Gigantic Alien Craft Photographed By Cassini! NASA’s Cover-Up Blown?

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Why can't NASA produce better pictures? Sorry, rhetorical question. This is the photograph comparing the size of the craft with one of Saturn's moons. Both were white images, devoid of details. I think they jack the gamma up. Anyway, saved the photo, cut, rotated and reduced the gamma. Magnified the craft to maximum screen size and adjusted the colors for clarity and viola! the same style craft as that found by William Rutledge on the Moon. I believe the original photograph is on page 1 of this thread.

reply to post by debris765nju

---

Hi debris! Wow! Where's this pic from? Can you post the original?

Cheers!

This is the photo I used. cropped, enlarged, rotated and colored. These craft have the capability to morph and seperate into smaller vessels. I first saw these craft mining our Sun close in on SOHO.

Well, here's the other version. All I did was to resize and apply the 'unsharp Mask' filter. No B/C or any other filter has been applied. Try Iris. Pretty good software too!



I think the odd shapes within the UFO are the result of pixel anomalies and not an intrinsic part of the craft. But heck! Darned if I know for sure!

As regards the craft near the sun, check out my threads here...

Huge Alien Ships Orbiting The Sun?

Amazing SOHO Photograph: UFO Formation Near The Sun!

Cheers!

Which would be playing hell with the orbits of Saturn's moons and the integrity of the ring system. We don't see any sign of that.

Camera artifact. Noise in a datastream. Nothing to see here.

Surprised to see Internos risking his AAA credibility rating on this doodah.

Doodah? You must be pretty ignorant of the fact that you are keeping mainstream scientific paradigms in mind. Thinking out of the box seems to be a trifle painful to you.

Anyway, keep in mind, if ETs millions of years ahead of us in technology could travel all this way and park massive ships in orbit, they would have mastered the technique of gravity shielding that would not affect celestial dynamics. Now what is gravity shielding? Check out the theories in the Los Alamos National Laboratory archives. But probably this would be too much for you to comprehend.

So no one's risking any AAA credibility here. I suggest you attempt to break out of your hermetically sealed box of ignorance by reading some scientific journals instead of doodah comic books before shooting from the hip.

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh

---

And if wishes were horses, skeletons in spacesuits would ride.

Gravity shielding, eh? Would that be sort of like a parasol?

Are you going to go all Project Moonglow on me?

Then tell me, O Wise One, if they are 'gravity shielded', how come they are in orbit? Or does ET just like driving in circles? Maybe he ought to check his wheel alignment.

I suggest you take your own advice and read some real science. A treatise on orbital mechanics would be a good place to start. You can work up to General Relativity in stages - no rush.

But doodah this is and doodah it will remain, protest how you will.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Umm because You sir know exacly how alien craft piloted by alien beeings (if they exist) thousands or even milions of years more advanced than humans , work and behave in space . ?

You sir should get some kind of nobel for such a vast knowledge

Just spilled my coffee reading your riposte!! Can aliens get the Noble too??



I'll ask them and let you know, commander.


Huh? Didn't know spaceship had tyres? Duh! Now I know. Thanks for the update!

Darn! The people we have to put up with!

Cheers!


[edit on 26-11-2008 by mikesingh]

I realy thought this thread was dead and burried. The camera taking the picture had a slow shutter speed. This causes an object moving through a frame seem elongated. No matter how you examine the object and how many different filters you use, the object is a round object elongated by the slow shutter speed.

As I and others have stated it is most likely one of the moons. This can not be easily proven, just as it can not be easily proven that it is an alien space craft moving and having a trail behind it to make it look cylindrical.

Though this is an interesting photo, it is hardley proof of anything one way or the other.

Hi AC! Which photograph are you talking about? There are enough here on this thread to fill a tanker!

Cheers!

For me at least, this shows an unidentified object, and then the french article shows an "artists impression", illustration.

The original image could be anything, because we know so little. It could very well be a naturally occurring object.

I don't know much about space, physics and the like, but surely this object could be a naturally forming collection of gases or debris of a differing density to the rings themselves?

It amuses me that so many see an image and immediately make the assumption that it's aliens on a massive ship.

I have no doubt that UFO's exist, that we see things in our skies that we cannot explain. But making this unexplained blip into a visiting massive craft of alien origin is a severe stretch.

