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.

 

Buzzed By Alien Probe in 1991?

page: 1
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Another site recently referenced me to a scholarly publication that seems to believe we were examined by an artificially created object back in 1991. This was cataloged by the Anglo-Australian Observatory, and the object is referred to as a "probe" in the article (held in NASA and Harvard's databases). If the object remains in its projected orbit, it should come back to Earth around 2016. Original article (scroll down a little -- it starts about halfway down the page):

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

You should read the entire article if you can stand it. It's quite good and goes into detail why they believe this was an artificial craft. Its oscillating light is even referred to as "reflections from the surface of a rotating spacecraft," and, "[T]his might be a returning spacecraft." Fascinating stuff. (By the way, FIRST THREAD!)


edit on 29-6-2012 by jcolsto because: extra information and quotations given
edit on 29-6-2012 by jcolsto because: props 4 first thread
extra DIV




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
i like a good probing
every now and then



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Very interesting article, even though it is in parts hard to read because it uses a very scientific language and expresses a lot in formulas.

As far as I understand it they discovered an object of about 9-19 meters that came in on a very specific trajectory, approached earth and remained in orbit for a period of months, and it did so periodically .. in the 50ies .. the 70ies .. and then 1991 again.The speed, the trajectory, and mostly the way it reflected light by kind of flickering, made it appear as if it might be either a man made object or an alien space craft, and the mathematically most likely conclusion was that it was alien made because they could exclude the man made object.

Of course that, as the author says as well, does not mean it *IS* an alien space craft, it just says that - based upon incomplete knowledge - it is the most probable option.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 


Seems the many reports of things like this from legit sources do not interest people as much as the Sci-Fi ish types.

I remember when this happened and could not figure out why the world was not excited.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 
Great find s/f for sharing. I'm just gob smacked that no one has picked up on this before, this states that we as a species are possibly being engaged and if true where did this "probe" come from. The article states it wasn't from the space race. Big news imho

edit on 29-6-2012 by scrog77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


That's exactly right. Basically, they argue that there are 3 distinct possibilities for the object:
1) Natural asteroid
2) Man-made
3) Alien Artifact

Based upon the evidence, including known gravitational pull on known asteroidal objects, the limited number of man-made objects in space. and the time period of observation, they found scenario 3 to be significant. This is a big deal. Significance does not represent fact; it represents something that is unlikely to have been produced by chance. The fact that there is enough probable evidence to support possibility 3 is very interesting. I understand it's dense reading, but I believe it's scientific endeavors like these that are most likely to discover alien life forms and describe them in a way that is reputable enough to be undeniable to nonbelievers. Give it a look if you have extra time.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Also in the article it mentions SETA, now I've never heard of SETA before. SETA stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Artifacts.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 


That's exactly right. Basically, they argue that there are 3 distinct possibilities for the object:

Actually, it's not they, it's he (Dr. Duncan Steel).


There have been things learned since 1995 which strengthen the hypothesis that 1991 VG is a a natural object. A number of asteroids with orbits similar to Earth have been discovered as wall as those which are rotating. Or maybe they're probes too.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Very interesting. We'll probably never know if this was a natural or "alien probe". I wonder how long it was tracked? Was there follow up research?

It does somewhat remind me of an investigation of two "moonlets" which entered earth orbit back in 1954. They were I believe studied by Dr. Lincoln La Paz and Clyde Tombaugh. The orbits were 400 miles and 600 miles above the earth. At first it was speculated that these might be "artificial" but were later deemed to be "natural".

From external site:

Searching for ETI Probes


"Mysterious satellites" were officially reported six times in orbit around the Earth in the 1950s before the first Sputnik of October 4, 1957. Clyde Tombough, the discoverer of Pluto over 20 years before, studied two moonlets in orbit in 1954.

The radar detections were: April 1949, first reported by Naval Commander Robert McLaughlin, a rocket expert; 1953: one in a near-equitorial orbit 400-to-600 miles out, and the two at Lagrange Points, then calling the satellites "Toro moonlets"; 1954, an "Aviation Week" report ("Satellite Scare," Aug. 23, 1954) told of Dr. Lincoln La Paz (a government expert on meteors) announcement of a satellites orbiting at 400 and 600 miles out; a search by the Adler Planetarium in Chicago tracked one or two of these "moonlets"; in 1957, three months before the USSR launched the first Earth satellite in October, Italian astronomers tracked a large mystery satellite, also reported in the news, like the others had been.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
now that is a very interesting read.
in all probability, it could well have been an extraterrestrial object!
and its scientifically deducted here.
as was already stated above, i cant believe this is'nt more well known about in the mainstream
and it was observed over 20 years ago!

excellent find
edit on 29/6/12 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)


+23 more 
posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, though the author of the paper is one man, the work was collaborative. The first footnote notes observations by Richard West and Oliver Hainaut. In addition, such scientific articles often require referees for publication. That's why you or I will not be publishing a paper in Science anytime soon. The author even mentions his referee in the paper, indicating that he should substitute the word artificial for anthropomorphic. A basic understanding of academia is necessary to understand academic papers.

