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

a reply to: Xeven

In my experience, woo merchants like that have very short memories. It's onto the next "anomaly" in the next video with no mention of what went before. There's always another JPEG block to "enhance" in another photo...

originally posted by: Rob48
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.

The concept of that being a photograph of a heavenly body on the other side of the solar system, and I'm sitting here at Earth looking at it now, is really awe-striking when you think about it. It looks awesome. Good job humanity.


As far as the "artifacts" in the guy's video, I have no clue what that is, I'm not a photography specialist, I couldn't tell you how to decipher photographs taken from orbit. My own personal opinion is this: "I don't know if there are aliens/bases out there in our own solar system, but I do believe our universe is teeming with life"


Who knows, maybe aliens from other planets are human too, wondering the same thing about us as we wonder about them.

I personally like those videos very much, and find his research interesting.

The trouble seems to be that IF an anomaly was investigated by science, they may have to come to a conclusion that it is man-made. That may cause problems with the secrecy crowd and so no-one bothers to investigate officially.

Another issue is the folks who dont like the secrecy crowd want to know for certain whether it IS a black project or something else, and no-one will tell them. Then there are the folk who complain that it is all woo and is not be done properly according to scientific practices and principles. (although if it was these things cannot be reproduced on-demand, so that would invalidate it too) I reckon these anti-woo proponents just like to be on the winning side because they know full well that, like ghosties, no-one will ever be able to pin the phenomena down enough to investigate it scientifically.

As an example, I made a very good case (well, I think so anyway) for some Mars blueberries being vegetative and coming from fungus but no-one could prove it one way or the other because all we have is photographic evidence. Of course we have background information on climate, rock types etc, but that does not really explain what was found and nor does it discount it either.

The other thing which is impossible to prove is that unless you have a dead alien you can touch and examine, you are never going to convince some people that proof is there. CGIs are so good these days, that a White House landing is not going to cut it either. UFOs could be black projects and man-made vehicles so who will know which they are? It is all a waste of time. Arguing is a waste of time too.

a reply to: qmantoo

What is this "secrecy crowd"?

The only data and images from Titan come though the Cassini spacecraft, and are made public though PDS archives, for anyone's examination. Titan is given as much scientific attention as it can get. There are probably high-res images of the area in question from the VIMS and radar instruments, so why not take a look at that data to see if it supports the claim of an artificial base? The radar images are detailed enough to see individual dunes on Titan.

Regarding the OP's video, it's clear that we're looking at image artifacts. Unfortunately for the conspiracy crowd, any research into anomalies is plagued by such clear mistakes and general ignorance with regards to science, imaging techniques, and many other aspects.

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

No, no , just no.

You can replace the guy with "blah, blah, blah".

It will make just as much sense.

a reply to: qmantoo

The trouble seems to be that IF an anomaly was investigated by science, they may have to come to a conclusion that it is man-made. That may cause problems with the secrecy crowd and so no-one bothers to investigate officially.

"Secrecy crowd"? Just exactly who are they?

Investigate "officially"? Wouldn't the entire mission be an "official investigation"/fact finding mission?

Or do you think some civilian grassroots group is going to make a probe and send it for the "real story" to dispute the nebulous "secrecy crowd"?

Sounds like an X-Files junkie on steroids.

I reckon these anti-woo proponents just like to be on the winning side because they know full well that, like ghosties, no-one will ever be able to pin the phenomena down enough to investigate it scientifically.

Again..."investigate officially"...

What WOULD you consider an official investigation besides professionals in their fields developing the tech, testing it, doing the calculations, building it, sending it, collecting the results, and analyzing them????

Are you and your "buds" the real "officials"? Is Arken? Is anyone here besides JimOberg?

Just don't get it sometimes here on ATS.

a reply to: Chamberf=6

Just don't get it sometimes here on ATS.

What really baffles me is that here we are in 2014, when surely just about everyone in the western world with any interest in space has a computer and a digital camera... and yet people are STILL confused by JPEG compression creating "anomalies" in digital images!

a reply to: Rob48

Amen to that. The conspiracy believers accuse scientists of being biased and fitting evidence to their theories, yet immediately associate any straight or rectangular shapes with alien or human bases and structures. When being shown that those are just image artifacts or natural formations, we are disregarded as nothing more than "pseudo-skeptics" and "debunkers".

[for the lack of "rolling eyes" emoticon, see my avatar]

I get the whole Data dropout and artifacts from compressing photos, I really do. You get it with music files too sometimes. But with a $20 Billion annual budget, I would think Nasa has better equipment and procedures on squashing data. Plus, I mean, everything they ever release is in B&W! Really? As a tax payer I'm pi$$ed. Just sayin'...

originally posted by: Compressor35
Plus, I mean, everything they ever release is in B&W! Really? As a tax payer I'm pi$$ed. Just sayin'...

Yeah, I know, shocking ain't it.

Oh, my bad 99.9% of what they release is B&W.

originally posted by: Compressor35
Oh, my bad 99.9% of what they release is B&W.

Well no. You're just making that up. NASA have been releasing colour photos ever since the Gemini and Apollo days in the 1960s.