Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Black Knight Satellite

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    14

    Black Knight Satellite

    I've been reading a little about the black knight satellite which is a supposed ancient probe orbiting earth and was first detected in the 1920's.

    A lot of the information relating to it can be found below along with possible photos of the craft taken by NASA.

    http://www.alienscientist.com/forum/...d-it-come-from

    Has anyone got a proper explanation for the story and a proper identification of the object in the pictures as I find the notion of an alien probe to be a little far fetched & suspect the pictures actually show some kind of man made satellite.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    Has anyone got a proper explanation for the story and a proper identification of the object...
    The alien scientist forum is full of hot air, and that hot air cause it to rise, giving the appearence of flight?


    Seriously, though...consider the source...it is a "woo" site, and they are simply not credible.

    As far as the images...don't have a clue what it is, but describing it as a satellite is a bit of a stretch...with the clouds and all...

    Added....and it looks like one of the images is presented upside down.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    After a quick google search, I see that the term "black knight satellite" may very well refer to different "things"...for instance one entry is for an actual project that was cancelled before it ever flew.

    However, the entries referring alien space probes orbiting the Earth are ALL from "Woo" sites.


    If it walks like a duck...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    14
    There are lots of other websites with pictures of this thing - some of which have links to the actual pictures on NASA's website so they are real pictures. I don't believe the crazy stories on these websites but I'm mainly interested in identifying the object in the pictures.
    After studying them a while I think they show a small object fairly close rather than a large object far away - it could be space junk or something an astronaut on a space walk dropped maybe?
    Anyone else got an idea what the pictures actually show?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    There are lots of other websites with pictures of this thing - some of which have links to the actual pictures on NASA's website so they are real pictures.
    Please provide those NASA links, so that we may investigate those images, here.


    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,098
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    I've been reading a little about the black knight satellite which is a supposed ancient probe orbiting earth and was first detected in the 1920's.
    If it was allegedly detectable in the 1920s then why wouldn't it have become universally well known by now with so many radio hams and amateur astronomers in possession of ever better equipment? For that matter why wouldn't it have been scooped up by the USA or USSR space programs at some point?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,455
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    There are lots of other websites with pictures of this thing - some of which have links to the actual pictures on NASA's website so they are real pictures. I don't believe the crazy stories on these websites but I'm mainly interested in identifying the object in the pictures.
    Share the links and I'm sure you'll get lots of opinions.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    ...it could be space junk or something an astronaut on a space walk dropped maybe?
    In the clouds?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,840
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    There are lots of other websites with pictures of this thing - some of which have links to the actual pictures on NASA's website so they are real pictures.
    Maybe they are, but is there any reason to believe they're all the same thing?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    In the clouds?
    I see now that the images were cropped in such a way that the object appeared to be in the clouds...therefore I retract my last post.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,550
    Didn't we have a Black Knight thread just late last year? Ah well, maybe not. Anyway, I'll second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) a request for some (preferably good) images form NASA allegedly showing this supposed alien artefact.
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,563
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    After studying them a while I think they show a small object fairly close rather than a large object far away - it could be space junk or something an astronaut on a space walk dropped maybe?
    Anyone else got an idea what the pictures actually show?
    I agree. I think they are probably small objects close by. I suspect they are things like tiles from the shuttle or stuff that came off when the shuttle separates from the fuel talk or something of that sort.

    For others, here is one link: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images...8-724-66_3.JPG
    As above, so below

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by psyman View Post
    Has anyone got a proper explanation for the story and a proper identification of the object in the pictures as I find the notion of an alien probe to be a little far fetched & suspect the pictures actually show some kind of man made satellite.
    I looked at the site you linked to . . . it seemed like they were putting everything including the kitchen sink together to make a story.

    The first line in the first post kind of tells you where this is going:


    This fact...that in the early days of the space race there was a Satellite orbiting in a Geosynchronous Polar Orbit that was NOT Russian or USA made. The satellite was tracked and got the name know has, "Dark Knight".
    Polar orbits aren't geosynchronous.

    Then there's a link to this:

    https://forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/57

    Which says:

    It is a mysterious satellite, of unknown origin, discovered in 1960 which shadowed Sputnik.
    But a little later it quotes another source that says:

    "In February 1960 the US detected an unknown object in polar orbit, a feat that neither they or the USSR had been able to accomplish.
    So, not shadowing Sputnik, apparently.

    The article also says:

    It is believed to have been of extraterrestrial origin, and signaled back old radio waves from the 1920s and 1930s before it disappeared. In short wave patterns analyzed by astronomer Duncan Lunan, it revealed its origin as Epsilon Boötes (or the star system as it was 13,000 years ago).
    I thought Duncan Lunan was a science fiction writer. And I remember a highly speculative article by him in about Epsilon Boötes a long time ago. I don't recall anything about this 1960 thing. Here's Wikipedia's article on him:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Lunan

    And, yep, they mention the Epsilon Boötes thing and that he writes about astronomy. It does look like he has great interest in astronomy, and he may be an excellent amateur astronomer, but he doesn't appear to have a professional astronomy degree. Anyway, it appears this web page article is just throwing him in a mixer to add to the "Dark Knight" story. As another example, it also says that Gordon Cooper Saw Something, which is also supposed to be relevant somehow.

    Back to the board thread that linked to this, there's a picture of Jupiter with what appears to be something photoshopped in (and in any case is unreferenced). Then they have some pictures of what may be real space junk. But that's nothing new or surprising, and there are no references so you can verify the space junk images, so they're useless.

