Strange "structures" on surface Asteroid 2005 YU55's

Originally posted by rick004
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 !!

What makes you think they didn't? 'cause they didn't announce it?

I think we would all be candidates for shock therapy if we REALLY knew what 'space-science' was actually doing out there!
I highly recommend "Penetration" by Ingo Swann. The book is a collectors item (so, it's very expensive) but you can read it free online.

Originally posted 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.

Thank you Thunda for reiterating to the folks, what I never said Because any talk about 'alien' or 'ET' concerning YU-55 came from Hoagland not I. I'm just pointing out the fact that NASA is pointing out something 'strange'. Why say anything at all? They're usually very professional when it comes to keeping their mouths shut. So why open 'em now?

Like I said before, for me this is an example of the 'drip-drip' disclosure. Planting the seed at such a subconscious level that when intelligent-alien life makes their irrefutable debut, the minion will be prepared.

Don't forget, 'they' (government + religion + science + media) tells us: How to think. When to think it. What to believe. And when to believe it.

I do believe we're at the final drum-roll!

We seem to have 2 schools of thought here . One side thinks NASA are a bunch of morons who can't plot an asteroids course when high school students are able to , and the other side think their a elite covert operation with all sorts of secret agendas ? Either way they can feed the sheep a few clear pics of the dam rock flying by !!! Just venting sorry !! I still feel stupid about falling for the whole slamming into the Atlantic thing !!

Originally posted by rick004
We seem to have 2 schools of thought here . One side thinks NASA are a bunch of morons who can't plot an asteroids course when high school students are able to , and the other side think their a elite covert operation with all sorts of secret agendas ? Either way they can feed the sheep a few clear pics of the dam rock flying by !!! Just venting sorry !! I still feel stupid about falling for the whole slamming into the Atlantic thing !!

Don't feel stupid about that Rick004. I'm sure the people who retired to their underground bunkers feel even MORE foolish!

I think it's a combination therein.
How about: The Elite who parade around like morons who happen to have an agenda? That works for me.

NASA is sworn to secrecy. Do you really think they're telling us all there is to know? Perhaps if NASA was run by anyone else but the government, maybe we'd have a chance at some of the truth.

Here's what I believe is going to happen. I think China or Russia or maybe even India are going to land on the Moon and find something mind-blowing. They are way more liberal than we are. Or should I say, honest? We're a land of 'Christians' and going against the 'bible' is almost deemed; unconstitutional!!!!

I think that's why the USA put up no-fly zones and whatever other happy-horse-chit games they're playing up there.

I also think when they blasted the Moon (when was that?....a few years ago, right?) under the guise of searching for water (insert eye roll here) they might've been destroying something they didn't want another country to find. I know that sounds far-fetched but ask yourself this: why do they care NOW, whether the Moon has water? Are they going to planet a tree in our name?

reply to post by Human_Alien


What I find odd is that the best NASA could produce was a blurry digital image of the damn thing. Um, why not point Hubble and get a good look at it?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Its not like the asteroid was a surprise or anything.

reply to post by phantomjack


Hubble images deep-space objects. If it tried to image something this close...well...ever tried looking at the floor with a pair of binoculars?

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

What I find odd is that the best NASA could produce was a blurry digital image of the damn thing. Um, why not point Hubble and get a good look at it?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Its not like the asteroid was a surprise or anything.

Shhhhhhhhhhh. Are you questioning authority? I do believe Homeland Security has a provision that can now imprison you if you besmirch any governmental agency. Heil USA!

But just between me and you? Yeah. One would think they can do a much better job than that. But I'm SURE that was the best they can offer us. After all, they're not perfect.

Say phantomjack, would ya care to cut ahead of me to be fleeced?

Originally posted by phantomjack




Do you mean like this?

The asteroid Gaspra
www.daviddarling.info...


I guess they misplaced the manual!

This rivals the 8-second clip of the 9-11 Pentagon missile....er, plane attack!

