It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unidentified Object Photographed By Cassini?

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Now that was Interesting....




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mistafaz
 

Yep! That was an amazing book describing a cylindrical alien craft 40 miles long and 10 in diameter! What was discovered inside was mind boggling!

Take a peek at this vid in HD that shows what a cylindrical craft would be like from the inside if we made one a few thousand years from now! Check it out in full screen mode!






[edit on 7-6-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Could it simply be a moon?
The elongated shape could be due to a long-exposure photograph (i.e., the moon was moving relative to the spacecraft, so the round moon in that long exposure would look elongated.)



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could it simply be a moon?
The elongated shape could be due to a long-exposure photograph (i.e., the moon was moving relative to the spacecraft, so the round moon in that long exposure would look elongated.)


Judging by the original photo, the the object that would have created the elongated shape doesn't match perfectly with a circle...
But it might just be "the picture", we'll never know.



On the other hand the left part of the object ressemble the shadowed part of a moon. And if we make a smaller circle and assume the object wasn't moving in a straight line then it matches.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by ickylevel]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ickylevel]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


To me it looks too flat to be an actual three-dimensional object, more like an image artifact of some sort.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apostolov
If the hubble photo had been lapse captured would'nt the stars in the background look different?

Yes they would!! That elongated 'object' in that Hubble image is either a part of the ring system which is most unlikely as it does not conform to the paradigms of orbital mechanics, or it's an IR photographic glitch. If it's an alien craft, then as I said earlier, that would be a huge leap of faith!


[edit on 7-6-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
...To me it seems it is the result of camera exposure where a number of images of a Moon of Saturn have been snapped over time resulting in an elongated shape. But oddly, the shape is retained throughout. If its about different camera angles, then Saturn and its rings should have gone out of the frame progressively. But this hasn't happened...

Perhaps each image is the same length "long exposure" image of the same moon taken at multiple times. Therefore, if each long exposure was for the same length of time, the elongation of the moon would look practically the same (i.e., the length of each of the "smeared images" of that moon would be the same).

Saturn and its rings did not go out of frame, NOR are they elongated, because they were the subject of the image, so the camera motion was tracking Saturn. However, the camera was NOT tracking the moon, which would thus appear to move differently against the backdrop of Saturn.

[edit on 6/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


Whoa, a star for you!


If we built something like that, it'd truly be amazing!
There is a small bit of me that hopes that thing caught by Cassini is a Rama like object.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
To give an example as to what I mean in my post above...

...say I had a telescope with a tracking motor on it, and I was taking pictures of Earth's moon. I could take pictures all night (say a bunch of 5-second exposure images) and the Moon would stay in the center of my frame and look crisp and clear, thanks to my tracking motor.

Now, say a plane flies through my telescope's field of view, and let's imagine it was flying slowly enough to be in the telescope's field of view for 15 seconds (yeah -- I know that's REAL slow -- but let's pretend). If I took three 5-second exposures of the Moon while the plane was flying past, I would have three pictures of the Moon perfectly centered in the image, each picture with an elongated "streak" of airplane in different locations, but each elongated streak would be the same length.



[edit on 6/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

Yep!
I was thinking the same. (Wise men think alike, eh?
)

But then why hasn't NASA commented on which moon of Saturn it is? Nowhere has this been mentioned in the Cassini website. And more so when it is the most prominent object in those four frames, considering that NASA has forwarded explanations for the most innocuous objects in other images.


In other words, why the secrecy? Why the silence? I wish they would come up with some explanation!



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
30,000 mile ship? That would be so extraordinary haha



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
that picture has been posted on ATS before,
by Zorgon, i believe,
but maybe Im wrong.. and someone else posted it.
anyway, it has been discussed at length here on ATS in the past
and I think the majority came to the conclusion that it is a moon, the time lapse makes it look elongated.

but really, who knows.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Space Bear
30,000 mile ship? That would be so extraordinary haha

Right! Beyond our comprehension! The materials required for construction of such a ship is mind boggling! Where the heck did them aliens get all this stuff from? Probably they screwed up an entire planet for it, which is now the Asteroid Belt!!