    That's where I gave up.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2013-Jan-23 at 07:12 AM. Reason: typo

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Then they have some pictures of what may be real space junk. But that's nothing new or surprising, and there are no references so you can verify the space junk images, so they're useless.

    That's where I gave up.
    Yeah...with no references, it makes it very difficult to say what it is...or even if we are looking at a single object from different angles, or multiple objects.

    Unless we get some actual information from say NASA about what it might be, there is really no way to investigate this.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I agree. I think they are probably small objects close by. I suspect they are things like tiles from the shuttle or stuff that came off when the shuttle separates from the fuel talk or something of that sort.

    For others, here is one link: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images...8-724-66_3.JPG
    Okay, they all appear to be space junk images from STS-88. Google sts088-724-65, sts088-724-66, sts088-724-67, sts088-724-68.

    I didn't notice any links at the site. Oh, well.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Polar orbits aren't geosynchronous.
    I thought so too, but according to Wikipedia they can be.

    In any case, though, it would have to be a pretty nifty satellite to shadow Sputnik and then make a hard turn to the left and go into polar orbit!

    I saw another site where it said it was orbiting at "twice the speed" or normal satellites, somehow appearing to make it seem there was something special about that. And indeed it would: you'd have to have an engine constantly thrusting it downward to keep it in the orbit!

    It's all pretty silly.
    As above, so below

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Okay, they all appear to be space junk images from STS-88. Google sts088-724-65, sts088-724-66, sts088-724-67, sts088-724-68.

    I didn't notice any links at the site. Oh, well.


    Bravo. Nicely done...

    Another "mystery" solved.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I thought so too, but according to Wikipedia they can be.
    Reference?

    You can have a geosynchronous orbit with a spacecraft that can wander up and down quite a bit, but wouldn't be in a polar orbit. (And to be naked eye visible from Earth's surface, it would have to be quite bright). You can have a highly elliptical orbit that spends quite a bit of time over a pole, but not geosynchronous. And if you have a powered spacecraft, it could hover over a pole (a statite), but that isn't what they were talking about either.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Reference?
    Well I know it's not much of a reference, but here is where I saw it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit

    It says that if the orbit is geosynchronous, the satellite will always pass above the same point on the equator during each orbit.
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Okay, they all appear to be space junk images from STS-88. Google sts088-724-65, sts088-724-66, sts088-724-67, sts088-724-68.

    I didn't notice any links at the site. Oh, well.
    Also add sts088-724-69 and 70.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Bravo. Nicely done...

    Another "mystery" solved.
    Thanks. I did a little more searching, and it looks like we've discussed the STS-88 space junk a bit here before, and it comes up on UFO boards. I'm seeing a comment that it was some thermal blanket material that got loose, but haven't yet found an official verification. But I'm happy with "space junk." (This was the first flight to the ISS, with the first U.S. module to be attached. Lots of opportunity for space junk.)

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    "In February 1960 the US detected an unknown object in polar orbit..."
    That at least is true.

    However, the object was rapidly identified as the recovery capsule from the US satellite Discoverer 5, which in August 1959 fired its retro rocket in the wrong direction and entered a higher orbit as a result.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Well I know it's not much of a reference, but here is where I saw it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit

    It says that if the orbit is geosynchronous, the satellite will always pass above the same point on the equator during each orbit.
    You may both be confusing geosynchronous with geostationary.

    Anyway, I'd like to see ANY credible links to this topic.
    Linking to a forum where people mention things 3rd hand with no links does not help.
    Nor does linking a bunch of valid pictures with valid anomolies help, especially if you're thinking it's the same anomoly.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    982
    A polar geosynch orbit will be much higher than the shuttle can reach, so those pictures from sts-88 can't be of an object in such an orbit.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,455
    All geostationary orbits are geosynchronous, but not all geosynchronous orbits are geostationary. Geosynchronous orbits are simply those whose period is harmonically related to some property of the principal, typically its own rotation rate. If you simplify Earth's rotation to exactly 24 hours, a satellite in an eccentric 8-hour orbit will still be geosynchronous. It will repeat the same metastable ground track indefinitely. A geostationary orbit has an inclination of zero and a period equal its primary's rotation rate, hence it remains at a fixed position in the sky as seen from Earth. There are a few satellites with non-zero inclinations but a 24-hour period. They are constantly visible in the sky, but wobble up and down their celestial longitude line.

    It's worth mentioning that a 24-hour circular polar orbit around Earth provides for two equator point overflights per rev, not just one as was insinuated. One on the ascending node and another on the descending node, 12 hours apart.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I thought so too, but according to Wikipedia they can be.
    .
    Geosynchronous and geostationary are not one and the same. SDO is an inclined orbit, it's geosynchronous. technically - you could have geosynchronous at inclinations over 90 degrees.

    As for the subject in hand - the first image ( black thing by jupiter ) is clearly a work of photoshop fiction. The others show debris in low earth orbit - not geostationary. It's a complete fabrication.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,829
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    If you simplify Earth's rotation to exactly 24 hours, a satellite in an eccentric 8-hour orbit will still be geosynchronous. It will repeat the same metastable ground track indefinitely.
    Ah, okay. I wasn't considering that type of orbit.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Similar Threads

  1. The Dark Knight Rises
    By AKONI in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2012-May-25, 04:08 AM
  2. Charles R. Knight...
    By gzhpcu in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2009-May-25, 03:47 PM
  3. The Dark Knight (SPOILERS)
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-11, 11:07 PM
  4. Knight's Templar
    By tomsolomon in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2008-May-26, 12:22 PM
  5. Knight's Templar
    By tomsolomon in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-May-24, 09:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: