Elongated shapes in space could be a very fast meteor or something flying by the camera. The aperature times on these cameras are slow (as you can see by the blurring of stars) anything moving in the frame while it is taking the picture will create an elongated shape. If you look closely you can see stars "through" the tails of some of these, just more proof its a long exposure coupled with something passing through the frame during the exposure time. If you take a picture of a fast asteroid, with a long exposure time...what do you think it would look like? Someone has to play devils advocate =) Prove me wrong I would love it...

[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
Funny thing about those pictures... look closely. Stars streaking. Time lapse photography. So thats not a stationary object. It's a blur of whatever crossed the camera during the exposure time. Judging by the length of the stars, that was a long aperature opening. Could be anything. The other thing I noticed is that it seems to have sharp edges. How do you get sharp edges on a moving object with time lapse photography? Sounds suspicious... How is something only visible in IR? Even if it was, there are a ton of IR telescopes on Earth owned by civilians. once again, no one else can see it.

The focus was on iapetus. Please, answer to this qustion: WHY Iapetus appears blur? Shouldn't appear elongated due the exposition time?
There are billion of pics in whic certains planets appears as a dot, certains others as a stripe. We cannot explain it as effect of the exposure. It's the NEAREST object in the pic. Besides, why it doesnt appear elongated, ie as a cylinder?

Exactly my point. That makes no sense. Star streaking in pics is due to a long aperature opening. Right? How else do you get it? So why isn't the object elongated? Makes no sense actually unless the camera is moving with the object. That's my point... the pic doesnt make sense.

It also depends I guess on the rotation of the camera at the time, but all these are factors we don't know. I am arguing the cylinders though... If a fast asteroid was caught on a picture with a long aperature time, wouldn't it look like a cylinder on the film? Thats my point... As for the Earth sized ship (lets just say it's only visible in IR then ) don't you think even then it would cause just a little wobble in saturns orbit, or its moons orbits we would notice?

edit spelling

[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by internos

The focus was on iapetus. Please, answer to this qustion: WHY Iapetus appears blur? Shouldn't appear elongated due the exposition time?
There are billion of pics in whic certains planets appears as a dot, certains others as a stripe. We cannot explain it as effect of the exposure. It's the NEAREST object in the pic. Besides, why it doesnt appear elongated, ie as a cylinder?

May I offer my opinion? Since the Cassini probe is moving in orbit around Saturn, but at the same time focused on Iapetus, it would make sense that the moon stays in the centre of the photo, while the stars in the background get elongated through the exposure.

This would explain the blurriness of the moon, since it's given a long exposure but the angle that the moon is photographed from changes. Since the moon is pretty spherical, as long as the distance is the same and the focus remains at the centre of the circle, the object will still retain its circular shape, albeit blurred out.

Does this sound reasonable?

The odd protustions on an asteroid would make a picture identical to the one you showed as proof of it not being one =) The fact that it is not a "straight" line throughout the picture only furthers my argument of an irregular shape object tumbling in a long exposure. A tumbling asteroid with random vector and rotation would produce a picture where parts are bigger and smaller throughout the frame as larger protusions rotated into view and dissapeared. We can go round and round, but fact is, you can't prove it's not, I can't prove it is. Given the two solutions... UFO or asteroid, with no discernable evidence for either... I'll pick the asteroid until there is better proof. It's all speculation. You have some really good logical arguments though. I like it when people argue with reason rather then..well because I said so. I think were in a stalemate, all part of the fun =)



[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]

Originally posted by b309302
The odd protustions on an asteroid would make a picture identical to the one you showed as proof of it not being one =) The fact that it is not a "straight" line throughout the picture only furthers my argument of an irregular shape object tumbling in a long exposure. A tumbling asteroid with random vector and rotation would produce a picture where parts are bigger and smaller throughout the frame as larger protusions rotated into view and dissapeared. We can go round and round about how aliens can magically invent any device to counter any logical arguments, but fact is, you can't prove it's not, I can't prove it is. Given the two solutions... UFO or asteroid, with no discernable evidence for either... I'll pick the asteroid until there is better proof. It's all speculation. You have some really good logical arguments though. I like it when people argue with reason rather then..well because I said so. I think were in a stalemate, all part of the fun =)

And i agree. I should show you more pics of the same object, and i can't, so i can prove nothing.
You should provide a pic od the same asteroid, and it should be impossible, even due the prospective long exposure deformation (if you'd find it, probably you couldn't recognize it).
Since we don't know what is it, we can call it UFO, but in the actual meaning of the term, unknown flying object. No alien spaceship, no other known object, till someone will recognize it with a proof.
Anyway, IMHO this kind of debate is the best possible, is a REAL debate: it doesn't matter if we disagree on these finds.
Thank you


[edit on 20/9/2007 by internos]

LOL, I'll agree UFO... dont know what it is. Had to make me work for that one =)

Originally posted by b309302
There is one big problem with this. Saturn isn't that far. Any cheap telescope can see saturn and it's moons just fine. All of the astronomers on Earth just "missed" this extra moon the size of Earth? All except NASA... Just please explain why no one else except NASA can see this if it should be so plainly visible to anyone with a telescope. Also, things going really fast in front of a camera...blur, I.E. meteors and such.



[edit on 19-9-2007 by b309302]

This is true. I have a large telescope and I have been looking at Saturn (now visible in the morning sky). Spent all of the first half of the year making Saturn Observations for the British Astronomical Association. Something as large as the Earth would be visible either directly (i.e see it in the field of the telescope) or indirectly- it would have a huge gravitational effect on the dust particles in the rings and satellites close by. So far as I can see, all appears normal in the Saturnian system.

Originally posted by bergle

I seem to recall a Hubble picture of some kind of object in intergalactic space which was never furthur explained or folowed up .......
It was a odd lump of a thing but definately way out there where it had no business to be....

bergle, that's interesting. Any details on this? Where did you see it? Can you get hold of that picture now? Great if you could!

Cheers!

we have five [5] years left and then we will know who is on those incredible ships what they are doing there and for whom are they there for. This is all prophetic.

maybe its a stargate?

Excellent find Internos.

Whatever they are, they look awesome.

Originally posted by Atticus_Black
It says that one of the objects is four times the size of earth, now if my memory's correct Jupiter is 10 times larger than the earth so that would mean that one of the objects would be half the size of Jupiter

I certainly cant see that big an object in the photo. But i might be wrong!

You would have to view it next to Jupiter to compare it I guess. This planet is Saturn, and the "rings" would be an enormous distance from the planet itself. It also depends on what is meant by "size". Mainly volume or diameter.

Originally posted by bigbert81
The ship's length is about 1/3 the diameter of Jupiter. Massive. The damn thing must have a gravitational pull of it's own.

If you generate a field of gravity, it repells gravity. So I suggest it would certainly be capable of it. A lot of people believe this is how some UFO's "hover".






[edit on 22/9/07 by NuclearPaul]