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.

 

Strange "structures" on surface Asteroid 2005 YU55's

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Actual statement is this and was based on radar images.

"The animation reveals a number of puzzling structures on the surface that we don't yet understand. To date, we've seen less than one half of the surface, so we expect more surprises,'' said radar astronomer Lance Benner, the lead scientist on the project.

www.latimes.com...

In science the term "structure" is applied to any type of formation.


NASA blasted the asteroid with microwaves from a radio telescope near Barstow, using the 230-foot-wide aluminum dish to receive signals bouncing off the asteroid. That data revealed its ridges, craters and boulders and provided enough information about its speed, trajectory and physical characteristics to allow JPL officials to plot its course for the next 64 years.


edit on 11/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Might be true. Might be convenience.

So the word 'structure' takes on an exclusive meaning when it comes to science? Is that what we're supposed to know Phage because I don't recall that in college?

So in other words, under no uncertain terms can the word 'structure' ever be considered in science as:

Verb:
Construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.
Noun:
The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
Synonyms:
verb. construct - build - organize
noun. construction - building - fabric - frame - edifice



I didn't realize science had their own language. Seems kinda alien to me.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Why are we only seeing a fuzzy video from 860,000 miles away ??? It was right in our back yard , they should have amazing pics don't You think ????



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


No its just the fact that you have an over active imagination you know a bit like a young child thats all, you just want to make a mountain from a mole hill. Hoagland and his spaceships




NASA uses the words: The animation reveals a number of puzzling structures on the surface that we don't yet understand. yet I have an over active imagination??

Moving on.....................So alien space crafts don't exist? Is that what you're inferring? That in the year 2011, almost 2012, you; WMD claim that there aren't alien crafts out there?

I just need to understand which rock you reside under before I go on.
So please, clear that much up.

edit on 9-11-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rick004
Why are we only seeing a fuzzy video from 860,000 miles away ??? It was right in our back yard , they should have amazing pics don't You think ????



One would think seeing it jettison right between us and the Moon last night.

But then again, we have people out there saying we're making more out of this than need be.
So who are we to question anything anymore?


Baaaaaaaaaaaaah. Which way to the trough?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

I didn't realize science had their own language.


Science does have its own language. There's a reason for that. Colloquial English is imprecise. Science needs precision. In colloquial English, weight and mass are the same thing, while, scientifically, they're very distinct concepts with unique definitions.
Plus, I dare you to give me just one example of "Lagrangian" in everyday conversation.

Structures



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
As I read it they're talking about an oddly shaped surface,
and not about artificial structures.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 

Did you take any geology classes?

Science tends to be more specific in its use of words than laypersons.

4. biology morphology; form
5. chem the arrangement of atoms in a molecule of a chemical compound: the structure of benzene
6. geology the way in which a mineral, rock, rock mass or stratum, etc, is made up of its component parts

dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Maybe this is the Star Destroyer i ordered from Kuat

The Air Force better not scratch the paint job with their missles



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   


The animation reveals a number of puzzling structures on the surface that we don't yet understand


Wouldn't scientists know the difference between a formation and a structure and will use the appropriate word to describe such a thing ?? when scientist state the word 'puzzling' it denotes 'questionable data' which in the context of the statement .. would indicate 'not natural' .. giving the benefit of the doubt to the scientists...


Definition of FORMATION
1
: an act of giving form or shape to something or of taking form : development
2
: something that is formed
3
: the manner in which a thing is formed : structure
4
: a major kind of plant growth (as forest, grassland, or tundra) characteristic of a broad ecological region
5
a : any igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic rock represented as a unit b : any sedimentary bed or consecutive series of beds sufficiently homogeneous or distinctive to be a unit
6
: an arrangement of a body or group of persons or things in some prescribed manner or for a particular purpose
See formation defined for English-language learners »
See formation defined for kids »

Examples of FORMATION
The book explains the formation of the planets.
The soldiers were marching in formation.
The team ran on the field and lined up in a punt formation

Definition of STRUCTURE
1
: the action of building : construction
2
a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization
3
: manner of construction : makeup
4
a : the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body b : organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole c : coherent form or organization ied to give some structure to the children's lives>
5
: the aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other
— struc·ture·less adjective
— struc·ture·less·ness noun
See structure defined for English-language learners »
See structure defined for kids »

Examples of STRUCTURE

They studied the compound's molecular structure.
The film had a simple narrative structure.
the structure of a plant
the social structure of a college campus
changes to the company's power structure
The structure was damaged by fire.
Children need a lot of structure in their lives.
as opposed to children need alot of formation in their lives..


I'm going with the scientists on this one !
edit on 9-11-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by amaster
"Strange Structures" as in odd surface formations, not necessacarily "alien buildings" or intelligently manufactured alien base.


Then why not use those exact words so to not have any further debate about this?
Because as I see it: that's your opinion and your interpretation.

Surely NASA and the boys realize there was a lot of rambling about Elenin being something other than a natural meteor. So why would they use terms that are open to suggestion like that with this one JUST coming on the heels of Elenin?

Seems to me they want the ruckus, misinformation, disinformation, rumors, speculation and debates to continue. They like the conspiracy theorists diverting attention for some reason.