Furthermore, it's not just the fact that the object was rotating. You can be as snide as you want, but it was not only rotation that concerned the investigation in this instance but rather rotation combined with radiance typical of artificial craft. Furthermore, it was calculated that the possibility of encountering such an object was approximately a 1 in 100,000 chance per year, and it only occurred because the telescope was modified to observe darker objects than are typically looked for. Finally, based upon the orbit and speed of the object, it was concluded that it would have had to have been recently ejected from the lunar surface in order to have such a geocentric orbit. Basically what we have here is a body that exhibits qualities of artificial objects (highly metallic, spinning, geocentric orbit) that came in "hot", slowed, and followed a nearly perfect orbit of Earth, and despite the extremely high probability that such an object would impact Earth, it not only did not, but was ejected. This has occurred in approximate 20 year intervals dating back at least 40 years. The object strongly resembled "rotating artificial satellite trails." Your argument that because it was spinning it had to be asteroidal is ignorant. Please read the paper. If you can't understand it, don't comment, unless you'd like to understand more.

You reference a wikipedia article, but even it says the odd orbit of the object is difficult to explain. Its only analysis of the evidence is that objects of that size are now not unexpected to produce oscillating light patterns, providing they are monolithic structures. None of the other evidence is flushed out. To bluestreak, I'd also like to point out that attempts to track the object by radar proved unsuccessful.
edit on 29-6-2012 by jcolsto because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcolsto
Another site recently referenced me to a scholarly publication that seems to believe we were examined by an artificially created object back in 1991.


Examined by an artifical object. Ok, a very clever story. I know orange objects hovered over cattle pastures in the 1970s, people witnessed cattle being lifted up in beams to the orange objects, but they didn't go to the public because they thought they would be labeled as crazy for saying what they saw.
edit on 29-6-2012 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 


Actually, though the author of the paper is one man, the work was collaborative.
West and Hainut observed 1991 VG, that's all Steel says about them. Are also you claiming that all of the footnoted references "collaborated" on the article?


You can be as snide as you want, but it was not only rotation that concerned the investigation in this instance but rather rotation combined with radiance typical of artificial craft.
Snide? I'm not sure where you get that but here is what Steel said about the brightness of the object:

Assuming the albedo of an S-type asteroid is appropriate-its spectral reflectitivity was not dissimilar to main-belt S-type asteroids
The "S" stands for stony.


Furthermore, it was calculated that the possibility of encountering such an object was approximately a 1 in 100,000 chance per year
Actually what the article says is that the probability for the discovery (not the possibility of "encountering" it) of 1991 VG was 1:100,000 by use of the Spacewatch telescope. We have better resources now and those resources have found more asteroids in similar orbits.


it was concluded that it would have had to have been recently ejected from the lunar surface in order to have such a geocentric orbit
It doesn't have a geocentric orbit. It, like Earth, has a heliocentric orbit. Just as some other asteroids have been found to have. But As Steel says:

On the other hand, continued searching with Spacewatch, and, one hopes, within a few years with the more powerful Spaceguard system, would turn up examples of such a substantial population.
Which is exactly what has occurred.


highly metallic, spinning, geocentric orbit

I see nothing in the article about the object being determined to be "highly metallic". Spinning asteroids are not that unusual. For the second time. it is not in a geocentric orbit.



that came in "hot", slowed, and followed a nearly perfect orbit of Earth
There is no indication that its orbit changed. That is speculation.


Your argument that because it was spinning it had to be asteroidal is ignorant. Please read the paper. If you can't understand it, don't comment, unless you'd like to understand more.
I didn't say it had to be asteroidal, I said that asteroids have been found with rapid rotation rates. I read the paper, I understand it. Perhaps you should read it more carefully. But if you don't know the difference between a geocentric orbit and a heliocentric orbit I would submit that it is you who are ignorant.

Steel's entire hypothesis about the object being an alien probe was based on characteristics which have since been found in asteroidal objects. You can join in his speculation if you wish but don't fault me for offering counter arguments. Don't fault me for actually reading and understanding the article without throwing my own biases into it. Geocentric? Metallic? Came in "hot and slowed"?
edit on 6/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 


Orbital diagram

Impact risk date: 2101-11-21.74
neo.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 29/6/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I've got the high rollers in here now. Phage, know you're very well-respected within the ATS community. I'll admit I don't have a Ph.D in astronomy or astrobiology, though I do have extensive training in biology and in particular have focused on extremophiles. I understand the scientific method, statistical methodology, and research. You may very well be more qualified than I to understand this topic; I don't know who you are. And of course I understand the difference between a heliocentric and geocentric orbit (for our less well-versed friends who may be following the conversation, we're referring to whether the object had an orbit primarily dictated by the sun (helio) or the Earth (geo). Regardless, I'll reread the article and may very well have changed my mind by the morning.

