Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

Alien life could be discovered within 40 yrs

203 posts in this topic

Yes, it was up there quite a while, wasn't it, and it looks like it was becoming more distant--whatever it really was. Do I believe any of the "official" explanations about these matters? Of course not. They are almost always lies.

[...]

Since you so adore YT (orbital movements of Earth and P/2010 A2, with HST images)

[...]

What speed was it moving at? About 11,000 miles per hour? Constant speed?

[...]

You tell me, with sources, please.

[...]

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet. Why did he say that? Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet? That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Wrong! He mentioned meteor (1:00), not asteroid when he was ruling out comets and meteors. And what did he mentions after that, i.e. starting 1:10?

To make it more clear:

The peculiar object P/2010 A2 was discovered1 in January 2010 and given a cometary designation because of the presence of a trail of material, although there was no central condensation or coma. The appearance of this object, in an asteroidal orbit (small eccentricity and inclination) in the inner main asteroid belt attracted attention as a potential new member of the recently recognized2 class of main-belt comets. If confirmed, this new object would expand the range in heliocentric distance over which main-belt comets are found. Here we report observations of P/2010 A2 by the Rosetta spacecraft. We conclude that the trail arose from a single event, rather than a period of cometary activity, in agreement with independent results3. The trail is made up of relatively large particles of millimetre to centimetre size that remain close to the parent asteroid. The shape of the trail can be explained by an initial impact ejecting large clumps of debris that disintegrated and dispersed almost immediately. We determine that this was an asteroid collision that occurred around 10 February 2009.

(Nature 467, 814–816 (14 October 2010),emphasis mine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your own evidence, they first photographed it in January 2009, before this alleged "collision" took place. LOL Try again.

"Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph. Dubbed P/2010-A2, experts think that what they're looking at could be a comet that was produced out of the collision of two asteroids, even though the object is exhibiting behavior that researchers have never seen before in comets."

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbnid=RchM_b4edE_CZM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/02/02/hubble-telescope-discovers-ufo&docid=kC90eJ84OmlABM&imgurl=http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/106/1066043/hubble-telescope-discovers-ufo-20100202023539754-000.jpg&w=460&h=311&ei=CW5KUPH0HumpyAH2uIGwDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=566&vpy=163&dur=2678&hovh=185&hovw=273&tx=99&ty=57&sig=114704889851551226570&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=203&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:82

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will say that two asteroids collided or two comets collided or whatever, but it doesn't ring true to me.

Why doesn't it ring true to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your own evidence, they first photographed it in January 2009, before this alleged "collision" took place. LOL Try again.

"Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph. Dubbed P/2010-A2, experts think that what they're looking at could be a comet that was produced out of the collision of two asteroids, even though the object is exhibiting behavior that researchers have never seen before in comets."

http://chrome://newt...29,r:2,s:0,i:82

Simple: PRE-DISCOVERY OBSERVATIONS OF DISRUPTING ASTEROID P/2010 A2, David Jewitt et al. 2011 The Astronomical Journal 142 28.

Table I (from the paper)

Observatory UT a DOYb V c R (AU)d Δ (AU)e α (◦)f

STEREO A 2009 Feb 10 41 >8.0 2.299 3.242 3.2

SOHO 2009 Mar 15 74 >7.9 2.252 3.226 3.0

STEREO B 2009 May 24 144 >8.0 2.154 3.171 3.4

LINEAR 2009 Nov 22 326 17.10 ± 0.10 2.006 1.246 23.0

LINEAR 2009 Dec 10 344 16.45 ± 0.15 2.006 1.112 15.9

LINEAR 2009 Dec 15 349 16.53 ± 0.15 2.006 1.084 13.5

LINEAR 2009 Dec 16 350 16.66 ± 0.15 2.006 1.079 12.9

LINEAR 2010 Jan 6 371 16.42 ± 0.15 2.010 1.030 2.9

HST 2010 Jan 25 390 16.72 ± 0.08 2.018 1.078 11.5

HST 2010 Jan 29 394 16.80 ± 0.08 2.020 1.099 13.5

HST 2010 Feb 22 418 17.42 ± 0.08 2.034 1.286 23.1

HST 2010 Mar 12 436 17.88 ± 0.08 2.047 1.473 27.0

HST 2010 Apr 2 457 18.45 ± 0.08 2.066 1.717 28.8

HST 2010 Apr 19 474 19.77 ± 0.45 2.084 1.922 28.7

HST 2010 May 8 493 19.19 ± 0.32 2.105 2.150 27.4

HST 2010 May 29 514 19.52 ± 0.30 2.130 2.393 25.0

{I'm too lazy to format table, but you'll get dates of observations, as well instruments}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction, the first pictures were taken on January 6, 2010, meaning that the supposed "collision" could not have taken place on February 10th.

