ok, i got thru most of the thread, and i have to ask,dont most of you believe in god?
well there's no pictures or proof of his existence,right?
and if you do , don't you think that man's most concieted thought is that the universe is just for us?
so why not other people in other places,adapted to their environments?
are you trying to tell me you believe in an invisible man in the sky that can't handle money,(george carlin), but you can't believe in forms of life other than our own? don't freak out everyone ,this is not directed to
everybody on here
it's kind of like believing in affirmatie action and not believing in profiling,isn't it?

Ooops!! Double post!! Now how in the name of the rings of Saturn did this happen??

[edit on 3-12-2007 by mikesingh]

Just posting my opinions on this thread, mainly relating to John Lear.

I don't want to be rude of flame but I really do find the lack of evidence for his claims disturbing. I will never rule out that he is totally correct about everything he believes, but I find it very, very unlikely.

The number of problems with the claims just off the top of my head is staggering and I'm sure if I did some research I'd come up with a hundred more.

What irritates me is that many members are backing John up on these wild claims without any real evidence either. I ask you - if a new member with no established history or connection to the ATS staff started posting these views up, would you be so quick to defend them?

While I agree we're not being 'told' to believe him, the way in which people are defending his claims while debunking alternative opinions is highly suggestive and virtually implies that John Lear is 'the law' when it comes to this stuff.

Again, I say always be skeptical. Be skeptical of the skeptics, particularly when they're riding on their status to give otherwise outrageous claims a higher level of credibility.

I mean in no way to offend or flame John Lear, it is possible he is correct and I'm merely not seeing it, but I think it's worth taking his theories for what they are - huge claims with absolutely zero evidence to back them up and clauses that almost state a lack of evidence is evidence unto itself.

Thats all from me for now. Hope I haven't upset anyone.

The Saturn Earth Connection is a web site I've put together and now involves two people I know personally who have been out to this architectural world near Saturn. You'll see many images of a luminous object I hear is not in the rings of Saturn... it is in orbit and according to NASA orbits every 10 hours and 47 minutes. Google... michael connection. The URL is helloearth.info When you get there... click the NASA Connection... there are lots of Cassini images of a luminous object. The wild one is the image returned on 24 May 2006. You'll notice NASA instructed Cassini to switch to a telephoto lens to get this close-up of the luminous object. When Cassini located the object and shot an image... you'll note the stars are the same stars in these two images showing the camera didn't change position when it shot the close-up. And don't miss the image on 16 August 2004 on the same page... now that is the closest the Cassini Spacecraft was to the luminous object that I have found. NASA is not giving it a moon name which is a clue as to what they think it is. And it all fits in with the Urantia book which you can hear about in Michael's recordings.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jra

Could you discribe what the "real" Saturn looks like? Is it really that different? I ask because Saturn has been observed through telescopes since the early 1600's and is still viewed by amature astronomers today. I've seen photos taken by amatures. They might not be as high res and detailed, but they still look like Saturn.

We have trouble seeing the largest objects on the moon with our backyard telescopes and even photos taken by amateurs cannot resolve the building at the top of Copernicus.

Yes, Saturn still looks like Saturn through a telescope but you should know that it is a great deal further out in space than the moon.

That still in no way even begins to answer the question posed. Regardless of how far out Saturn is, the point is valid... even to the astronomers of old, it still "looked like" Saturn, as we now know it. And that was before the days of color cameras, high-res telescopes, and things like Adobe Photoshop, so we know the images the observers saw was not doctored.

Are you going to be so bold as to say that aliens also manipulated their telescopes, so they would not see the truth? C'mon... your answering questions with questions is a cheap cop-out, because you know you have no proof to offer. You said Venus and Neptune hold HUMAN life. Venus is too hot for HUMAN life. Other life, possibly, but not HUMAN. Same with neptune... EVEN if a human could withstand being so far away from the sun, and so terribly cold, the sheer size of Neptune is such that a human would be crushed by its gravity.

The moon was not "placed" into orbit. In fact... the moon is still moving AWAY from the Earth. Saying it was placed there, implies a fixed position, which is false, otherwise, it would not be moving away from us at all. Besides, what would the reason be, to put the moon here? If aliens are going to mine it, they are going to mine it no matter where it is. The same thing with the rings of Saturn... number one, why would they be "making" the rings of Saturn. Two, why would a species so advanced take the time to place each individual bit of ice and rock that comprises the rings in their place? We're talking about over BILLIONS of tiny and large fragments... these must be some royally bored aliens.

Look, I'm not trying to be combative, but you can't make a claim telling people that a "real" image of Saturn would blow their minds, yet refuse to offer an example, or even a description.

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Can I ask a really dumb question?

Mr. Lear you can choose to reply or not, as the question might not be worth your time.

But the one ovbious question I have is why? Why would anyone/thing want to build ice rings around a planet? It must have some ovbious function or postitive gain otherwise why would anyone do it? Say it is a alien civilization, wouldn't they have taxes or something similar to fund a project like that? If so, I highly doubt anyone would support a proposal to build ice rings (a rather large project) just for asthetic purposes.

Remember in Star Trek Insurrection, the Rings kept the people from aging. Well perhaps it provides a resonance of ions and other artifacts that keep its populace safe, healthy or energized? It could have something to do with them being caretakers of the galaxy, like we are caretakers of earth, or were until we developed and found we could be "evil" for greed etc..

I think our nerfed mental and cultural states afford these alien beings to use us at will due to there advanced states if they so choose, which im sure a majority are enlightened in there own specious way.

Originally posted by johnlear
Sorry for the delay, I was working on the Copernicus Crater.

Norm Bergrun wrote "Ringmakers of Saturn" and shows in detail how he found (from Voyager 1 and 2 images) 3 huge spaceships making the rings of Saturn. Norms spent over 20 years with Lockheed as an engineer and scientist. Copies of "Ringmakers" are available at his website, or Amazon or through me ($50 plus postage).

Hi John...may I pls buy the book from u if possible? If so,pls forward details to adamski2012@hotmail.co.uk = tks...butlincat