Could Saturn's Bizarre Moons Actually Be ET Spacecraft?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: TurbineJet

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: TurbineJet

The old pictures have been altered blurred out conspiracy cliche, they could have just not released the pictures if they really want to hide something.

Oh its a conspiracy cliche? My-bad, I thought we were on a conspiracy website.

Also, I don't think your statement would hold any water. For example...Lets say amature astronomers are able to see one of Saturn's weird moons with a good telescope. If NASA released NO official photos of the weird moon, people would start to ask questions.

So they are in a way forced to release something that at least looks similar to what the general public is seeing thru the eyepiece of their home telescopes..

just my 2c

TJ

It will be a long time for that to happen have a look at the best amateur pictures of Saturn never mind a Moon a fraction of the size.

Oh Im not so sure about that..heres a few videos of Saturn and its moons shot thru an amateur astronomers telescope:





And my personal favorite: Saturn peeking out from behind our moon, a time lapse!

Look at this and then tell me its not possible to get clear amateur images of saturn:



See? didn't take that long at all..


TJ

a reply to: TurbineJet

Thanks for a great thread! There was another good one a day or so ago -- no politics, social issues, etc -- FINALLY! I hope this starts a trend...

a reply to: TurbineJet

LOL I just went back to check on what that "other" thread was and it was yours. Thanks again!

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
a reply to: TurbineJet

LOL I just went back to check on what that "other" thread was and it was yours. Thanks again!

You are very welcome. A trend has started.

TurbineJet

originally posted by: Subrosabelow

originally posted by: Osirisvset
Quick slightly off topic question...
Why is Earths moon the only moon in the Solar System without a name? Its just called " the moon", weird...

learnedthis.com...

In the beginning, it was just called the Moon because they didn't know other such bodies existed outside our own.

Later it was called Luna after Galilei discovered other moons out there.

Sounds like the true name for our moon is Selene though, after the Greek moon goddess. The study of the moon's geology is called selenology.

There is no such thing as the "true" name for our moon. "Luna" is Latin and Spanish and Italian for "Moon." It's "Lune" in French and "Lua" in Portugese. "Selene" is Greek. "Moon" is English. Our Moon was not suddenly called "Luna" after Galileo discovered other moons. It was called "Luna" by the Romans and called "Selene" by the Greeks well before that just as the Earth was called "Terra" in Latin. "Terra" means "earth" in Latin. All you are seeing here is "moon" in several different languages.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
a reply to: TurbineJet

Thanks for a great thread! There was another good one a day or so ago -- no politics, social issues, etc -- FINALLY! I hope this starts a trend...

Cheers

OkieDokie, here's my 2c.

I reckon the planet was once soft and impacted another solid body hence the giant impact mark and equatorial bump around the circumference. I also reckon that sound might have played a part shaping impacts into hexagonal features on the moon's surface. Similar, but not exactly like this?

a reply to: TurbineJet

I've read quite a bit about Iapetus, and figured it would be included in this thread. As it happens, that one has also been called the "Death Star" moon, and for good reason.



I haven't studies some of these others, and they do look quite intriguing! Very odd stuff. As we examine this topic, we need to be careful to sort facts from speculation, because there is a LOT of speculation out there, especially concerning Iapetus, but still...some of the most unusual images, I have seen directly on the NASA site, and there are some real oddities about that moon.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Osirisvset

Why is Earths moon the only moon in the Solar System without a name? Its just called " the moon", weird... 

It's not. It has a name and the name is Luna.

Technically, that is just "moon" in another language. Not really a name, per se.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Osirisvset

Why is Earths moon the only moon in the Solar System without a name? Its just called " the moon", weird... 

It's not. It has a name and the name is Luna.

The name "Luna" is simply Latin for "Moon" so "the moon" does not have a special name at all. Osiris is right. It's the same with "Earth" which in Latin is "Terra."

"Earth" is not a name?
What about the personification, doesn't that make them names?

Harte

In the sense the earth is a spaceship, yes?

As in crafted by extraterrestrial life for powered space flight, no.

One, why the “moon” model?

Two, why Jupiter?

Three, are they hollow?

Four, how would an extraterrestrial society come to believe the “moon” model would be the most efficient design and use of raw materials for a fleet around Jupiter?

Five, show the composition of the moons would hold up to being moved by an internal propulsion system, or being towed.

I could see them being some sort of raw material space barge. Any natural asteroid with the right “harness” could be made into a space barge for raw material.

As far as a staffed spacecraft to efficiently carry out a defined purpose, equipped with life support, storage for supplies, storage for fuel, having a communications array, maneuvering rockets, a control system, and housing a propulsion unit, the answer is probably not.

I

a reply to: TurbineJet

Which moon do you think is the best candidate for a alien spacecraft.

Might help if you define what you mean by spacecraft. Would it have a propulsion unit?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TurbineJet

Which moon do you think is the best candidate for a alien spacecraft.

Might help if you define what you mean by spacecraft. Would it have a propulsion unit?

I would say Atlas or Pan since they have the classic saucer shape..

TJ

a reply to: TurbineJet

Seems like a cliche? Especially in the sense the saucer shape is not efficient in atmospheric flight in the context of stable flight surfaces/controls? In space, a big cube would be more efficient storage wise?

Is there any reason to believe the two moons are anything other than frozen ice and gasses? With loose rocks thrown in? That doesn’t seem like a very good structure housing a propulsion system that might be able to push a craft out of Jupiter’s gravitational pull?

a reply to: TurbineJet

Maybe the moons are bits of food for giant space fish? I think they love frozen gasses?

a reply to: TurbineJet

Is there anything to suggest in Jupiter’s moon system by the effects of gravitational pull the moons are hollow, or more dense than frozen water and gasses?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TurbineJet

Maybe the moons are bits of food for giant space fish? I think they love frozen gasses?

No those space fish eat fresh, never frozen organic from whole foods.

Its simple physics bro.

TJ

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TurbineJet

Seems like a cliche? Especially in the sense the saucer shape is not efficient in atmospheric flight in the context of stable flight surfaces/controls? In space, a big cube would be more efficient storage wise?

Is there any reason to believe the two moons are anything other than frozen ice and gasses? With loose rocks thrown in? That doesn’t seem like a very good structure housing a propulsion system that might be able to push a craft out of Jupiter’s gravitational pull?

The saucer shape was never meant to be aerodynamic, its the shape needed to generate the anti gravity torsion field, creating a time/space bubble around the craft, which at that point the craft does not need or use control surfaces.

TJ

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TurbineJet

Seems like a cliche? Especially in the sense the saucer shape is not efficient in atmospheric flight in the context of stable flight surfaces/controls? In space, a big cube would be more efficient storage wise?

Is there any reason to believe the two moons are anything other than frozen ice and gasses? With loose rocks thrown in? That doesn’t seem like a very good structure housing a propulsion system that might be able to push a craft out of Jupiter’s gravitational pull?

The saucer shape was never meant to be aerodynamic, its the shape needed to generate the anti gravity torsion field, creating a time/space bubble around the craft, which at that point the craft does not need or use control surfaces.

TJ

originally posted by: wylekat
a reply to: TurbineJet

We are taught that straight lines should not exist in nature
snip

That's a fallacy, every shape exists in nature, naturally!