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

Originally posted by Beachcoma


That's an interesting photo. What's that in the background, the bright flash? If it was taken by Cassini, it seems to big to be the Sun. Or is it the sun?

Thank you for your question:
i just know that the UFO is crossing iapetus, but i've no idea of what is the bright in the back.
There are two pics: this is the previous one


[edit on 16/9/2007 by internos]

And here’s some strange pics in the rings of Saturn.


Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

Now for the bombshell!

Scientists cannot explain all observed features. The current dilemma facing scientists is that Cassini is detecting extended objects like those pictured here.

saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

Have a nice day!

reply to post by internos


Weird. The flash could be light reflected directly off of Iapetus. I've no idea what that diamond shaped object is. You have any more shots of it?

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by internos

 

Weird. The flash could be light reflected directly off of Iapetus. I've no idea what that diamond shaped object is. You have any more shots of it?

Sadly, so far i've found just these ones: it isn't easy to find this kind of pics: of course, i don't use the NASA search engine. Strangely, it gives LESS results than in other ways



Even it's not cigar shaped, is interesting...isn't it?



[edit on 16/9/2007 by internos]

Originally posted by internos

Even it's not cigar shaped, is interesting...isn't it?

Yeah. It's a hell lot more interesting than cigar-shaped objects or vague, blurry objects. Good find

Here's a similar pic....



Looks like a gigantic light bulb, what?? Needless to say, it's gonna be passed off as some moon or asteroid in Saturn's orbit!!


It does seem strange. Not only the missing pixels, but also the shape which is rather intriguing! Also the 'shadow' in its mid section is puzzling. Let's see what NASA said about it after calibration / validation.

As per NASA, this image, N00061934, was taken on May 23, 2006 and received on Earth May 24, 2006. The camera they say, was pointing toward TETHYS at approximately 509,689 kilometers away. Hmmm...They seem to be way off the mark! Here’s what Tethys actually looks like..


NASA / JPL / J.Garrido
TETHYS, above. But the shiny 'light bulb' pic of the object is TETHYS according to NASA!!

And this is what the object looks like after embedding…



So what's going on here?

Cheers!

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by internos

Even it's not cigar shaped, is interesting...isn't it?

Yeah. It's a hell lot more interesting than cigar-shaped objects or vague, blurry objects. Good find

There are objects of many shapes, so far we limited our searches to the saturn area, and possibly to the rings. Of course, we cannot hope to find higly definited objects, due the big distances, and we have to distinguish between "apparently" cigar shaped objects and "actually" ones. This can be difficult sometimes, but in the case of the pic with whic the OP opened the thread, is clear that isn't an "effect due to the exposition".




For instance, it should be simple to debunk these ones: there is simply to say WHAT they are and, then, to PROVE it.


saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...




saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...




saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...


[edit on 16/9/2007 by internos]

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!

If it were correct, then you would see it almost Naked Eye if it is made from anything light reflective.
Problem is, Earth is much, much smaller than this. In fact, Jupiter's core is around Earth-Sized.
Jupiter is much larger - the famous "Red Spot" is bigger than Planet Earth is.
Radial diameter is 11.2 times that of earth.

See www.windows.ucar.edu...=/jupiter/J_comparison.html&edu=elem

Originally posted by antipigopolist

There is absolutely NO evidence to back up any of these claims but of course you can shell out some "dinars" for a book to see a photo of "something". It's sad that some are falling for this charade.

I do believe we are not alone...but the evidence put forth in this thread as support for the grand claim of the thread title is what is pathetic. That...and someone hawking said book.

Thanks for your post antipigopolist. I disagree that there is no avidence as you say, "to back up any of these claims".

Of course, the difference between you and me is that I have read the book. If you ever get a chance to read it I wold be delighted to have a debate here on ATS with you.

Of course, Norman Bergrun might disagree with you also. He wrote the book and I would guess that you do not have the scientific education, or aerospace employment background that Norman has.

But thanks for the post, as devoid of facts that it is, I appreciate your input.

Scientists cannot explain all observed features. The current dilemma facing scientists is that Cassini is detecting extended objects like those pictured here.

saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

Please dont manipulate this article you quoted. There is no such sentence like "scientists cannot explain all observed features". You are making a collage-cut-copy-paste from an article.
Original is:
Scientists have long suspected that small moons hiding among Saturn's ring strands might be producing some of the unusual structure observed in the F ring. While the shepherd moon Prometheus is the main culprit behind the strange behavior of Saturn's F ring, it cannot explain all observed features. The current dilemma facing scientists is that Cassini is detecting extended objects like those pictured here -- that may be either solid moons or just loose clumps of particles within the ring.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by commodore64]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by commodore64]

Originally posted by Atticus_Black

Those are truly shocking photos, if they are real then its scary whats out there.


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!

Jupiter is over a thousand times the size of earth.

Originally posted by internos
Everyone who whishes to debunk this thread, should know what has to debunk as an alternative to shut up:

What makes anyone think that streak is cylindrical? The resolution on that pic is TERRIBLE. The object could easily be a rock or a moon - or a strung-out comet or asteroid debris like that one that hit Jupiter and came in in a "string" of rocks. Seriously, I don't see a cylinder in those pixels.

