Strange "structures" on surface Asteroid 2005 YU55's

Say what?
I had to reread this twice. I don't understand how they can nonchalantly mention something so enigmatic and ambiguous and not expound on it. That's it? They "spotted strange structures on its surface" and that's it???

What's next?....they'll report seeing 'structures' on the Moon. Oh wait. They did. And that too got a small blurp and was immediately dropped!


Can this prey-tell be what Richard Hoagland was trying to convey in his preamble smatterings about this asteroid being an A.I. space-craft? But as the old saying goes: even a broken clock is right twice a day. So Hoagland is bound to get something quasi-correct one of these days. Although when he does get it correct, it'll change the history of mankind so there's a lot more riding on his assertions.

Giant asteroid passes near Earth

An asteroid that is 400m (1,300ft) wide has passed by Earth, much to the delight of astronomers.

Although invisible to the naked eye, scientists said they spotted strange structures on its surface as it spun past at 30,000mph (48 280.32 km/h).

Asteroid 2005 YU55's was the closest an asteroid has been to Earth in 200 years, according to Nasa.

It is also the largest space rock fly-by Earth has seen since 1976; the next visit by a large asteroid will be 2028.

The aircraft-carrier-sized asteroid was darkly coloured in visible wavelengths and nearly spherical, lazily spinning about once every 20 hours as it raced through our neighbourhood of the Solar System.

Ron Dantowitz, the director of the Clay Centre Observatory in Massachusetts, followed the asteroid through a telescope.
(more)www.bbc.co.uk...

I wish these where tracked as they PASSED or whatever they do for a few days. The word structures though is a interesting way of describing the ? seen on it.

Can anyone offer up an explanation to this please?
They say it wasn't visible to the naked eye so I take it it was found within one of those echo-meter-graphs. Right?

So if they didn't see it and only detected it why would they use the words 'strange structures'? How do they know it's not part of its natural formation?

My point is, what is making them use such strong verbiage like 'strange' and 'structure'?

I find that sentence to be most peculiar and interesting at the same time.
(and they wonder why there are so many 'kooky' conspiracy theorists these days!)

If our planet earth was about to expire and you were given the chance to occupy an asteroid for the remainder of your life as well as your family and pets would you do it? How many life forms could live within this space?

Interesting.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Can anyone offer up an explanation to this please?
They say it wasn't visible to the naked eye so I take it it was found within one of those echo-meter-graphs. Right?

So if they didn't see it and only detected it why would they use the words 'strange structures'? How do they know it's not part of its natural formation?

My point is, what is making them use such strong verbiage like 'strange' and 'structure'?

I find that sentence to be most peculiar and interesting at the same time.
(and they wonder why there are so many 'kooky' conspiracy theorists these days!)

they were channeling Richard Hoaxland.....

Already posted.. Maybe the answer your looking for is in that thread..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why even mention it at all if they aren't going to elaborate more about them?
Are they purposely messing with the public? I find it hard to believe that this small asteroid actually has "structures" on it, unless they are natural structures caused by interactions from the sun and collisions.

What about the "structure" on Phobos? Just mention it and move on to what Kim Kardashian is up to?

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

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I wish these where tracked as they PASSED or whatever they do for a few days.

What do you mean?
This asteroid did pass us last night. And was tracked (if I'm reading your statement correctly)
Mind ya....these babies are hurling through the heavens at 10's if not 100's of thousands of mph.

And that makes the statement even more interesting. How were they able to ascertain that there are 'strange structures' on this rock? Or is it in fact, a craft?.....as Hoagland asserts? Because given the two options in light of that bizarre statement, Hoaglands claim makes more sense.

And trust me, I am not a Hoagland fan of late. I tend to agree with him about the face on Mars and structures on the Moon. But it seems with every passing object out there, he pins an intelligent alien title to it. You can't do that and expect to be taken seriously. And he doesn't preface his claims by saying "I think". He actually says "he guarantees" his assessments. Now that's bold!

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.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
Already posted.. Maybe the answer your looking for is in that thread..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I searched this out with many different key words. Damnit. I hate when I repeat a thread.
Mods, please close this thread.

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.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I wish these where tracked as they PASSED or whatever they do for a few days.

What do you mean?

I mean in a week or month it would be nice to see the tracking that goes on with them as they are said to be approaching, when they are leaving.

'Structures' could simply refer to apparent shapes on the terrain of the object that can't be readily explained in terms of what they expected to see on a small asteroid. It doesn't necessarily mean buildings, or the like. It *is* odd how the remark about strange structures isn't explained or elaborated on at all. Maybe it has the scientists so flummoxed that they don't know quite what to say. I've thought that I saw a flattish rim around a rounded central area in the radar pictures. I wonder if that's what they could be talking about. Ross

That is ridiculously vague and I don't know if it's the fault of the astronomers or the journalist either.

I feel they are purposefully using these well thought-out words so they can keep making people like us look like we're one french fry away from a Happy Meal!

They are doing this on purpose. Because the more people like me say 'we are being visited by alien beings' (which, is absolutely true) the more THEY don't have to admit to it.

Originally posted by Josephus
That is ridiculously vague and I don't know if it's the fault of the astronomers or the journalist either.

NASA apparently is saying the same thing!

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

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Ross 54
'Structures' could simply refer to apparent shapes on the terrain of the object that can't be readily explained in terms of what they expected to see on a small asteroid. It doesn't necessarily mean buildings, or the like. It *is* odd how the remark about strange structures isn't explained or elaborated on at all. Maybe it has the scientists so flummoxed that they don't know quite what to say. I've thought that I saw a flattish rim around a rounded central area in the radar pictures. I wonder if that's what they could be talking about. Ross

Why the hell are we left to speculate? This isn't a Agatha Christie novel. This is supposed to be science. Science is supposed to be exact. And if it's not exact then it needs not be reported. Because any of us can guess too. Science is supposed to explain things. Not leave us in a position to insert our own conjectures.

This is being done on purpose and I'm not helping any. They WANT us to start these threads and rumors. I mean c'mon. Can this be anymore apparent?

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I wish these where tracked as they PASSED or whatever they do for a few days.

What do you mean?

I mean in a week or month it would be nice to see the tracking that goes on with them as they are said to be approaching, when they are leaving.

edit on 11/9/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

What I find hard to understand is: in the vastness of our space-time continuum, how the heck were they able to spot this little teeny tiny object in the first place?

I dunno.....this whole NASA thing doesn't sit right with me in the first place because I deeply suspect, they are keeping monumental secrets from us.
Now, this may not be one of them but it is rather interesting that Hoagland (of all people) made his absurd assertions to this object and now NASA is semi-agreeing (in a round about - not clearly defined way)

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I wish these where tracked as they PASSED or whatever they do for a few days.

What do you mean?

I mean in a week or month it would be nice to see the tracking that goes on with them as they are said to be approaching, when they are leaving.

edit on 11/9/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

What I find hard to understand is: in the vastness of our space-time continuum, how the heck were they able to spot this little teeny tiny object in the first place?

I dunno.....this whole NASA thing doesn't sit right with me in the first place because I deeply suspect, they are keeping monumental secrets from us.
Now, this may not be one of them but it is rather interesting that Hoagland (of all people) made his absurd assertions to this object and now NASA is semi-agreeing (in a round about - not clearly defined way)

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