I'll always appreciate the contrarians more than I do the yes men. Thank you for your critique; I'll see what I can find and will update as appropriate. If I believe that your criticism's valid, you'll have crushed my belief that I've found something unique in the scientific literature. Regardless, no hard feelings and thanks for the analysis.

edit on 29-6-2012 by jcolsto because: expounding information



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 

A bit more data here.
www.technologyreview.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
This could still be a probe, but its probably an asteroid,

Hey no bother people, but we still know we have/are being visited.

I don't want to hear any arguments to that fact, unless you have really studied the literature.

There is more than enough evidence to say 'something' more advanced than us (publicly known technology) is/has been flying around our skies and space for a very long time.

We all know it, deep down even if you won't admit it to yourself - accept its happening , and at the moment we can't really do much more than study the phenomenon and see what happens.

Richard Dolan's book's "UFO's and the national security state (1&2) more than make the case for the phenomenons validity - I suggest people read them, so you can know without a doubt where the government stands on the subject.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Great find and first thread !!! And brilliant argument ! I will opt to sit back and follow this thread.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jcolsto
 


Actually, though the author of the paper is one man, the work was collaborative.
West and Hainut observed 1991 VG, that's all Steel says about them. Are also you claiming that all of the footnoted references "collaborated" on the article?


You can be as snide as you want, but it was not only rotation that concerned the investigation in this instance but rather rotation combined with radiance typical of artificial craft.
Snide? I'm not sure where you get that but here is what Steel said about the brightness of the object:

Assuming the albedo of an S-type asteroid is appropriate-its spectral reflectitivity was not dissimilar to main-belt S-type asteroids
The "S" stands for stony.


Furthermore, it was calculated that the possibility of encountering such an object was approximately a 1 in 100,000 chance per year
Actually what the article says is that the probability for the discovery (not the possibility of "encountering" it) of 1991 VG was 1:100,000 by use of the Spacewatch telescope. We have better resources now and those resources have found more asteroids in similar orbits.


it was concluded that it would have had to have been recently ejected from the lunar surface in order to have such a geocentric orbit
It doesn't have a geocentric orbit. It, like Earth, has a heliocentric orbit. Just as some other asteroids have been found to have. But As Steel says:

On the other hand, continued searching with Spacewatch, and, one hopes, within a few years with the more powerful Spaceguard system, would turn up examples of such a substantial population.
Which is exactly what has occurred.


highly metallic, spinning, geocentric orbit

I see nothing in the article about the object being determined to be "highly metallic". Spinning asteroids are not that unusual. For the second time. it is not in a geocentric orbit.



that came in "hot", slowed, and followed a nearly perfect orbit of Earth
There is no indication that its orbit changed. That is speculation.


Your argument that because it was spinning it had to be asteroidal is ignorant. Please read the paper. If you can't understand it, don't comment, unless you'd like to understand more.
I didn't say it had to be asteroidal, I said that asteroids have been found with rapid rotation rates. I read the paper, I understand it. Perhaps you should read it more carefully. But if you don't know the difference between a geocentric orbit and a heliocentric orbit I would submit that it is you who are ignorant.

Steel's entire hypothesis about the object being an alien probe was based on characteristics which have since been found in asteroidal objects. You can join in his speculation if you wish but don't fault me for offering counter arguments. Don't fault me for actually reading and understanding the article without throwing my own biases into it. Geocentric? Metallic? Came in "hot and slowed"?
edit on 6/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I cant get used to your avatar PHAGE..... bring back john lithgow!!!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I think the fatal flaw in his argument is that he concludes it is has a low probability to be a man made rocket section because "Spacewatch would be highly unlikely to have spotted a rocket section."

He comes to this conclusion because there are so few of these, and they're so small, and they are moving so slowly, that spacewatch wouldn't normally have detected it, it was only because someone used the wrong settings that it was observed.

Basically he's saying "there are only maybe 10 of these out there, and we wouldn't normally be looking for them, the chances of observing one of these small number of small objects is low, and so therefore there is little chance it can be one of them."

But that is flawed logic.

What he's doing is trying to inject chance into his scientific conclusions for it not being man made.

But you know, if you got someone to pick a random number between 1 and 10000 and then you tried to guess it - it might be highly unlikely that you'd get it right, but there is still a very definite possibility that you would.

So I would be willing to bet a substantial sum on this not being an alien probe, and instead being either a rocket section (probably) or an asteroid.




top topics



 
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join