More LaPaz explicit denial:

a reply to: JohnnyJetson

"it seems like" --- show me some EVIDENCE to support your "seems like" OR keep your pathetic attempts at rhetoric to yourself --- you say they are in my other post ....

So you want me to quote the exact same things that Jim did?

The evidence has been shown, the examples of how attentive you are are right in this thread.

Your posts in this thread are the evidence you want me to post.

attack THE FACTS not the writer

Have I attacked you by asking you a question?

I'm sorry that your attentiveness is so lacking and your interpretation of a question is answered by your assumptions yet your posts show that you have not looked at any skeptical point of view but maybe viewed hours of idiotic youtube.

Good for you

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
a reply to: InhaleExhale

how much time have you spent on reading about this from a skeptical point of view?

a LOT more than you have even had the chance to

It seems like none.

"it seems like" --- show me some EVIDENCE to support your "seems like" OR keep your pathetic attempts at rhetoric to yourself --- you say they are in my other post ....

c'mon bring it ... like jimmy, lots of Words, NO "meaning" or information of ANY value

why am I not surprised when the BEST you've got is a "logical fallacy" called 'argumentum ad hominem"

attack THE FACTS not the writer





what does that actually mean?

That's pretty ironic as you have been given plenty of facts and information but it is you that is failing to address any of that sensibly or at all.

a reply to: oldcarpy

That's pretty ironic as you have been given plenty of facts and information but it is you that is failing to address any of that sensibly or at all.

Psychological Projection much? Here's a link as I doubt you even know what it means

en.wikipedia.org... Much? It's textbook projection e.g.

How many times have You "shifted the goalposts" while NOT actually ging ANY 'answers' to My questions?

EVERY single time You post you DO!

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting

good to know who's a Fool and who to Ignore, thanks for that

but those who have No Other 'option' (not smart enough) but to use "ad hominem attacks" have already shown they have NOthing worth saying in the first place

I bet you aren't "worried about 'losing' your privacy",, as kids like you have nothing to hide ... what's to hide when ALL you DO is play video games and peruse Snapchat ... not much. How long have you had a Farcebook account? Why do you have one?

Coz "everyone else does" =>FOMO. lol do you have a paid job? Y'know that "Idle hands are the devil's own"

With the same "reasoning" I'd bet you aren't worried about your "freedom of speech being restricted" becoz you have Nothing to say!