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: 3
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

No he doesn't.


Yes he does..............If you understand what he is saying..............he is saying it's an unusual observation that he thinks is a manmade object, but it could well be a fluke observation rather than a likely event.
Flukes do happen........but aren't likely.......just as Rafa Nadal could lose to a player ranked no.100........even though it might be unlikely.

edit on 30-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
He said specifically that it being a man-made object is unlikely.

See previous quotes I have given from the article.

Last sentence of the article:

"If 1991 VG is a returned man-made rocket body, it was very much a fluke that it was observed, and the normal process of science then requires that we consider the possibility of some other origin for it. "

And he says this after ONE MORE time trashing the man-made origin with four bullet points.
edit on 30-6-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
He said specifically that it being a man-made object is unlikely.

See previous quotes I have given from the article.


See my post above........."unlikely" doesn't mean it is not possible...........If you read the article's conclusion he mentions it could be a "fluke" that it was observed.

Like I said Rafa Nadal being beaten by a player ranked 100 is "unlikely".



Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

"If 1991 VG is a returned man-made rocket body, it was very much a fluke that it was observed, and the normal process of science then requires that we consider the possibility of some other origin for it. "


keyword in that quote "possibility"............which STILL means that the author thinks it is manmade........but he is not sure.
So again not exactly concrete evidence of ET.........which ever way you try to peel it.

I can say I don't believe in a creator God........but I cannot explain how life got started on Earth......therefore there exists the possibility of a creator............but that DOESN'T mean that I believe in a creator.
[
edit on 30-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
See my post above........."unlikely" doesn't mean it is not possible...........If you read the article's conclusion he mentions it could be a "fluke" that it was observed.




You obviously can't read english.

He is saying it would be such an unbelievable fluke if it was man-made. Read the four bullet points.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



You obviously can't read english.

He is saying it would be such an unbelievable fluke if it was man-made. Read the four bullet points.


You obviously don't understand what fluke means.

Again NOT CONCRETE evidence it was ET.............Show me the evidence..........NOT flukes, not possibilities........... REAL Evidence.!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
You obviously don't understand what fluke means.


Sure I do, as does the author.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Again NOT CONCRETE evidence it was ET.............Show me the evidence..........NOT flukes, not possibilities........... REAL Evidence.!




You dingbat.

The "fluke" is if it turns out to be man-made.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



You dingbat.

The "fluke" is if it turns out to be man-made.


Errr I know......you Ding Bat!!!...........you obviously didn't understand my post!


I was trying to steer the conversation away from "Fluke observations" or "possibilities"........but CONCRETE evidence........now you DO know what CONCRETE means?
Even Dr Duncan Steel doesn't make any CONCRETE conclusions on what the object was.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Yes I know you were "trying to steer the conversation away" like all skeptics try.

Fact is here we have an article where the "fluke" is if it does turn out to be man-made, which is the opposite of the normal situation.
edit on 30-6-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
NASA and Harvard believe in an alien probe?

I wonder what the "debunkers" will have to say about this.....


If you think that all "debunkers" and "professional skeptics" have an agenda that they "HAVE TO" debunk *any* such claims you are simply wrong. We are not "getting paid" for belonging to one or the other side, believers or non-believers. A "real" and good skeptic is one who is open to both sides and also has a healthy sense of criticism and doubts. (95% of claims in the UFO/Alien field are total BS, so a high level of doubt is 100% and absolutely legitimate)

There is no reason to doubt the idea that this object might be a potential candidate as being an artificial object. Why? There is scientific data which would support this hypothesis. The orbit and everything is *intriguing*.

And..why should NASA etc. hide such a find/conclusion? Oh wait..it's only a fantasy by the conspiracy people that NASA's main job is to "hide" everything....despite the fact that NASA etc. for many decades already has a space program and MANY of the experiments, missions, probes etc. are *indeed* designed to look for extraterrestrial life, exoplanets etc... If NASA would not "believe" in such a remote possibility, do you think there'd be a remote chance that billions of dollars were and are still being spent on probes and experiments?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
If you think that all "debunkers" and "professional skeptics" have an agenda that they "HAVE TO" debunk *any* such claims you are simply wrong. We are not "getting paid" for belonging to one or the other side, believers or non-believers.


