CERES. Contact May Have Been Made.

originally posted by: bobw927
And the powers that be are not letting go of that information.

So where do you propose that the pictures and information that we have came from?

I've not seen this pic.



Is this a darkside shot of ceres?

And what's this?



Just a rock?

a reply to: grey580

Is this a darkside shot of ceres?

NASA didn't say anything about it, so I will go along with Ross and the assumption of reduced light exposure:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, just a rock... of course. What did you think?
This is not the skunkworks-area of some conspiracy-forums, dammit!



PS: 39% voted for 'other' so far...
www.jpl.nasa.gov...#

a reply to: BlackProject

What I find interesting is that there are only two distinct areas of light. Either that is an amazingly rare coincidence. Or Amazingly normal for this planet.

I want to see these craters light up on the darkside of the planet, without seeing that I say it's just an odd factor of the planet...

They could be two active geological phenomena, like ice volcanos.

a reply to: grey580

Better not be, if that is the dark side of Ceres, hold on to yourselves... Because we are not alone... lol

originally posted by: grey580
I've not seen this pic.

Is this a darkside shot of ceres?

From my computer graphics experience this is probably the same photo flipped vertically, with a negative effect applied to it.

wouldnt it be fun if these were just thin spots in a crust surrounding a totally luminous ball?

I believe this feature to be ice leftover from a comet impact. Ceres would be an option for US to have a base at some point. The best location for an alien base is here on Earth.
a reply to: BlackProject

Exciting times. Mind blown by some exceptional analysis and theories from those here on ATS.

If it is found that those spots are luminous when observed on the dark side... cannot think of an explicative that could adequately describe that level of awe.

Ok so back in 2004 Hubble also took a colour image of Ceres, it is NOT a dark object covered in soot at all!!

hubblesite.org... ge/d/format/web_print/

As for this image below, there is no gradient of light at all in the landscape. Whether the image is underexposed or darkened digitally, would there still be gradient of light with some really heavy black area. It looks to me that it is in full shadow, just sayin.

originally posted by: grey580
And what's this?

Just a rock?

Maybe the impact that produced the crater caused a fault line to collapse, creating that trench at the crater's "5 o'clock" position.

a reply to: Korg Trinity


Have some cold coffee if you can't keep your eyes away from this thread?

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

39% are completely nuts you say? Where is your evidence for this insidious claim?
You don't happen to have any, do you? Yeah, exactly. Who looks like a fooling clown now?


...

a reply to: weirdguy

It looks to me that it is in full shadow, just sayin.

Either way, it's absolutely stunning.
But I could live with that as well.

a reply to: BlackProject

Just based on my observation, it looks like it may be a dome of sorts. The angle it is at in relation to the sun compared to the photographing craft's angle would cause a large portion of it to illuminate and a glare of refracted light coming through would explain the less intense light to the right of it and away from the sun's light. Just a thought.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Wondering why you're coming off as a bit of jerk? Firstly, it's no stretch of the imagination to consider there are many advanced civilizations out there so with that, anything is open to possibilities. Secondly, the salt/ice camp according to the polls fall far below the 39% other. Thirdly, you have no idea what it is so calling out others makes you well, ignorant. Fourth, bright illuminating lights on a dwarf planet is stuff of science fiction, except this isn't fiction. All of my points are logical so if you want to debate me, I'm ready. Your turn to come up with something so put your money where your mouth is.

Is there any pictures on the Internet showing the same thing happening on other moons or the same surface type? It would be interesing to compare and i'm sure it would put this mystery to bed for some.

I'm leaning towards Comet ice but i want it to be ET's Las Vagas!

a reply to: grey580

That's a fascinating zoom of the smaller anomaly. It is not a crater, its raised. The shadow on the bottom indicates its height. The top end is illuminating, and reflecting off the surrounding landscape for quite a long distance, more than twice the length of itself. If they are simply reflections, they are amplified by some clear glass/crystal in the outer topside crust, I think.

originally posted by: Pylgrym
a reply to: grey580

That's a fascinating zoom of the smaller anomaly. It is not a crater, its raised. The shadow on the bottom indicates its height. The top end is illuminating, and reflecting off the surrounding landscape for quite a long distance, more than twice the length of itself. If they are simply reflections, they are amplified by some clear glass/crystal in the outer topside crust, I think.

The top round part is a crater and the lower linear part is a trench. You can see that the areas are not raised by looking at the shadows from the other craters around it. The Sun angle is shining from the lower part of the image toward the upper part.



As I mentioned in another post, I think it's possible that the linear trench part of it was a fault line that collapsed due to the impact event that created the crater.

The white streaks radiating away from the crater is not a reflection but streaks of "ejecta" material that were strewn about and blown away from the crater during the impact event that created it.

Here is an example of rays of ejecta on our own Moon:


More info:
Why do Some Craters have Rays?

originally posted by: weirdguy
Ok so back in 2004 Hubble also took a colour image of Ceres, it is NOT a dark object covered in soot at all!!

hubblesite.org... ge/d/format/web_print/

As for this image below, there is no gradient of light at all in the landscape. Whether the image is underexposed or darkened digitally, would there still be gradient of light with some really heavy black area. It looks to me that it is in full shadow, just sayin.

They are both manipulation of exposure. Hubble takes long exposure, light saturated images. Even the darkest object can look like they shine brilliant. The second exposure , from the spacecraft, cannot be taken from the dark side, but instead lowers the overall threshold to reveal how bright those spots really are. I do not think there is enough ambient light from nearby stars that would be able to show any detail of Ceres in a dark hemisphere behind the Sun. But, could be wrong I guess , with the right equipment.