Why does it have to be an alien? Could such a device not be of human origin?

Originally posted by johnlear
In the Acknowledgments section of his book, the Ringmakers of Saturn, Norman has this to say:

"To Dr. Walter Vincenti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University, special thanks are given for his valuable suggestions at the final phase of the manuscript."

Thank you for your answer John.
I find interesting that Vincenti has somehow teamed up with Norman.
IMHO, this adds much reliability to the story, if we look on his background.
I'm looking for clues in order to verify if Guy Tarade (the french) has somehow published something related to saturn rings.


[edit on 10/9/2007 by internos]

Whatever, the truth is out there in the rings of Saturn!

Cheers!




[edit on 11/9/07 by cbianchi513]

BAD mouse!
What I MEANT to say, before quoting the entire initial post, was to quote the part about the rings of Saturn....
Looks like Arthur C. Clarke was correct all along.

So "junior varsity" at posting still...

[edit on 11/9/07 by cbianchi513]

Originally posted by carewemust
I'm surprised that everyone is so amicable in this thread. Could it be
because Mike started it? The photoshop/hoax accusations would
normally be the main topic by now. This is a good thread!

LOL Yup Mike has his Groupies Two posts after we show something in our threads the skeptics swarm like wasps to sugar

Welcome back Ron! Where on Earth, err...I mean Mars were you? Looked all over Cydonia but darn, couldn't find hair nor hide of you!!

Anyways, it is both frustrating and disappointing that Norman Bergrun, author of Ringmakers of Saturn, did not give permission to John to post the photographs taken by Voyagers of those huge alien EMVs, on this thread.

Shouldn't he have done so considering we all want to know the truth? If there is proof of ET presence then why hide it? Shouldn't we all join together to deny ignorance?

I wonder if he'll ever change his mind! Hope he does that some day!

Cheers!

[edit on 11-9-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
"cigar shaped" is sort of a buzz word in ufology, and really takes away from the credibility. it goes under the "I want to belive" category I think

If you see a UFO that is shaped like two convex lenses put together a scientifically minded person might describe the object as "lens shaped", while a sports enthusiast would say "football shaped" Tilt that craft and you would see an "oval shape" and a "cigar shape" See it from above or below and it would be round...

We describe things as we see them in terms familiar to our experiences. Using "cigar shape" as a description does not invalidate an observation

Now if not "cigar shape" pray tell how you would describe that shape?

[edit on 11-9-2007 by zorgon]

If there was an object as bog as earth that close to saturn especially it's rings, you'd see a gravitational pull of the rings and you'd see saturn move out of its orbit due to the gravitational effects of this earth sized mass...

They're a fake. Or else these craft have some means of cancelling thier gravitational effects on other objects...

Originally posted by DaRAGE

If there was an object as bog as earth that close to saturn especially it's rings, you'd see a gravitational pull of the rings and you'd see saturn move out of its orbit due to the gravitational effects of this earth sized mass...

So that means that the moon moves the earth out of its orbit due to its gravitational pull? After all, in comparison the moon in relation to earth is far larger than an earth sized object in relation to Saturn.

They're a fake. Or else these craft have some means of cancelling thier gravitational effects on other objects...

Thanks for your comments DaRAGE, they are always welcome.