It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oumuamua "not an alien spaceship", researchers conclude

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

It never said that either.

It said there is no reason to consider an alien craft.




posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: luthier

They have plenty of explanations if you actually read the thing. It was never intended to disprove Loeb's "theory". It is what it is.


Ok name a few and compare why you find them more compelling than the paper loeb wrote which discredited several natural phenomenon.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Actually they NEVER said it was NOT a spaceship what they concluded (Agreed among themselves) was that it was PROBABLY not an alien spaceship.

You see they can not prove it either way and if they had said it probably was an alien space ship they would have been laughed at and derided for generations to come by those that believe it can not be and they have there careers and reputation's to think of, as they can not prove it either way probably therefore best to err on the side of caution and point out it was probably not.

Damned funny shaped rock that is unlikely to have formed like that naturally or had it's rotation imparted onto it much later after it originally formed else that centrifugal force would have broken it into two pieces long ago, during it's formation in fact.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I agree.

There's nothing definitive about "probably", and yet the thread title implies it's conclusive.

Sad that we destroy what we fear, and dismiss what we can't confirm...

ETA: Who knows.. could just be a cover up.

*Disclaimer: This is a conspiracy website. All opinions expressed are appropriate.


This reply of yours, dear friend, just screams "I will believe it's aliens no matter what!" Look at you reason yourself into dismissing the conclusions of the study because it didn't say what you want it to. THEN, you go on and imply that the researchers are dismissing the possibility of "alien spaceship!" because they are afraid.

I get it that you want to believe, but this type of "true believer" attitude/mode of thinking is part of what makes folks dismiss the "aliens!" hypothesis in the first place.


No, no, no....

You're reading into my comment too much.

Read the disclaimer.

Also, I mentioned it could just be a cover up.

That's not saying that it is.

Take it easy......sheesh.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: luthier

They have plenty of explanations if you actually read the thing. It was never intended to disprove Loeb's "theory". It is what it is.


Ok name a few and compare why you find them more compelling than the paper loeb wrote which discredited several natural phenomenon.





There is no universally accepted answer, but signs point toward 'Oumuamua being similar to solar system comets," Raymond wrote. Comet-like objects are constantly tossed out of their systems by large planets and passing stars. A full-size comet or a cometary fragment would fit with the appearance and acceleration of 'Oumuamua, according to the researchers.


Here you go. Did you actually read it?



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

I read it. There are scientists who disagree and they have no proof.

Have you read why some scientists suggest natural behavior would be a hard probability to prove?


My lord man these guys have no clue. They are a small group of scientists and used sensational headlining to say they disagree with another paper.

Did you actually read the paper? It was a data review and found the explanation does not require alien artifact as explanation. However the math creates a very low probability for an object to occur with the properties of this to be natural. That is the purpose of considering every possibility.


In my opinion this paper was a total dud. They provided no new solid evidence for anything or even any radically new suggestion of what the evidence means.

The worst part is they never say anything remotely close to the headline. And I have even read their unconvincing rebuttle to Loeb's questioning the probability of this being a natural occurence based on empirical evidence or historical record.

So I am just going to have to punt and say meh. No more convinced than I am its remnants of an artifact or an artifact.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   


The worst part is they never say anything remotely close to the headline.


Yes, but it is not their "headline", is it?

How do you expect anyone to prove that it is not an alien spaceship? They simply concluded that there was no compelling evidence to suggest it was. So what is your problem with that?

It's like me saying "I believe in flying pink unicorns - prove me wrong".



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Interesting how they ruled this out without knowing how extraterrestial craft might look and behave like.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Oumuamua "not an alien spaceship", researchers conclude


They wouldn't tell us even if it was.



posted on Jul, 3 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: KiwiNite

How many times do I have to point this out? -they did not "rule it out", they found no compelling evidence that it was. You got any?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join