Buzzed By Alien Probe in 1991?

NASA and Harvard believe in an alien probe?

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

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

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

Did you even bother to read it?

This kind of comment is why the debunkers as you call them are so active, because you half hear a story, don't bother to get the facts, instead you just jump in with the "this is definite proof of aliens" nonsense.

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Did you even bother to read it?

This kind of comment is why the debunkers as you call them are so active, because you half hear a story, don't bother to get the facts, instead you just jump in with the "this is definite proof of aliens" nonsense.

Yeah I'm sure you are smarter

And yes I read it.

Watch the article mysteriously disappear in a few days from the Harvard website.

Conclusion from article:

"The above has been intended to provide prima facie evidence that 1991 VG is a candidate alien artifact. The alternative explanations - that it was a peculiar asteroid, or a man-made body - are both estimated to be unlikely"



Extraterrestrials are real. Deal with it.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

NASA and Harvard believe in an alien probe?

Not NASA and not Harvard.
Duncan Steel. An Australian astronomer.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

You really think this is the first time Steel's paper has been discussed?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

You really think this is the first time Steel's paper has been discussed?

On this forum yes.

But I'm not the thread starter, if you think I am.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

I was referring to your worry about the paper being removed from the server as a result of this discussion.

There are at least two old ATS threads on the topic and many other references to 1991 VG on ATS as well as many other places on the internet. The article created a great deal of attention when it was first published. I don't think you have to worry about it being removed now.

I know you did not start the thread. I don't know where you got that idea.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



Extraterrestrials are real. Deal with it.

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

They might be..........but so far no concrete evidence that they have visited Earth........unless you know different.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



Extraterrestrials are real. Deal with it.

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

They might be..........but so far no concrete evidence that they have visited Earth........unless you know different.

Well they sent a probe into our Earth's orbit at the minimum.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret


Well they sent a probe into our Earth's orbit at the minimum.

As this thread clearly illustrates......... the identity of the object in question is undecided........so not exactly concrete evidence of anything really.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret


Well they sent a probe into our Earth's orbit at the minimum.

As this thread clearly illustrates......... the identity of the object in question is undecided........so not exactly concrete evidence of anything really.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The author of the article calls it a prima facie alien artifact, and ruled out other possibilities.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret


How did you arrive at that conclusion? The author of the article calls it a prima facie alien artifact, and ruled out other possibilities.

Well if you read the WHOLE article rather than just the extract..........the author Duncan Steel actually concludes:

"My personal bias is that 1991 VG was indeed an artificial object, but an anthropogenic one."

www.setv.org...

(Note: anthropogenic means man made origin)

"The alternative explanations - that it was a peculiar asteroid, or a man-made body - are both estimated to be unlikely"

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret


How did you arrive at that conclusion? The author of the article calls it a prima facie alien artifact, and ruled out other possibilities.

Well if you read the WHOLE article rather than just the extract..........the author Duncan Steel actually concludes:

"My personal bias is that 1991 VG was indeed an artificial object, but an anthropogenic one."

www.setv.org...

(Note: anthropogenic means man made origin)

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

You are the one who needs to read on. He explains his "personal bias", but says the evidence is against him.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
"The alternative explanations - that it was a peculiar asteroid, or a man-made body - are both estimated to be unlikely"

But the author STILL thinks it's man made rather than "alien".

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
"The alternative explanations - that it was a peculiar asteroid, or a man-made body - are both estimated to be unlikely"

But the author STILL thinks it's man made rather than "alien".

No he doesn't.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



You are the one who needs to read on. He explains his "personal bias", but says the evidence is against him.

Subsequent evidence since of other small observed objects since 1991 shows that VG 1991 wasn't so unique as first thought.

So again evidence of "alien probe" is hardly concrete!

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret



You are the one who needs to read on. He explains his "personal bias", but says the evidence is against him.

Subsequent evidence since of other small observed objects since 1991 shows that VG 1991 wasn't so unique as first thought.

So again evidence of "alien probe" is hardly concrete!

Typical "debunker". First tries to get away with as many lies as possible. Then changes the subject when called out on those lies.