The Black Knight Satellite

reply to post by zazzafrazz

Wasn't 1954 never 'confirmed'?

Not just not confirmed.
select.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Phage


And that is the controversy then,
to believe him or not to believe him.

Ok, now I am caught up

reply to post by eriktheawful


Thank you :-) (I did know the answer, it was a test)

Which means that if something was tracked in '54 there is a possibility - and a high one - that it wasn't "ours".

reply to post by Darkblade71

Well. A bit more than that.

Assuming that two objects actually were found, you still have to connect them to the Discoverer 5 sighting and the STS-88 debris.

i can remember reading on the net years ago that some object came out from behind the sun in the 50s and then went back cannot remember where i read that but maybe somebody here remembers maybe in nexus ?

1) 1954-maybe something was tracked

2) polar orbit for BK

3) op image equatorial orbit, cant be BK

Is this the summary?

reply to post by zazzafrazz

1.
a. Maybe. No information on orbit of alleged (and denied) something.

2.
a. Polar orbit for Discoverer 5 vehicle

3.
a. OP image of discards from STS-88 EVA.

The STS pics and the scientist issue are something of a red herring.

I'm not suggesting people are being deliberately disingenuous, because they aren't. Its all valid info BUT it was Keyhoe that came up with this was it not?

As a military man, surely he would not have made the claim without more substance?

My two favourite geeks Nef and Phage, keep debating between you, I'll get popcorn. Dreamy~

reply to post by Phage


AH, and that is the conspiracy part, that NASA lies.

I see.

I don't know why they would really, they have released a lot of video of strange things, that I don't know they even know the answers to, I guess we all kind of wonder sometimes. They do try to give the best explanations they can though, or so I believe.

Sometimes I think they are just better off saying well, we think it is this, but we are unsure, instead of IT IS this.

1954 though, that was military?

The military does lie, so I can understand the suspicion.
They kind of have to though because we can't let those who would be our enemies know what we are up to, especially back then. Maybe even more so today.

reply to post by Gazrok


Thought it would be cool to see it from different angles and inverted.

:-D hard to make something out of this mix of potentially connected informations/statements.

But what attracts my attention, is the "design" of the object pictured on STS088.
The remarkable lack of chaotic surface-structures makes any natural origin highly questionable and requiring for a seriously creative explaination.
The analogies to any publicised craft- or payload-designs seem ... rather few. As it is, the object seems to have a fairly individual center of gravity, something the average rocket decisively hates.
Any explosive disruption or deformation of a more economic payload should have left some kind of jagged (chaotic) edges or structures, none of which are evident in the given image.

The flow of light and shadow on the object suggests some kind of rounded surface, but without any frame of reference to the real size of the thing. Thus it could be a (fragment of a) tool, lost by an astronaut/kosmonaut or any piece of shrinky hardware.
But, the richness of detail in the structure at least begs to interpret the object as being not too tiny.

Leaves not too many easy alternatives ...

Isn't military technology estimated to be 50 or 60 years ahead of that of the general public?
Should that be the case, then the Black Knight satellite was inadvertently discovered right on schedule.

The "Black Knight" mystery is a good story, but appears to be just that. A story. That photo is debris from a satellite. Ic the photo was of the "Black Knight", why would they allow the photo to remain public?

reply to post by Cynicaleye


It makes for a more believable story.
Besides, it looks a little like the Roswell weather balloon don't you think?

How "big" is this satellite suppose to be?

reply to post by Gazrok


Maybe it is an artefact from a previous age of man..

reply to post by neformore

As a military man, surely he would not have made the claim without more substance?

Ex-military, he had retired from the Army 30 years before the "sightings" of the satellites. After retiring, Keyhoe became a pulp fiction writer.


It wouldn't be the first time that Keyhoe (a strong proponent of the ET hypothesis) had embellished a tale...and more. He claimed that the Secretary of the Air Force, Harold Talbott, had seen a flying saucer. Something that Talbott denied. www.roswellproof.com...

Besides gettting the date wrong about a 1952 sighting Keyhoe quotes the Secretary of the Navy, Dan Kimball. Kimball was on the flight but was not a first hand witness. According to Keyhoe, the pilot told Kimball:

The objects circled us twice and then took off, heading east.

www.nicap.org...

However Kimball apparently told a different story to an audience of officers and cadets:

the pilot came back to the cabin visibly excited and reported that a flying saucer had appeared out of nowhere, had flown abeam the secretary’s plane for some distance, and had just raced ahead and shot up into the sky and out of sight.

www.nicap.org...
No mention of the pilot saying anything about "circling".

Originally posted by DerUtho
:-D hard to make something out of this mix of potentially connected informations/statements.

But what attracts my attention, is the "design" of the object pictured on STS088.
The remarkable lack of chaotic surface-structures makes any natural origin highly questionable and requiring for a seriously creative explaination.
The analogies to any publicised craft- or payload-designs seem ... rather few. As it is, the object seems to have a fairly individual center of gravity, something the average rocket decisively hates.
Any explosive disruption or deformation of a more economic payload should have left some kind of jagged (chaotic) edges or structures, none of which are evident in the given image.

The flow of light and shadow on the object suggests some kind of rounded surface, but without any frame of reference to the real size of the thing. Thus it could be a (fragment of a) tool, lost by an astronaut/kosmonaut or any piece of shrinky hardware.
But, the richness of detail in the structure at least begs to interpret the object as being not too tiny.

Leaves not too many easy alternatives ...

I know this may seem like cheating to some folks hereabouts, but I asked one of the spacewalkers on that mission, an old friend and colleague.

He just replied: "I think this may be the Node 1 trunnion pin thermal cover that was lost on the second EVA."

I'll pursue this with the STS-88 Scene List, a standard NASA document of descriptions of all downlinked video from every mission.

Hope this helps.

The Real Black Knight.

homepage.powerup.com.au...

www.britishpathe.com...

www.youtube.com...

We were launching rockets before Nasa even started, and with No stolen Nazis!!