[thoughtomator]

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.

[Quix]

What an

ENORMOUSLY UNSCIENTIFIC PONTIFICATION.

You don't have a clue about the process of my arriving at which or how much of my assertions. Not a clue beyond what I've stated in this thread--which you seem to have little comprehension of

DUE TO YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS.

I have NOT said that much at all about this speck in this photo.

I HAVE used it as a spring board to talk about the broader issues involved from my parituclar biases, experience, observations, extensive study.

One would have thought that

SOMEONE SO GIFTED IN LOGICAL, CLEAR, SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND ANALSYSIS

would have picked the above up.

I guess your biases and emotions--or perhaps your medication got in the way.

[Quix]

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.

CLEARLY, YOUR

. . . collection of puzzle pieces is anemic to nonexistent. And, your perspective is also suspect. Alas, nothing will likely conince you of this.

It should be interesting when your construction on reality comes crashing down.

I wonder what explanation, construction, ?fantasy? you will cling to then.

The Lord has declared IN HIS WRITTEN WORD--and increasingly the last year or so . . .

ALL
THAT CAN BE
SHAKEN
WILL BE
SHAKEN
!!!!!!!

One had best hold tightly to THE ROCK well before then.

[norton]

Effective sarcasm, ineffective illustration:

"So, here we have a number of possible explanations:"
1) Speck of dust in the air
my photography experience is limited but a speck of dust wouldn't even register on any lens I've ever used. Too close it's a blur, too far away it's too small, and 'just right' would leave the rest of the image totaly out of focus.
2) Data error or transmission error
It's not like we'd seen previous reports of random dropped pixels.
If they had been a problem we'd at least have seen one or two out of the large number of images avalable to us. (This alternative requires either a very, very, rare random event, or first sign of 'new' system degeneration. The latter might be a possibility but either would require repetition.)
3) Phobos, Deimos, or another trapped asteroid
As someone else noted, NASA knows where these bodies are at the time the photo was shot; there are then three alternatives, [a] NASA ignored a historic phorto because NASA does not need or want positive PR, [b] NASA is preparing a huge PR release to tell us about it right after the Rose Bowl game, [c] NASA doesn't know any better than we know what it is.
(which seems the most simple to you?)
4) Alien vehicle
Much like alternative number 2 - can't be proven or disproven as yet.