Mate, I am as big a sci-fi fan as anyone. But there is a huge difference between the kind of scientific imagination that leads to discovery, and a blind leap into any wonderful theory no matter how specious.
Just take a look at what you have done on this thread alone. You have taken a speck from a photograph that could be explained in many ways, and advanced an explanation that 1) is the most improbable of all explanations; and 2) is not supported by any evidence that does not also support much simpler explanations.
There's a heuristic called Occam's Razor, which states that given a multitude of explanations for any particular observation, the simplest one is most likely to be correct. And indeed, a logical mind must assume the simplest answer is correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary. You would do well to apply this method routinely.
So, here we have a number of possible explanations:
1) Speck of dust in the air
2) Data error or transmission error
3) Phobos, Deimos, or another trapped asteroid
4) Alien vehicle
Now you tell me, which of these theories is likely to make others suggest a change in your medication?
This and your end-times theory have a strong element in common: You have first chosen what you wish to believe, and then sought evidence to support it. This is the opposite of scientific inquiry, which observes evidence first, then seeks to assemble those observations into a coherent whole.
What we have here is a large-scope failure of inductive logic, because it is based on faulty and preconceived assumptions. The link below can provide you with a detailed analysis of the logical errors that are commonly made in inductive reasoning.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Inductivelogic.shtml The truth of the matter is that deductively, there is nothing among your assertions that can even remotely be proven, or even escape the realm of infinitesimal probability.