The Black Knight???

Originally posted by FireMoon

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Interesting Jim. So are you stating that you think the black knight was one of ours? If so, then I can tell you the pictures of the object(s) are reeeeally interesting...and look nothing like any satellites I've ever seen.

edit on 8-11-2012 by AutOmatIc because: spelling

Somebody is conning you, and no, I don't think it's ME. Those photographs were taken by Jerry Ross and Jim Newman on STS-88 of a tool bag accidentally dropped overboard during a spacewalk on the very first ISS assembly mission. NASA's never made any secret of that, as I recall it was shown in real time over public-access 'NASA TV'.


Why is it so easy for fable-makers to misrepresent and falsify ordinary space events, to thrill their target audience? And how smart do you think the fable-makers believe their targets are, if they expect them to fall for such clumsy hoaxes? Look in the mirror long and hard, please.

Wow time travelling tool bags I am well impressed STS-126, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost a briefcase-sized tool bag in one of the mission's EVAs

Photo of toolbag

edit on 8-11-2012 by FireMoon because: To add information

I'm not following you. The published photos are from 1998, who is saying they show anything at a different date?

reply to post by FireMoon


Ah, those damn time travelling tool bags. How many times have I been under the bonnet of my car, turn round to get my 1/2" spanner, and the whole bag has travelled back to 1968.

Really, I dont think that look like any of the photos from any time period we have discussed (unless its a morphing, shapeshifting, timetravelling tool bag)

Heres the astronaut on STS126 dropping their tool bag (what a fumble! And you sent this person on a space walk?!- its like shes trying to get her car keys out of her handbag!)

www.youtube.com...

But I really cannot see how this could be mistaken for anything other than what it was, and certainly not anything like the photos taken by STS88.

Its funny, but when you Google ' 'STS88' and 'lost toolbag' or 'toolbag' or 'STS88 Newman toolbag', you get nothing, and considering the STS126 incident got huge media coverage (ad nauseum- they even tracked the damn thing and photographed it orbit!), you would have thought that something so significant as to produce the STS88 photographs would have been widely covered- or at least one entry in the most commonly used search engine?

We do however find this: "Problem areas/unexpected events: When the Unity-Zarya fittings would not align properly, it was necessary for the robot arm to loosely grapple Zarya. In addition, several construction items (slidewire carrier, worksite interface socket, retractable tether, trunnion pin cover) floated away from the orbiter"
Source: www.astronautix.com...

Or this: " On the last EVA a canvas tool bag was attached to the exterior of Unity to provide tools for future station assembly workers. Docking cables were disconnected to prevent Unity and Zarya from inadvertently undocking."

No mention of loosing a tool bag- must have been a quite large one too by the looks of those photos.

Originally posted by Thunda
No mention of loosing a tool bag- must have been a quite large one too by the looks of those photos.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Thunda because: grammar

Or it could have been a mid-sized brainfart on my part, since the object floating away and photographed on STS-88 may have been that crumpled shroud, and I got confused by all the time-travel talk. Thanks for double-checking me, and please, make a habit of doing this in the future -- for everybody.

ADD:
In my earlier message linking to contemporary Sat-Obs network postings, the phrase
"two tools and a thermal cover got away from Ross and floated away" appears --
but you're right, most of the comments described the thingie as 'worksite debris', which
really is no physical description at all. But most definitely NOT a 'tool bag'. My bad.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many more goes do you want Jim?; we're on your third explanation and we've already had you quoting a conversation that obviously never happened.

reply to post by FireMoon


Do you think The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is paying Jim a salary, or would it be an hourly wage kept track of by a counter tracking his internet site usage?

Or maybe he is getting it under the table from NASA?

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for your reply Jim! But You still didn't answer my original question "So are you stating that you think the black knight was one of ours?" which I based from your post here:

But we have established that there WERE manmade polar orbit satellites in orbit in 1959-1960, contrary to recent assertions by some non-thorough investigators who proclaimed there were NOT any. Good work.

Just curious as to your opinion mate, thanks! Cheers!

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Thanks for your reply Jim! But You still didn't answer my original question "So are you stating that you think the black knight was one of ours?" which I based from your post here:

But we have established that there WERE manmade polar orbit satellites in orbit in 1959-1960, contrary to recent assertions by some non-thorough investigators who proclaimed there were NOT any. Good work.

Just curious as to your opinion mate, thanks! Cheers!

Your question pushes the dubious proposition that there WAS "the Black Knight satellite". That is only a supposition, based on a collection of reports of various-sounding lights, orbiting objects, and other miscellaneous material, force-fit into ONE hypothetical cause that has the un-disprovable nature that since it's an alien spacecraft, it can DO and LOOK LIKE anything.