First Movie of Asteroid 2005 YU55

Please read my new thread as it pertains to this. And please, if you have an answer or opinion, please post it because I am beyond curious at the moment.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Despite the nearness of YU55, its small size would have produced an unimpressive dot from the Hubble Space Telescope. Beyond this is the fact that the Hubble would have been unable to move about fast enough to track with the fast moving object. A very large optical telescope on Earth did make an image of YU55. The result was a small blob of light with virtually no detail. The radar images from radio telescopes were the best available option. We have only seen some of the more distant images of the object, and these minimally processed. Markedly better resolution, and image processing should soon be available in further pictures of YU55. Ross

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Do you mean like this?

The asteroid Gaspra
www.daviddarling.info...


I guess they misplaced the manual!

1. Gaspra is 45 times bigger than YU55. Gaspra is 18 km wide as opposed to 0.4 km (400 meters) for YU55.

2. That picture was taken by the NEAR spacecraft as if flew by it.

That is, indeed, a picture of the asteroid 951 Gaspra, a main belt asteroid. It was taken in October, 1991 by the Galileo space craft, on its way to Jupiter, not by the NEAR probe. Galileo flew within 1000 miles of Gaspra, which is about 200 times closer than our best shot at YU55. The clarity and detail of the image is, therefore, not to be wondered at. Ross

Originally posted by Ross 54
That is, indeed, a picture of the asteroid 951 Gaspra, a main belt asteroid. It was taken in October, 1991 by the Galileo space craft, on its way to Jupiter, not by the NEAR probe. Galileo flew within 1000 miles of Gaspra, which is about 200 times closer than our best shot at YU55. The clarity and detail of the image is, therefore, not to be wondered at. Ross

You are right.

I was going by the source linked in the post by Human-Alien, which it turns out is not correct. I checked other sources and the image is indeed from Galileo, not NEAR.

Thanks.



Still, the point is that this is a picture of an 18 KILOMETERS (18,000 meters) wide asteroid from only 1000 miles away. YU55 is only 0.4 km (400 meters) wide, and is 200,000 miles away.

There really is no comparison.

........And where are these "structures"? Maybe I am missing something, but all I see an egg shaped asteroid. Can someone please direct me to the pics that show these structures? I have a hard time believing something I can't see.

Originally posted by Propulsion
........And where are these "structures"? Maybe I am missing something, but all I see an egg shaped asteroid. Can someone please direct me to the pics that show these structures? I have a hard time believing something I can't see.

They said they are not visible. When they say "spotted", I think they mean the data shows them. Don't forget, that image isn't a visible light image, but rather something like a radar or sonar image (a sonar image that used light instead of sound to measure the distances between YU55 and the earth)

and -- MORE IMPORTANTLY -- "Structure" does not mean "building". The word "structure" is used all the time by geologists when they talk about natural formations,

Just what the 'puzzling structures' look like has not been told. That seems more than a little odd. These structures are clearly connected with the 'first movie' of YU55 at a distance of 860,000 miles. It is remarked in the NASA press release that accompanied the 'movie', that stitching together the 6 still images into an animation sequence was what enabled them to notice these structures. ********** The interpretation I've been mulling over is based on the fact that the edge of the object appears flat, while the middle looks rounded. I'm thinking in terms of a sphere with a ridge or rim around its equator. This 'rim' is plainest around the top of the image. It appears to be about 1/6 the width of the entire object. If this is not an illusion produced by the method of creating the image, it would, I think, qualify as a puzzling structure. Ross

reply to post by Human_Alien

First Movie of Asteroid 2005 YU55

There appears to be a circular basin or crater that fills nearly an entire hemisphere. That strikes me as being an interesting structure. It cannot be volcanic, so it must be from an impact, but an impact that large would probably have shattered the asteroid. There's one mystery for you.

I understand what you mean about a very large circular basin. Where you see a basin. I see the opposite, a raised rounded area. It is bounded by a thin, whitish, circular line, and outside that, what appears to my eye to be a broad, flat rim, all around it. Its not clear which is correct. We're trying to interpret an image made under unusual circumstances, via radar beams, using the interpretive clues that apply to light. There are certain features on the Moon that tend to appear ambiguously like rounded depressions, or alternately, mounds. Ross

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Nobody said it meant 'buildings' as you say.......