OR perhaps the fact that this information is only several hours old, NASA hasn't had the time to fully study and understand the geological "structure" of this object but felt a press release of preliminary findings was necessary in order to quell any would be suspicion that may be brought on in the event of their silence. However, even still, through the wild-eyed fantasies of the tin foil hat brigade, the misinterpretations of a few simple words conjures up the inevitable Alien-Manufactured-Starship-of-Doom theory, because as we all know, everything NASA says is an alien cover up.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Can anyone offer up an explanation to this please?


Yeah. No need to get all excited. I'm sure they were talking about geologic structures and not artificial buildings or anything like that. Relax. Take some deep breaths. There you go.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Can anyone offer up an explanation to this please?


Yeah. No need to get all excited. I'm sure they were talking about geologic structures and not artificial buildings or anything like that. Relax. Take some deep breaths. There you go.



You're 'sure' they're talking about geological structures because that's what you're used to them always referring to. What happens when they come across a different type of structure? Like say....an alien made structure?

Hell, we come across items here on Earth and because we only KNOW Earth-life, we assume and conclude they all originated from Humans. I don't think like that. Nor do I think like an irrational fringe-crazed person either. I happen to know we're not alone.....not in the Universe but here on Earth.

So I'm not saying this particular rock is alien like Hoagland is saying but I am wondering how they'll change their verbiage once we ALL go deeper into the rabbit hole?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by amaster
"Strange Structures" as in odd surface formations, not necessacarily "alien buildings" or intelligently manufactured alien base.


Then why not use those exact words so to not have any further debate about this?
Because as I see it: that's your opinion and your interpretation.

Surely NASA and the boys realize there was a lot of rambling about Elenin being something other than a natural meteor. So why would they use terms that are open to suggestion like that with this one JUST coming on the heels of Elenin?

Seems to me they want the ruckus, misinformation, disinformation, rumors, speculation and debates to continue. They like the conspiracy theorists diverting attention for some reason.



OR perhaps the fact that this information is only several hours old, NASA hasn't had the time to fully study and understand the geological "structure" of this object but felt a press release of preliminary findings was necessary in order to quell any would be suspicion that may be brought on in the event of their silence. However, even still, through the wild-eyed fantasies of the tin foil hat brigade, the misinterpretations of a few simple words conjures up the inevitable Alien-Manufactured-Starship-of-Doom theory, because as we all know, everything NASA says is an alien cover up.



All they'll do at that juncture is guess. How can they possibly know what's on an item that's en route traveling 30,000 mph?
They'll 'guess' and we'll 'buy'.
That's how science, well space science, works. I guess I just don't belong to that union.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Its sounds as if Dr. Benner, et al, at JPL/NASA aren't jumping to *any* conclusions about what the puzzling structures are, or are not. Ross



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Nothing in science is absolute. It's all just speculations based on observations. But it's the education and the precedence behind those speculation that make for sound judgement. Spouting off about manufactured buildings and alien bases with no solid evidence or previously discovered objects of similarity would be irresponsible and discrediting to the space science sommunity.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Nothing in science is absolute. It's all just speculations based on observations. But it's the education and the precedence behind those speculation that make for sound judgement. Spouting off about manufactured buildings and alien bases with no solid evidence or previously discovered objects of similarity would be irresponsible and discrediting to the space science sommunity.




Who said anything about alien bases? I was questioning what 'strange structures' might entail. If it's organic then what?...a ridge?.....a small hill?......a hole? I'd hardly say that was 'strange'.

On the flip side of science lays the closed and conditioned minds too. They are programmed to believe one way. The Human limited way. Much of science is laughable.
SETI is a joke.
Radio waves to detect alien life? Really? I'm sure the life-forms residing in the upper dimensions are having a good laugh at that too.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Thats just it, no one said "alien bases". They don't know what these structures are, hence the term "puzzling". If they knew, then they would have said.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
SETI is a joke.
Radio waves to detect alien life? Really? I'm sure the life-forms residing in the upper dimensions are having a good laugh at that too.

On the other hand, what are the options when the tool at hand is an array of radio telescopes?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
Thats just it, no one said "alien bases". They don't know what these structures are, hence the term "puzzling". If they knew, then they would have said.




Well tell that to the "it's only a natural structure' gang!

The words "Strange" and "Structure" and "Puzzling" is JUST WHAT IT IS (not saying this to you amaster, but collectively to the others)

It would be nice to see people on this forum to once and for all say "Gee, I don't know" rather then TRYING to appear like an Einstein spokesperson.

I think people, by nature, retract back to what's comforting to them. So if they don't know something, they seek the safest conclusion.
So those who believe and buy all that NASA has to sell us, they will conclude people like me are reading too much into it. I get it. But don't beat up on the messenger.

There will come a day when irrefutable alien evidence will be found. It's not a matter of "if'.... it's a matter of honesty.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by derpif

Originally posted by Human_Alien
SETI is a joke.
Radio waves to detect alien life? Really? I'm sure the life-forms residing in the upper dimensions are having a good laugh at that too.

On the other hand, what are the options when the tool at hand is an array of radio telescopes?



They already know remote viewing works. In fact, they USE it.

It's ethereal not technical. But 'we' don't believe in that.

We caveman, need tool. And pencil. And paper to make conclusion. No tangible? No exist. Right Jane? Right Tarzan.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join