I believe that the most common and mundane explanations are usually the correct ones. Once you rule them out, then there's room to add more unconventional ideas.

reply to post by mikesingh

---

Ok, so I should have directed to a specific image, but for me most of the long object photo's appear to be the same, a spherical object that is elongated in the photos to make them appear to be cylindrical. I am not saying it is done deliberately, to make them appear long and cylindrical, but it is an inverse effect in the photographs.

There are a few that appear not to be elongated spherical objects, those don't look like ships either though.

I honestly don't know what to make of the objects in the pictures, I do not however see these as spacecraft in these photos. None of the photo's are clear, most are blown up exposures that make them extremely pixilated which tends to make it look like there are features that wouldn't be seen otherwise, but that does not make these ship details.

Though some have classified me as a skeptic and I even identify with this myself in some cases and some have classified me as a debunker, I am actually neither of these. I am actually a believer that wants to see good evidence that I have not yet seen. I beleive aliens are watching this planet and I believe aliens have visited us, I just want good proof to prove it. Even though I believe, I try to look at things objectively. I tell you this, so you know I am not just dismissing the pictures presented without really looking at them, I just do not see what others see, I suppose.

[edit on 11/26/2008 by AlienCarnage]

Bob Dean showed more detailed images of the thing in Saturn's rings a few months ago.


Neat..isnt it!!


Cheers!!!

---

Mod Edit: Advertising removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 4) Advertising. Thank you - Jak


[edit on 26/11/08 by JAK]

reply to post by mikesingh

---

You incorrectly named the photo file. It is the Phobos probe UFO, not Saturn UFO.



Cheers!!!!

---

Mod Edit: Advertising removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 4) Advertising. Full quote of preceeding post removed. Reply to function used. Thank you - Jak



[edit on 26/11/08 by JAK]

Neither Nobel nor Noble


Not at all. Merely because I have some slight understanding of the laws of physics, and know that they must be the same in all places and all times; no alien, however advanced its scientific knowledge, can repeal them.

If an object is 'gravity shielded' (assuming for the time being that such a thing is possible), then the gravitational pull of surrounding objects (such as the planet Saturn) will not affect it. Therefore it will not fall in a circle or ellipse round Saturn. It will move in a straight line unless deviated from it by (a) an impact of some kind or (b) the use of its own power. If this 'gravity shielded' thing appears to be in orbit round Saturn, then its crew, or whatever you call it, must be deliberately powering it round and round in circles (or ellipses): ET, driving in circles.

Mike, your response to my last post is really far too silly to deserve an answer; but I'll humour you thus far:


Indeed, there is clearly quite a lot you do not know. See here.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

---

I fully understand Your point of view and where You come from Sir, but what I am trying to say is , of course You , me and many other "educated" people understand the laws of physics which are belived to be true for the moment.

What I mean is , imagine You (pure hypothetical) are involved in a conversation with somebody from the middle ages or even further back , and trying to explain to him for instance the existance of umm lets say nano bots or cellural phones or something as complex as a airplane.

You would probably be burned alive for herasy or magic or be called a totall looney.


See where I come from ? Scientific theories and kommon knowledge changes drasticly over time , and how manny years has it been from the time people thought the sun goes arround the earth or that earth is flat ?

Not so long in terms cosmic timeframe . So now try and imagine what science will know and hold for fact in 200 years , 1 thousand years , 1 millin years .. (if we do not blow ourselves up by that time )

You , me and everybody else has no idea how such advanced crafts work , how their engines work , what type of material the crafts are made from , etc .

Of course You can argue that laws of physics are static and that what we know now will not change within the next x years but the truth is we as a spiecies understand maybe 1% of how the universe works.

So stating something as a fact based just on our todays science knowledge is a rather bad approach imo because in 5, 10, 100,1000,... years people might be calling us and our theories dumb and uneducated

(For some unknown reasons my english grammar checker is not working so I apologize for all the grammar mistakes , english is not my native language )

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Thill]

reply to post by Thill

---

I see where you are coming from and your spelling is fine by me.

Your argument is often summed up as Clarke's Third Law: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

But there is a difference between technology and science.

Newton's laws of motion are science, and however they may be modified by relativistic or even unknown effects, they must continue to apply at all times and in all places. And this 'ship' of Mr. Singh's is (a) flouting them and (b) pretending to obey them. Which is ridiculous. Besides, any fool can see that this wonderful blur is just a visual or data artefact.

Still, believe what you want to believe. I'm out of here.