[edit on 8-6-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ickylevel
Judging by the original photo, the the object that would have created the elongated shape doesn't match perfectly with a circle...


I disagree. I took the original image, then selected the area at right. I then inverted it (ie made it into a negative), and then transparently overlaid it against the left hand side, using the upper right and lower left 'extremities' as a guide to where it would line up. It looked an awful lot like a perfect circle when you include the very dark semicircle shape that is showing at left.. So then I created a pale yellow perfect circle and overlaid that... Bingo. Here ya go.


That animation shows:
1. The original image (I used 023..)
2. An inverted copy of the right hand edge transparently overlaid where the edges of the exposure indicate.
3,4,5. I gradually introduce a perfect circle for comparison.
6. My crudely cloned version of what the object looked like, had it not moved. All I did was put the right hand edge over the top of the left, and clone out the rough edges (badly!). I didn't align this very accurately, but you get the picture, I hope.

Looks 'xactly like a moon to me.. Note that the lower left of the dark side of the 'moon' is illuminated by Saturn's disc, while the Sun is presumably at lower right, illuminating that side of the 'moon' brightly.

So I'm 100% convinced it was a Saturnian satellite at about 1/4 phase, moving through a time exposure image - the VERY bright outer rings suggest this was a long exposure tracking Saturn, so it all adds up..

If I wasn't lazy, I'd hunt down the info for the image, and use something like Celestia to verify which Moon it was.

Added PS:
And about that ragged-edged terminator.. Not all of Saturn's moons have nice smooth, round shapes.. Imagine this moon at a different phase angle:

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 13-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by amari

Originally posted by Munji
reply to post by ColonelSF
 


The Saturn stuff is mind boggling. Am I correct in saying that in the book " Ringmakers of Saturn" one of the ships was estimated to be 30,000 miles long.

Jaw-dropping stuff.


This means that this so called Star Ship could wrap around the Earth with 5,000 miles to spare. The enormous size is mind boggling. ^Y^


That's nothing new, planet-poppers and star-destroyers tend to be of such sizes.

However, in the case of the Saurn objects we should consider all cillinder like objects as exposior faults. E.g., like the shots of carlights in cities. like here:

aminus3.s3.amazonaws.com...

The 30.000 mile long objects are also under a curviture simular to that of lunar orbits and since we are dealing with explorer satellites from space we should assume that they work much different then the avarage cam on earth, they probably need a way long exposuretime and thus anomalies like the cilinder like shape appear.

In the topic starter photo you can see that the object has a round front, that would be like our moon is round, and so are those of saturn.

At the later photo's also mentioned in other topics the photo's are taken from further away thus making it less clear, but those are also most likely moons.

As for the light of Saturn;

Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are gas gaints, and Jupiter even falls into the protosun categorie. The gas around the gas gaints tends to deflect a portion of the suns light, overexposiour necessary to make the photo's causes the planet to glow so much.

All logical explanations. And be glad, planet poppers and sun destroyers are no joke, they cost lost of efford to build for a space travelling empire, they would also never fly solo but have escorts simular to our aircraft carriers.

I would say we can close this case, but keep it tagged for future reference.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by AncientShade]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

Thanks CHRLZ! Nice to see you here! Great animation. As I mentioned earlier that image is most likely due to exposure time. But here are a couple of mind-benders...

Firstly, your anim is fine for one image taken by Cassini. But the exact size and shape can be seen in four consecutive ones!

Secondly, there must be an explanation for that elongated 'object' photographed by Hubble in the IR image. I ain't no expert in IR photography! So I wonder how that 'elongation' of a moon happened?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Thanks CHRLZ! Nice to see you here! Great animation.

