Two ET Bases On Titan, Where Cassini Landed, May 12, 2014

I don't know if this is a hoax or the real deal.
OK ATS'ers give me your opinion.



I will add this one ..old but interesting.
The Reason NASA Never Returned To The Moon

a reply to: nighthawk1954

The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

This guy is very confused about the Cassini-Huygens Mission. He thinks something landed and lifted off again and he thinks there are no close ups.

link to close up of the surface of Titan.

Don't waste your time.

Scott Waring, author of the video below, was looking through Saturn photos when he came across one that had the landing area of the Cassini-Huygen site. Scott says, any landing site had to have something of high significance for NASA to send a probe and land there, then take off again.

The site photo had a close up view and in it Scott found two structures, each with a lot of right angles. The structure in the above photo looks to be 3-4 floors high, because it has depth to it.

The shadows reveal three layers, one on top of the next.

Now the project to land Cassini on Titan was NASA and ESA working together...so the European Space Agency also know about the buildings.
Makes you wonder how many countries know about the existence of aliens.

The landing took place Jan 14. 2005, either part or all of Cassini left Titan and continued on its journey which is said to end in 2017.

Photo Source:
www.ciclops.org...

SOURCE

Hmm we'll never get a definitive answer anyway

a reply to: nighthawk1954

I hope they brought their jackets if they live there!

Looks like artifacts created by resolution/data issues, need someone with more info on the way the images were taken at what height and velocity, etc.

I've seen mountains get pixilated like this before in some other pictures.

He apparently doesn't know the difference in the Cassini orbiter and the Huygens probe. I agree with the above poster... Don't waste your time.

I really wish the UFO crowd would stick to UFOs. They're way out of their depth when it comes to understanding anything astronomy or planetary exploration related.

They also need to learn what the word pareidolia means and ask themselves how often they fool themselves.

a reply to: skyblueworld

...for NASA to send a probe and land there, then take off again.
... The landing took place Jan 14. 2005, either part or all of Cassini left Titan and continued on its journey

That's some great in-depth research right there

Edit.. "They never released any close-up photos of the Cassini probe taking off from there... Why is that?"

Erm... where to begin with this one?

1) The probe that landed on Titan was called Huygens, not Cassini.

2) It didn't take off. It is still there.

3) How close-up do you want? Are individual pebbles on the surface close enough?

(alien base not pictured)


File in the bin.

a reply to: JadeStar

I agree with you to a point, but conversely, I'd like it if more folks who know that the heck they're talking about looked into the "UFO thang."

As it's been said to death, it bears repeating that the phenomena is real and seemingly technological constructs are whizzing through our skies.

Taking a less educated enthusiast as a representative for all the folks who are fairly sure its real is disingenuous. This video, for instance, screams ignorance.

When one really looks at the good cases presented by decent thinkers... it's fairly indisputable. Admittedly, it always helps to see for one's self... but I've only seen four or so anomalous sky things in four decades of sky watching, so it IS fairly rare.

I guess I'm saying I've seen unexplainable things, and I don't think I'm too crazy... so don't throw the young un' out with the fetid water.

a reply to: Baddogma

That's the thing though: why do these "UFOs" never present themselves to expert space watchers? All we seem to get are misidentified photos or sightings of easily explainable phenomena, or, more commonly, vastly "enhanced" images of JPEG artifacts or data dropouts.

Finding evidence of alien life would be a huge scoop for any space agency — arguably even bigger than putting men on the moon — and yet for some reason the experts can't find it while amateurs on YouTube are seeing aliens all over the place! Talk about bad luck.

I'm sure there are some things in the skies of Earth that are not public knowledge, but they are military, not ET, in origin. I'm equally sure that there is alien life out there, but by "out there" I mean out there in the universe, many many light years away, not lurking on the moon or Titan, or buzzing people on the ground in the middle of the night.

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

I agree with you to a point, but conversely, I'd like it if more folks who know that the heck they're talking about looked into the "UFO thang."

We do. See Dr Donald A Menzel, Dr J Allen Hynek, Dr James E McDonald, Dr Jacques Vallee, Dr Peter A Sturrock. Dr Carl Sagan, etc...

The problem is when science looks at the UFO problem it doesn't give the answers people who want to believe they are technology from elsewhere want.

So regardless of who looks at it there is no credible evidence that UFOs represent anything unearthly yet.

Unfortunately most of the UFO crowd is hostile to real scientists looking at this. If they were interested in real answers they'd crowdfund stuff like observation stations in "UFO Hotspots" like Project Hessdalen in Norway and space telescopes (stuff which can actually gather useful scientific data) with the millions that are made off of hokey UFO conventions, primarily in the USA each year.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

I agree with you to a point, but conversely, I'd like it if more folks who know that the heck they're talking about looked into the "UFO thang."

We do. See Dr Donald A Menzel, Dr J Allen Hynek, Dr James E McDonald, Dr Jacques Vallee, Dr Peter A Sturrock. Dr Carl Sagan, etc...

The problem is when science looks at the UFO problem it doesn't give the answers people who want to believe they are technology from elsewhere want.

So regardless of who looks at it there is no credible evidence that UFOs represent anything unearthly yet.

There appears to be creditable evidence, or at least alluded to anyway, of certain phenomena (perhaps not otherworldly) by some of the scientists you listed. That said, any evidence discovered by a professional typically goes through official channels and as such, doesn't always trickle down to the common folk.