Of course you are not getting paid. You guys do it for free, since many of you are fundamental Christians on this forum.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Yes I know you were "trying to steer the conversation away" like all skeptics try.

Fact is here we have an article where the "fluke" is if it does turn out to be man-made, which is the opposite of the normal situation.
edit on 30-6-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)


Let me get this straight about your way of thinking:

It would be an "unlikely fluke" that Rafael Nadal be beaten by the No.100 player........therefore what must have happened a couple of days back is that an "alien" must have duplicated Lukas Rosol's body.

So Nadal didn't in fact lose to the No.100 player.........he in fact lost to an "alien"

edit on 30-6-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
And..why should NASA etc. hide such a find/conclusion? Oh wait..it's only a fantasy by the conspiracy people that NASA's main job is to "hide" everything....despite the fact that NASA etc. for many decades already has a space program and MANY of the experiments, missions, probes etc. are *indeed* designed to look for extraterrestrial life, exoplanets etc... If NASA would not "believe" in such a remote possibility, do you think there'd be a remote chance that billions of dollars were and are still being spent on probes and experiments?


Astronauts Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper must also be "conspiracy people" with fantasies.


Is that right?
edit on 30-6-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Good find. I Iove stuff like this.

There are of course other stories of "alien artifacts" in near earth orbit and within the solar system,

There are stories of a "Black Knight" satellite orbiting earth before anything man made was launched. Although a credible source to that story is questionable at best.

Then there was the case in 1989 when the Soviet Phobos 2 probe photographed a huge eliptical shadow on the surface of Mars and a large unknown object as it approached Phobos. All contact was then lost with the probe.

Finally there are pictures like this kindly provided by NASA which are probably space junk.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

And the remnants of the Death Star that after a long, long time ago finally ended up in our galaxy and Solar System.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Our own spacecraft have now reached the end of our own Solar System. So it is not inconceivable that an older alien race similar to our own may have launched it's own probes towards this planet having detected signs of early life before humans walked upright.

But the proof, as ever, remains elusive!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jcolsto
 


Its the Empire looking for rebel scum!!!
S@F



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
What is with the probing already. Just how much can you learn from a butt hole. I think these aliens have issues.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
20 years after this paper was written, we got some real evidence that it could be just a natural object. In 2011, the first Trojan asteroid was discovered preceding us in our own orbit. Scientists had predicted that these "trapped" asteroids could exist at "Legrange Points" in our orbit. The object was called 2010 TK7. Now they suspect that this can happen on a regular basis, and that there have been, are now, and in the future will arrive and go, much like the way that the suspected alien probe of 1991 did, however the brightness variations are still quite a mystery.


The authors of this study used archived data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer to identify possible trojan asteroids at Earth’s L4 point, and the data revealed two candidate objects that were several hundred meters in diameter. This data was then combined with direct observations of the objects made in April 2011 at the University of Hawaii, which refined knowledge of the objects’ orbit. With this data, the researchers were able to positively identify one of those objects, called 2010 TK7, as the first known trojan asteroid in Earth’s orbit.


Source: Astronomers find Earth's first trojan asteroid



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Moon Chips
Not just a tasty snack


neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

Text
The object's orbit is extremely unusual. Comets and asteroids that cross the Earth's orbit normally have eccentric orbits. There is only one asteroid-like object, called 1991 VG, that has a similar orbit to that of the Earth. When it was discovered, eight years ago, astronomers thought it might be a spacecraft that had escaped the Earth's gravity.

The new object, designated 1999 CG9, is considerably brighter than 1991 VG, indicating that it is much larger. Brian Marsden of Harvard-Smithsonian estimates it to be between 30 and 50 metres across, too big to be the final stage of a rocket. "The most likely explanation is that it's a chip off the Moon," he says




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


I agree with you. Whenever an official source comes out, or credible, people don't seem as interested. I wonder why.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by reclaimed
i like a good probing
every now and then

I feel dirty now




top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join