Thanx - just tryin' to help..



As I mentioned earlier that image is most likely due to exposure time. But here are a couple of mind-benders...
Firstly, your anim is fine for one image taken by Cassini. But the exact size and shape can be seen in four consecutive ones!


Maybe I'm missing something, but the image sequence you posted is consistent with the camera tracking saturn, and then an exposure of (say) 20 seconds, during which time the moon travels whatever distance. The exposure finishes. There is a delay of (say) 15 seconds, while nothing is recorded (but of course the moon continues on it's merry way..). Then the shutter re-opens for another 20 seconds, recording the moon from its new position.. and so on. That seems to fit the bill to me. Oh, and take a look at:

- notice the illumination angle and phase of that moon, just two images further on - an exact match for the one shown in my 'simulation'. Without knowing what was being photographed then, and at what focal length etc, I won't claim it's the *same* moon (yet!), but the angle is a mighty huge coincidence!

It's late here and I'm *very* tired and goin' to bed, so maybe there's something else you are seeing that I'm missing...

And do you have the times and dates for these?


Secondly, there must be an explanation for that elongated 'object' photographed by Hubble in the IR image. I ain't no expert in IR photography! So I wonder how that 'elongation' of a moon happened?


Dunno bout that'un.. but I'll take a look later (probably quite a bit later, as I've got a busy day tomorrow). In the meantime, IR photography isn't really any different to normal - same optical rules, same issues with long exposures, just a different set of wavelengths, false colours, and you are 'looking' more at 'heat' than light.

(The purists will kill me for that rather flawed simplification..)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Cassini's cameras have 63 different exposure settings, from 5 milliseconds to 20 minutes: all you have to know more is that the narrow angle camera is a reflecting telescope with a focal length of 2000 mm. Do the math. Nice looking, but definately aberration involving the poor Cassini's CCD.

reply to post by CHRLZ
 

You have just forgot a detail: Cassini is not NAILED there, it moves as well: so, in order to give some credibility to your animation, you should subtract the movement of the spacecraft from the animation. And you cannot. Funny animation but useless.


[edit on 14-6-2010 by zazza_cazz]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazza_cazz
reply to post by CHRLZ
 

You have just forgot a detail: Cassini is not NAILED there, it moves as well: so, in order to give some credibility to your animation, you should subtract the movement of the spacecraft from the animation. And you cannot. Funny animation but useless.

If Cassini's camera and the object (which I think could easily be a moon) are moving relative to each other, then the animation is an accurate analogy.

Obviously Cassini was moving (it never sits still), but Cassini and its camera seems to have been tracking Saturn itself (because Saturn is not "smudged" in the image). Therefore any other object -- such as a moon -- could appear to be moving relative to the spacecraft, and would look elongated due to the exposure time.

He doesn't need to subtract Cassini's movement -- all he needs to assume is that Cassini and/or the object were moving relative to each other. Just like Einstein said, if only two objects in space are the only frame of reference, then it is not relevant WHICH of those objects are said to be moving. It's just as valid to say that one object was moving as it is the other (it all depends on the point of reference).

If we are only considering Cassini and the object, then for all intents and purposes, one could say that relative to Cassini, the object was moving while Cassini stood still.

Therefore -- yes -- it could be a moon, elongated by the long exposure.


[edit on 6/14/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by amari

Originally posted by Munji
reply to post by ColonelSF
 


The Saturn stuff is mind boggling. Am I correct in saying that in the book " Ringmakers of Saturn" one of the ships was estimated to be 30,000 miles long.

Jaw-dropping stuff.


This means that this so called Star Ship could wrap around the Earth with 5,000 miles to spare. The enormous size is mind boggling. ^Y^


True, if they are indeed craft, its a possibility (once we comprehend this) that its a moveable living planet!, thats like us steering earth around space, absolutley mind boggling. The info Mike posted is rivetting, everyone should read his thread.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join