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is the gift that keeps on giving. As we entered the New Year (and decade) on January 6th, the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey become aware of what has been labeled a “mysterious X-shaped debris pattern.” Additionally, a "comet-like" tail was observed."

Science@NASA reported the following:

"The object, called P/2010 A2, was discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey on Jan. 6. At first, astronomers thought it might be a so-called "main belt comet"--a rare case of a comet orbiting in the asteroid belt. Follow-up images taken by Hubble on Jan. 25 and 29, however, revealed a complex X-pattern of filamentary structures near the nucleus.

http://www.google.co...r:16,s:35,i:243

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't it ring true to you?

Aside from old BMK never ringing true, see above. Plus it was too slow to be an asteroid or comet anyway.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from old BMK never ringing true, see above. Plus it was too slow to be an asteroid or comet anyway.

But we haven't mapped every single comet or asteroid out there, so we don't know the characteristics of them all to be able draw the conclusions you are. BMK's own link stated "Consideration of the circumstances of discovery of P/2010 A2 suggests that similar objects must be common, and that future all-sky surveys will reveal them in large numbers."

You seem to be jumping ahead with not enough info to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we haven't mapped every single comet or asteroid out there, so we don't know the characteristics of them all to be able draw the conclusions you are. BMK's own link stated "Consideration of the circumstances of discovery of P/2010 A2 suggests that similar objects must be common, and that future all-sky surveys will reveal them in large numbers."

You seem to be jumping ahead with not enough info to go on.

Plus he had the wrong date for his "collision", if that's what it was, since they had pictures of the same thing flying around a month before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus he had the wrong date for his "collision", if that's what it was, since they had pictures of the same thing flying around a month before that.

It isn't his collision, it's from the Astronomical Journal, and it says it's a recently disrupted asteroid, probably resulting from a collision.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from old BMK never ringing true, see above. Plus it was too slow to be an asteroid or comet anyway.

Now, lets see how "Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph." appeared:

Asteroid collisions are energetic, with an average impact speed of more than 11,000 miles per hour, or five times faster than a rifle bullet.
(link)

Apparently media takes numbers out of context and then wraps in any cloth they like.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't his collision, it's from the Astronomical Journal, and it says it's a recently disrupted asteroid, probably resulting from a collision.

It sounds like they made a little boo-boo about their dates and he just repeated it. I never thought this was a natural or conventional object, for the reasons given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No breaking news?

Time to quote smart people.

Same thing happens whenever Stephen hawking saids anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, lets see how "Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph." appeared:

(link)

Apparently media takes numbers out of context and then wraps in any cloth they like.

Yes, that's what many websites said, including Hubblesite, 15,000 Km per hour, 90-100 million miles from earth. Not following the normal orbit of comets or asteroids, although naturally some non-ET "explanation" is always slapped on all these events.

"FEBRUARY 2, 2010: Something awfully curious is happening 100 million miles from Earth in the asteroid belt. There's a newly discovered object that superficially looks like a comet but lives among the asteroids. The distinction? Comets swoop along elliptical orbits close in to the Sun and grow long gaseous and dusty tails, as ices near the surface turn into vapor and release dust. But asteroids are mostly in circular orbits in the asteroid belt and are not normally expected to be "volatile."

The mystery object was discovered on January 6, 2010, by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey. The object appears so unusual in ground-based telescopic images that discretionary time on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope was used to take a close-up look. The observations show a bizarre X-pattern of filamentary structures near the point-like nucleus of the object and trailing streamers of dust. This complex structure suggests the object is not a comet but instead the product of a head-on collision between two asteroids traveling five times faster than a rifle bullet. Astronomers have long thought that the asteroid belt is being ground down through collisions, but such a smashup has never before been seen."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/07/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when The End comes, you'll all be grateful that I posted helpful advice like this short video. LOL

[media=]

[/media]

THey left out the Kitty gettin the tuna !

:tu: Gotta be a prepper trick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what many websites said, including Hubblesite,[...]

Definitely you did not read full article.

[...]15,000 Km per hour, 90-100 million miles from earth. [...]

Did you ever heard of relative motion? Simple situation: if one moving object at 70000 mph (orbital velocity) will be impacted from behind by another whose orbital velocity is 80000 mph, what impact velocity will be, huh?

[...]Not following the normal orbit of comets or asteroids, although naturally some non-ET "explanation" is always slapped on all these events.

[...]

