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.
Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
No he doesn't.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
Originally posted by Logical one
You obviously don't understand what fluke means.
Originally posted by Logical one
Again NOT CONCRETE evidence it was ET.............Show me the evidence..........NOT flukes, not possibilities........... REAL Evidence.!
Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
You dingbat.
The "fluke" is if it turns out to be man-made.
Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
NASA and Harvard believe in an alien probe?
I wonder what the "debunkers" will have to say about this.....
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.
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)
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?
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.
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