Let's try moving from observation to hypothesis, and not the other way around.

I suggest it is likely that many of the 'unknown satellite' reports are based on Discoverer-related objects. That thesis gets some boost from the fact, seen in posts here, that many early proponents of the 'Black Knight' hypothesis DENIED there could be ANY US-launched polar orbiting satellites in that time period, a claim that by consensus has now been discarded.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Yes Jim, cos as anyone with half an eye for the politics of it all will notice how you let one of your flunkys decide what it actually is and then half sort of agreed with them whilst never quite totally committing yourself or stating from the outset that NASA had spent over $5000 of tax payer's bucks launching something they didn't want. For months,, you studiously avoided making any sort of commitment as to what the object was on this forum, in fact you blind sided and went off on any number of tangents when asked directly. Then, your flunky comes along with some "possible" reason and you piggy backed it. Well here we are again, you not actually stating it yourself, seemingly desperate for someone else to say it for you.

edit on 6-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

Have I missed something? Seemed a little early for such an escalation in vitriol?

Fascinating thread topic though. Spooky space ghost ships. Fertile grounds for... fertile imaginations. I'm intrigued.

Originally posted by subjectzero
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Who are you that you think you can be so nasty to other people here?
...
You're sick.

I think it was a fair criticism, harshly delivered perhaps, meant to urge you to think for yourself more constructively. Consider the implications of accepting those ideas as true... it means you are commiting to a reality where Carl Sagan was lying about or hiding something pretty massive, in direct opposition to the integrity and intelligence he was known for. It is a little too easy for significant deceased personages to be used in someone's fantasy, but it is really immoral, especially when nothing at all can be used to back up the slander. And that's what it does amount to. In the name of telling an interesting story. It's not right.
If it was in anyway true, there would be some detail to check and connect him to those events - but really, the story was pretty high on exciting speculation but low on any verifiable facts. Don't get too upset about it.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Yes Jim, cos as anyone with half an eye for the politics of it all will notice how you let one of your flunkys decide what it actually is and then half sort of agreed with them whilst never quite totally committing yourself or stating from the outset that NASA had spent over $5000 of tax payer's bucks launching something they didn't want. For months,, you studiously avoided making any sort of commitment as to what the object was on this forum, in fact you blind sided and went off on any number of tangents when asked directly. Then, your flunky comes along with some "possible" reason and you piggy backed it. Well here we are again, you not actually stating it yourself, seemingly desperate for someone else to say it for you.

edit on 6-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

Have I missed something? Seemed a little early for such an escalation in vitriol?

Fascinating thread topic though. Spooky space ghost ships. Fertile grounds for... fertile imaginations. I'm intrigued.

I think Firemoon was just a little frustrated with Mr Oberg, as he does indeed have 'form'. Not just 'imaginations' at work here either........

Originally posted by Thunda


I think Firemoon was just a little frustrated with Mr Oberg, as he does indeed have 'form'. Not just 'imaginations' at work here either........

Yeah I know, some real intrigue exists, I wasn't denigrating anyone, it does make for great sci-fi lovecraftian story material though.
Been shuttling back and forth to the OTHER threads on this.
I think it's safe to say that everyone agrees by now the STS88 photos are just stuff that got away from the astronauts though?
And yes, I see Mr Oberg does have a certain 'style'. I like it though. He just wants to encourage 'the kids' to think for themselves.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by Thunda


I think Firemoon was just a little frustrated with Mr Oberg, as he does indeed have 'form'. Not just 'imaginations' at work here either........

Yeah I know, some real intrigue exists, I wasn't denigrating anyone, it does make for great sci-fi lovecraftian story material though.
Been shuttling back and forth to the OTHER threads on this.
I think it's safe to say that everyone agrees by now the STS88 photos are just stuff that got away from the astronauts though?
And yes, I see Mr Oberg does have a certain 'style'. I like it though. He just wants to encourage 'the kids' to think for themselves.

edit on 14-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

No, what we have here is, a person who normally can't wait to weigh in and "put people right" about so called UFOs and Shuttle missions, prevaricating, changing their mind and making up conversations that didn't happen then trying to excuse them self from their errors by citing some specious whibble about "people learning for themselves".

Meanwhile, as much as people search for it so far, no-one can find hide nor tail of any sizeable "space junk". that fits the description in any history, list, or catalogue of said detritus

Style? His "style" is deliberate intimidation, which smacks of Big "G".

There is constructive criticism and then there is being a complete dick.

Originally posted by subjectzero
Style? His "style" is deliberate intimidation, which smacks of Big "G".