I do agree with your premiss and I also think any armchair researcher who is genuinely interested in understanding the UFO phenomenon should begin with first:

a.) Understand the scale and scope of black projects by the military industrial complex.
b.) Understand MindWar and disinformation as it is an effective tool of keeping noses away from (a.) by using the UFO phenomenon.
c.) At least a basic understanding of time/space but particularly dimensions.
d.) be familiar with pareidolia and other optical illusions which can be better understood by also understanding (c.)

For what its worth.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

I agree with you to a point, but conversely, I'd like it if more folks who know that the heck they're talking about looked into the "UFO thang."

We do. See Dr Donald A Menzel, Dr J Allen Hynek, Dr James E McDonald, Dr Jacques Vallee, Dr Peter A Sturrock. Dr Carl Sagan, etc...

The problem is when science looks at the UFO problem it doesn't give the answers people who want to believe they are technology from elsewhere want.

So regardless of who looks at it there is no credible evidence that UFOs represent anything unearthly yet.

There appears to be creditable evidence, or at least alluded to anyway, of certain phenomena (perhaps not otherworldly) by some of the scientists you listed.

Perhaps but they will also tell you that evidence of anomalies does not equal evidence of aliens.

The first place science goes when faced with an unknown is NOT aliens, it is nature.

That said, any evidence discovered by a professional typically goes through official channels and as such, doesn't always trickle down to the common folk.

Coverup conspiracies are not the domain of science. Invoking such ideas of 'well they hide the evidence' and language along those lines just drives off scientists because they're thinking 'wtf? why bother? that crowd has a narrative they will stick to regardless of whatever evidence I gather.'

a reply to: JadeStar

(star for your 2,000th post!)

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: JadeStar

(star for your 2,000th post!)

OMG I had no idea I've posted that much!!!! Wow!!! thanks!

(does little ATS dance)

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

I agree with you to a point, but conversely, I'd like it if more folks who know that the heck they're talking about looked into the "UFO thang."

We do. See Dr Donald A Menzel, Dr J Allen Hynek, Dr James E McDonald, Dr Jacques Vallee, Dr Peter A Sturrock. Dr Carl Sagan, etc...

The problem is when science looks at the UFO problem it doesn't give the answers people who want to believe they are technology from elsewhere want.

So regardless of who looks at it there is no credible evidence that UFOs represent anything unearthly yet.

There appears to be creditable evidence, or at least alluded to anyway, of certain phenomena (perhaps not otherworldly) by some of the scientists you listed.

Perhaps but they will also tell you that evidence of anomalies does not equal evidence of aliens.

The first place science goes when faced with an unknown is NOT aliens, it is nature.

That said, any evidence discovered by a professional typically goes through official channels and as such, doesn't always trickle down to the common folk.

Coverup conspiracies are not the domain of science. Invoking such ideas of 'well they hide the evidence' and language along those lines just drives off scientists because they're thinking 'wtf? why bother? that crowd has a narrative they will stick to regardless of whatever evidence I gather.'

Hello,
Yes, thats exactly what happens when you don't follow mainstream science paths ... either you are ignored or bullied. On the other hand, there's some pretty interesting stuff happening ... and, if you don't learn to shut up and follow orders and communication protocols (to be silent about your work), you'll never be invited to work there.

a reply to: 2timesOO

The scientific method is the only true science path. If alternative theorists follow it, their findings will be considered. If they aren't following scientific method, then they are not doing science but something else, like using their imagination and creating a science-fiction.

By the way, the powers that be (USA, Nazi Germany for example) put time and money into researching the alternative and metaphysical concepts, like anti-gravity and remote viewing. None of those projects produced any results, as far as I'm aware. en.wikipedia.org...

Pseudo-science is the parasite on the mainstream science's neck. Without the mainstream science, there would be no cars, computers, spaceflight, advanced medicine, nor most of things we take for granted.

a reply to: wildespace

I could name an endless list of people that dared to observe a phenomenon, to describe a phenomenon, and were never taken seriously. You can present an hypothesis and try to work an experiment, or gather observation data, that will allow you to work on a theory or stay in the dark (yes, some phenomenon are elusive and many scientist are no equiped (mathematically and in other subjects to come with a good explanation). Most people (in the academic world) finds some subjects tabu and quickly dismiss them as miths or something alike ... because they don't have the courage to think differently (just go with the crowd).
And of course, you're free to think differently ... even to consider that you have a better grasp of what science is than I do.

a reply to: wildespace

Yes to all discussed/mentioned above about the scientific method... but not to the statements that there is no real evidence. I'm left banging my head against a wall murmuring, "people.. there's weird, high tech looking machinery in our skies and I really doubt it's man-made..."

So now what?

It IS rare and the waves of sightings in the later half of the 20th century suggests, to me, periodic visitation. It sure could be something even weirder than astronauts from Proxima Centauri... but looked at with our present knowledge, it's the likeliest answer, knowing full well it isn't THE answer.

It's nice and comforting to one's worldview to express doubt and say, "It isn't proven." But in reality, there is more than enough good evidence that something with intelligence is dropping by ...at least occasionally. Besides personal observation, there is an almost endless litany of evidence.

That's all I mean...

That's embarrassing. I wonder how he is going to feel when he learns how really incredibly ignorant that video is. Seriously? Adult man would make a video like that and basically be clueless about the subject. lol