Strange "structures" on surface Asteroid 2005 YU55's

So is this the best were gonna get a fuzzy 30 second video ???? After all the hooplah !!

reply to post by rick004


What hooplah? The only ones creating any hooplah were the people who were running scared thinking it was going to kill us all. NASA knew, and told us, exactly how visually unimpressive it would be. But, did people listen? Of course not... why would they listen to Never A Straight Answer? After all, an agency that actively denies knowledge of extraterrestrials can't possibly be trustworthy...can it?

People never learn.

Originally posted by EGH123
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Damb it James t kirk hurry up back
with those wales.
lol

Sorry spelling oversight.
Whales lol

What I mean is NASA shows us pics of stuff on the other side of the universe, yu55 was right beside us and we get a 30 second cell phone quality video !!

Well, they could have saved a whole heap of speculation by saying " there were some unusual features noted, for which we dont currently have a full explanation" but they didnt. They chose to say 'puzzling structures' which, in anybodys book, does have far different possibilties attached to it. And OP has at no time said 'alien bases', he's just wondering (as am I) what they mean by such a strange choice of wording.

reply to post by rick004


Those are two different things. NASA has dedicated telescopes for viewing objects millions of light-years away. It has no dedicated equipment for viewing near-Earth objects, because such events are rare and don't yield much useful information. When it comes to something coming this close and moving this fast, there's really only one way to image it - with what pretty much amounts to radar...which is what you see in that video.

reply to post by Thunda

Well, they could have saved a whole heap of speculation by saying " there were some unusual features noted, for which we dont currently have a full explanation" but they didnt. They chose to say 'puzzling structures' which, in anybodys book, does have far different possibilties attached to it. And OP has at no time said 'alien bases', he's just wondering (as am I) what they mean by such a strange choice of wording.

Because scientists are geeks who say things like "these striations on the rock face are suggestive of channels produced by free flowing liquid" when they mean to say: "looks like a dry crick to me, yep."

reply to post by DJW001


Nah- not buying that. It would be total scientist speak to say "features were observed"- "Puzzling structures" is a whole different thing, and even a basement dwelling science nerd knows that......

reply to post by Thunda

Nah- not buying that. It would be total scientist speak to say "features were observed"- "Puzzling structures" is a whole different thing, and even a basement dwelling science nerd knows that.

Part of the problem is that features weren't observed; they're trying to piece together some sort of coherent visible image based on what is, in effect, echolocation. The surface of an asteroid has many irregularities, with lumps, bumps, craters, cracks, craters on bumps, bumps on craters, cracks on bumps, craters on cracks on bumps... it's a bit too soon to make sense of what the surface looks like. A possible crack in a crater on a bump is, well, a structure of some kind.

reply to post by DJW001


NASA: "We can now say with certainty that the peculiar structures we observed are, in fact, bumps on lumps on humps in holes by pools of goo the Gooey ducks chew where Sue sews Sue's new socks for Fox on box while Ben and Bim battle beetles with a paddle in a bottle on a noodle-eating poodle."

Again, everything you listed there is easily, and usually described as a 'feature', unknown or otherwise. It would be an unusual use of language to describe them as 'structures'- particulary prefixing with 'puzzling'. I cannot believe that supposedly educated 'scientists' would use these terms and not be aware of how people would interpret it- even the nerds you describe.

I understand that they may not be sure what the unusual features they have seen are, but structure is not the most commonly (or correct) way to describe 'features'. See below:

struc·ture (strkchr)
n.

1. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way: hierarchical social structure.
2. The way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole; makeup: triangular in structure.
3. The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity: political structure; plot structure.
4. Something constructed, such as a building.
5. Biology
a. The arrangement or formation of the tissues, organs, or other parts of an organism.
b. An organ or other part of an organism.
tr.v. struc·tured, struc·tur·ing, struc·tures
To give form or arrangement to: structure a curriculum; structure one's day.

The only possible use of the word that remotely descibes what you say is 5a In a biological description, it can mean and arrangement or formation of tissues, but again, unlikely to be used to describe say, a rock formation.

reply to post by Human_Alien


"Structure" is a term used in geology and could refer to natural formations.

"Structure" does not necessarily mean "intelligently built".

Still doesn't make sense ? They are able to take detailed pics of the moon and not an asteroid that's alot closer ?? Something stinks ?????

There seems to be a certain impatience about receiving further images from YU55. With a great deal of data pouring in on them over a very short period of time, I think the scientists have done an admirable job of communicating their findings. Now that that torrent is subsiding, we should be seeing much more in the near future.********* As I understand it, no images of the object from a distance of less than about 860,000 miles have been presented, as yet, and these only covering about half the surface of the object. As YU55 passed within about 200,000 miles of Earth, we should soon be seeing images with four times the clarity and resolution. ******* At this point, the term 'structures' seems largely ambiguous. Of course it could simply be geology. Given how little we know of matters outside our own world, though, it would seem premature to rule out anything. To my eye, there appears to be a remarkably tall, flat ridge all around what would seem to be the equator of the object. Under asteroidal conditions this would presumably prove puzzling, and require a novel explanation. Ross

Originally posted by rick004
So is this the best were gonna get a fuzzy 30 second video ???? After all the hooplah !!

That's what bothered me immediately after seeing this picture. With all the technology we have at our disposal today the best we get is an utter shyte Nintendo Gameboy picture... Really???

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Don't bother. You're wasting your time. People want to believe that NASA's found intelligently-built structures on a 1300-foot asteroid...it's not really about the definition of the word.

Originally posted by rick004
Still doesn't make sense ? They are able to take detailed pics of the moon and not an asteroid that's alot closer ?? Something stinks ?????

It's only 400 meters in diameter-- about the size of a cruise ship.

We can't really see the details of things that small on the moon from Earth. If something that small would be on the Moon, it would look like a small dot when seen through telescopes.

reply to post by rick004


How fast is the Moon moving? I'll actually give you the answer...the Moon is moving 1/10th as fast as YU55. And most detailed pictures of the Moon are from up there, not from down here (there are relatively few images of the Moon taken from the Earth's surface, even given how often the Moon's out).

Anyway, I imagine this entire argument will be nullified soon enough once NASA releases a decent, high-quality image or two of YU55. It wouldn't surprise me if they took a few, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they never, given everything I've already said.

NASA is much more interested in landing probes on asteroids to study their structure and composition (see, there's that word again...structure is a perfectly legitimate word in this context).

Well they certainly dropped the ball on this one then !!! They have known about yu55 since 2005 , and I'm sure they have known it would be this close for a long time ? They missed the perfect chance to land something on it's surface with cameras to send back sh!&&y pics from the asteroid belt !!

reply to post by rick004


Indeed they did. Ideally, they would have used this opportunity to do just that...I would think such an occasion would be invaluable. I'm not sure why they wouldn't.