Wrong! From your own link:
The orbit of P/2010 A2 is itself consistent with membership in the Flora asteroid family, produced by collisional shattering a few hundred million years ago.

Read full articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try BMK, but as you know its hard to argue with people who "know" they are right and can prove it by explaining that any facts presented to refute their "gut feelings" are part of a governmental cover-up. They are something like religious fanatics..you can't prove to them that they are wrong because they simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. It must be nice to be so narrow-minded so as to be convinced that you can never be wrong (mmmm...that reminds me of my ex, who has never admitted to being wrong in her life either)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try BMK, but as you know its hard to argue with people who "know" they are right and can prove it by explaining that any facts presented to refute their "gut feelings" are part of a governmental cover-up. They are something like religious fanatics..you can't prove to them that they are wrong because they simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. It must be nice to be so narrow-minded so as to be convinced that you can never be wrong (mmmm...that reminds me of my ex, who has never admitted to being wrong in her life either)

I love the ex-part ! We all never like to admit that our own opinions could be flawed ! But in the end theres only one reality,thats the facts Good hard work can always find the facts on any subject.

ITs why we are able to send things to Mars and the Moon, Like people. We did our homework,we built our machines ! We DId Build that !

As for the CT`s and Politicians and such ! Well there all out to lunch as Always ! Good post "Horus"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try BMK, but as you know its hard to argue with people who "know" they are right and can prove it by explaining that any facts presented to refute their "gut feelings" are part of a governmental cover-up. They are something like religious fanatics..you can't prove to them that they are wrong because they simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. It must be nice to be so narrow-minded so as to be convinced that you can never be wrong (mmmm...that reminds me of my ex, who has never admitted to being wrong in her life either)

... or he is just fooling around angry of "evil" skeptics. On the other hand, making such a blooper with putting his own words into M.Kaku's mouth... damn, even Gary t.R. and Beetlejuice would spot that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from old BMK never ringing true, see above. Plus it was too slow to be an asteroid or comet anyway.

We know. You have more than adequately demonstrated an abhorrence towards anything factual and/or rational that tends to go against your ET belief.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet. Why did he say that? Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet? That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Just because Michiu Kaku thinks the speed is too slow for it to be an asteroid or a comet, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that it is not natural? You are making completely unfounded conclusions based on ignorance. Just because it doesn't conform to something common in space, it has to be artificial.

Good grief.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know. You have more than adequately demonstrated an abhorrence towards anything factual and/or rational that tends to go against your ET belief.

For someone who claims to know a great deal about UFOs and ETs, you always end up saying very little. If you really know something, why don't you tell them about the small humanoids--the ones we came across first. If you don't even know where it all started, then how can you claim to have a great deal of knowledge about this subject?

Even I know about those, if not all the other types.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute and utter nonsense. Just because Michiu Kaku thinks the speed is too slow for it to be an asteroid or a comet, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that it is not natural? You are making completely unfounded conclusions based on ignorance. Just because it doesn't conform to something common in space, it has to be artificial.

I'm just going by what he said on the video. Let other people watch it and they'll see what I mean. They had no idea what it was and were just guessing about some kind of asteroid collision.

They didn't even have the date right for THAT, as I have proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try BMK, but as you know its hard to argue with people who "know" they are right and can prove it by explaining that any facts presented to refute their "gut feelings" are part of a governmental cover-up. They are something like religious fanatics..you can't prove to them that they are wrong because they simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. It must be nice to be so narrow-minded so as to be convinced that you can never be wrong (mmmm...that reminds me of my ex, who has never admitted to being wrong in her life either)

That's not true either, no matter how many times you repeat it. You will never make a religious believer out of me no matter how many times you post such things.

I have often been wrong, but I also like to point out where others are wrong, and in this case their "official explanations" have quite a few holes in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... or he is just fooling around angry of "evil" skeptics. On the other hand, making such a blooper with putting his own words into M.Kaku's mouth... damn, even Gary t.R. and Beetlejuice would spot that...

Every article I've looked at gives the same speed for the alleged "asteroid collision" and I have seen no other numbers given. I can tell that they really had no idea what it was and they were just guessing, which is really what Kaku was doing in the video.

Given the history of UFOs, there are excellent reasons to be skeptical of all "official explanations" of the type regularly repeated on here, and that's what I do. You didn't even have the right date for the supposed "asteroid collision" but I have never seen you admit that.

Indeed, it's the "skeptics" on here who NEVER admit they are wrong, not even on one single UFO case. I don't blame them because they do not dare to concede that we may be correct even on a single one of these, which puts them in an impossible position. So just go ahead and keep doing what you usually do, but we shall let others make up their minds about what the real evidence indicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.