By the way, we got some news for you:

What news? Can I see a version of this pic that does NOT come from an "enhanced plate" in a single book? It's a bold claim, and the picture is interesting. I'd love to see the original.

All fascinating information - many thanks to those who are sharing these amazing pics.

Rings aren't unique to Saturn though, haven't they been detected around all gas giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) now? It's just that Saturn's rings are luminescent enough to be seen from small earth-based telescopes that gives it the honour of being the first 'ringed' planet. The solid objects in the rings could simply be accretions of the particles that make up the rings or something far more interesting

Let's hope we develop the technology to find out in person.

Originally posted by pjslug
Oh wait, we live in the U.S.A.

Do we? I was sure people from all over the world had access to the internet nowadays.

America is NOT the World!

Originally posted by Sophismata
What makes anyone think that streak is cylindrical? The resolution on that pic is TERRIBLE. The object could easily be a rock or a moon - or a strung-out comet or asteroid debris like that one that hit Jupiter and came in in a "string" of rocks. Seriously, I don't see a cylinder in those pixels.

The resolution of that pic is a ordinary infrared pic of Saturn resolution from Hubble in that series.
imgsrc.hubblesite.org...
A moon IMHO, usually does not appear from nowhere and does not disappear to nowhere but i could be wrong (now i'll go to take a look at the ours one, to make sure it's still there). Edit: it's still there, a fourth crescent, better than nothing.
A rock, an asteroid, a comet IMHO shoud have hard time on following exactly the path of the F ring and then, without reason, change deliberately path in order to disappear to nowhere, but i could be wrong.
Have you found later/previous time pics which shows the same objects?
I haven't. If you have, please post it here.
Of course these objects could be many things, i really agree with you on this point.
What we are trying to find out is what they are (this is the reason we're gathering pics of Saturn which shows cylyndrical/cigar shaped objects) possibly basing our deductive reasoning on clues as i.e. NASA pics, instead of much-less-than-clues as i.e. chats .
No one has the proof to state that they are alien moterships:
no one has the proof to state that they are one of the options mentioned.
If you got some proofs, feel free to provide it, no one will censore you.

What news? Can I see a version of this pic that does NOT come from an "enhanced plate" in a single book? It's a bold claim, and the picture is interesting. I'd love to see the original.

The news is that many of us were searching for it (and something else) and finally we have found it (who has followed the thread will understand it). In your opinion could not be news, for us OF COURSE it is, also i called it so.
Since i don't know all the long/odd background of the pic and is not my purpose to provide bad informations about it (despite some idiots could think so), i hope that John will accomplish this task, of course if he's available to.


[edit on 16/9/2007 by internos]

The photo below labeled as an enhanced Plate 3 from the book Ringmakers of Saturn by Norman Bergrun would be using the word ‘enhanced’ to avoid a more correct word which would be ‘photoshopped’.

A lot of work has been done to obscure the original detail of the photos in the Ringmakers of Saturn from which sections of this photoshopped composite were obviously taken.

I have labeled some of the original printing and also noted some of the obvious photoshopping in yellow.



Below is a photo of the real plate 3 (page 15) Ringmakers of Saturn by Norman Bergrun.



As you can see the photo at the top of this post could not be an ‘enhanced’ photo because none of the labeling matches and Normans signature has been photoshopped into the photo.

In addition the colors are different and points of light have been added.

The photos below show where Norman’s signature has been forged by a very poor forger. I don’t even think I have to point out the dissimilarities.

Norman’s alleged signature from photoshopped photo:



Norman’s signature from my book:





The original photos in the Ringmakers of Saturn are exquisite in detail. But in all fairness to Norm if he were to authorize their posting without the viewer having read the accompanying text they would be just more anomalous pictures of the rings of Saturn.

Originally posted by johnlear
The photo below labeled as an enhanced Plate 3 from the book Ringmakers of Saturn by Norman Bergrun would be using the word ‘enhanced’ to avoid a more correct word which would be ‘photoshopped’.


The original photos in the Ringmakers of Saturn are exquisite in detail. But in all fairness to Norm if he were to authorize their posting without the viewer having read the accompanying text they would be just more anomalous pictures of the rings of Saturn.

John, thank you for your clarification.
I've found this other one on the same website:

please, tell me if i'm wrong. Is the first one a result of a composition of different pics, plus retouch? And this second one?

Originally posted by internos

John, thank you for your clarification.

I've found this other one on the same website:

please, tell me if i'm wrong. Is the first one a result of a composition of different pics, plus retouch?

I don't know what all they did to the first.

And this second one?

All I can say about the second is that I agree with the statement:

Interaction at ring tip demonstrates that no imaging malfunction exists, and that the rings proper are not cut off by image framing.

Norm has told me he has a lengthy rebuttal ready for the image malfunction charge but that he has never seen the right opportunity to release it.

It would be my speculation that not enough people even know what the argument is about much less understand the rebuttal.

Really interesting thread indeed.

I hope that more info can be revealed.

like said many times before , great thread , hope we get more of those kind of pics , some of them will be clear enough that they wont/cant be mistaken for a moon Patience