There is constructive criticism and then there is being a complete dick.

Yes subjectzero. There is a big difference between those two things. Do you think that your comment above is constructive?

The best way of preventing a discussion turning into a dirt slinging match, is not to resort to it. Just FYI.

reply to post by TrueBrit

Yes, I know.

Originally posted by FireMoon
....Meanwhile, as much as people search for it so far, no-one can find hide nor tail of any sizeable "space junk". that fits the description in any history, list, or catalogue of said detritus

edit on 14-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

Which 'description'? There really is a grab-bag of visual reports and rumors that have been force-fit into ONE object that doesn't [and I agree here] behave like an artificial satellite of the dawn of the Space Age.

People were watching the skies, for everything from Soviet bombers to artificial satellites to flying saucers. and they saw LOTS of stuff.

The reports from the guy at the Adler Planetarium are really interesting, in their repeatability and consistency. Has anybody contacted them to ask if the observer in hindsight wrote up any assessment based on newer findings? That would be a reasonably easy thing to ask about. Volunteers?

Interpreting his raw reports as being caused by something in space is problematicaL, however. First, Chicago then and even more now is not a good base of observation of celestial objects. Anything bright enough to be seen through the urban sky would be much brighter and more noticeable a hundred miles outside the city. A satellite would cover that distance in 20 seconds. Do we have any evidence that anybody else, ever, observed and reported objects that coincided in time and motion with the observations reported by the astronomer?. Even once? A survey of on-line NICAP reports might yield insight, either confirmatory or -- otherwise. Volunteers?

Assessing eyewitness reports of an orbiting object also has to rest on familiarity with what orbiting objects generally look like. Has anybody commenting on the importance of these observations been also personally watching dusk/dawn satellite overflights on a regular basis, so you have that familiarity? Or is your imagination and your preconceptions adequate, in your view, to compare?

Figuring out these kinds of stories does require familiarity with context and background of the purported phenomena, I would argue, and the problem isn''t just that enthusiastic contributors hereabouts really know so little real stuff about spaceflight -- it's that they DO 'know' a lot of stuff about spaceflight, and it's often wrong.

"No American polar orbit satellites existed in that time period" is probably the biggest local example of that.

That problem is a fact, and there are arguable consequences of it. Time spent on dead ends and wild goose chases is wasted energy and brainpower. And personal investment in misconception-based interpretations often builds a resistence to considering alternatives that would require admission, to oneself and to associates, that the first views were off-target. That's hard for humans to do, as a rule -- hard for ALL of us. So we need practice at it.

This ma be an opportunity for that.

Let's dig into some of these stories further, and in more detail, and see what shows up.

Originally posted by FireMoon

No, what we have here is, a person who normally can't wait to weigh in and "put people right" about so called UFOs and Shuttle missions, prevaricating, changing their mind and making up conversations that didn't happen then trying to excuse them self from their errors by citing some specious whibble about "people learning for themselves".

Meanwhile, as much as people search for it so far, no-one can find hide nor tail of any sizeable "space junk". that fits the description in any history, list, or catalogue of said detritus

edit on 14-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

Okay, well that's shoddy if it's true, I'll wait and see then.
Obviously he has a huge prejudice to being more skeptical but that in itself is not wrong and should not get one accused of G-man motives, it's a totally valid life choice. Not being a dick about it is an important thing, but people have moods. But I'll defer to the larger experience here, till I have some context of my own...

Wasn't a large cover and various other things documented in the logs as falling off? And they took photos of it? So the event was logged and recorded 'live' as it happened?

Are space-junk catalogues completely exhaustive, meaning if they haven't catalogued it it can't exist?

I'm not sure what the fate of a piece of fabric would be in near earth orbit, it would make an interesting experiment.

Anyway I thought the bulk of the black knight stories were based on earlier events, the photos of things floating away from the spacewalk were added later, but if they documented it in the logs as it happened (I haven't seen the transcripts though, but it seemed a fairly straight-forward event), then it can be subtracted from the overall story without it really 'losing' anything, the bulk of it is still there.

One thing I am puzzled over is the talk of morphing capabilites, seemingly accepted as a fact of its characteristics. When and where was this morphing observed?

Originally posted by FireMoon
..Meanwhile, as much as people search for it so far, no-one can find hide nor tail of any sizeable "space junk". that fits the description in any history, list, or catalogue of said detritus

Are you referring to the 'morphing' thingie in the 1998 NASA photos?

If so, please look at the SATOBS links that i have posted twice to see a real-time description of the object's origin and departure from the ISS.

If something else, please provide more specifics.

Bump to the top for addition to discussion....