To All People
In Peaceful Quest of Knowledge
Executive. Personal: Born August 4, 1921; Son of Theodore and Naomi Ruth Stemm
Bergrun (both deceased); Married Claire Michaelson; Father of Clark, Jay, Joan.
Education: B.S.M.E., Cornell University, 1943; L.L.B., LaSalle University (Extension),
1955; Postgraduate Study, Stanford University, 1947; Continuing Education,
Foothill College, 1982. Military: Served in the United States Navy, 1944-46, attaining
the rank of Chief Specialist.
Career: Executive, Bergrun Companies (Research,
Engineering, Construction, Properties); Thermodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft
Company, El Segundo, 1943-44; Aero Research Scientist, NACA Ames Laboratory,
1944-56; Lockheed Missile and Space Company, Van Nuys (CA), Supervisor Flight
Test 1956-68, Manager Flight Test Analysis 1958-62, Manager Test Plans and
Direction 1962-63, Manager Re-Entry Test Operations 1963-67, Staff Scientist
Satellite Systems Applications 1967-69; Director, Management Information Systems,
Nielsen Engineering and Research, Mt. View, California. Organizational Memberships:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Chairman San Francisco
Section 1962, Regional Director 1963, Associate Fellow; California Society of
Professional Engineers, State Director 1973-74 and 1979-83, Vice-President, 1986.
National Society of Professional Engineers, National Director, 1975-76; California
Space and Defense Council, 1982; Co-founder and Acting Chairman of the Board,
California Professional Engineering Center, 1986. Charter Member Aviation Hall of
Fame. Community Activities: Foreign-Student Host, International Center for the
Advancement of Management Education, Stanford University, 1964-67; National
Hearing on Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., 1971; Steering
Committee Member for Representative Charles S. Gubser, 10th District California,
83rd-93rd Congress, 1960-74; California Space and Defense Council, 1982; Presidential
Task Force, 1982; Television Public Service Announcement, Holiday Project,
1981. Religion: Stanford Memorial Chapel, Teaching Assistant, Youth Program;
Member Chapel Summer Choir, 1982; Foothill Evening Chorale, 1980-86 interdenominational.
Honors and Awards: Engineer of the Year, California Society of
Professional Engineers, Penisula Chapter, 1978; Appreciation for Sustained Contributions
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1972; Extraordinary Service
Award, National Management Association, 1968; Recognition of Distinctive Service,
Institute of Aerospace Sciences, 1962; Appreciation for Contributions to First Polaris
Launching, Navy Department, 1960.
From Second Edition
Two Thousand Notable Americans
Frontispiece: A spectacular pattern in Saturn’s atmosphere masks the presence of awesome power.
Presented herein are pictures of immensely large, enormously powerful
extraterrestrial space vehicles located in the vicinity of Saturn and its moons.
These photographic revelations are reinforced by, and are consistent with,
scientific data extending over centuries as far back as Galileo. The pictures
have been obtained by the author using simple, repeatable enhancement
techniques applied to publicly available NASA photographs from Voyager 1
and 2 flybys of Saturn. Having been obtained by pre-scheduled flight
programming, Voyager photographs are scientifically unique in that they are
Identification of extraterrestrial vehicles, apparently possessing ancient
historical presence in the solar system, is a new discovery having many
ramifications. Attention, however, is focused on presenting factual information
which can be gleaned from the pictures. Cameras, being well established
scientific instruments, provide direct data of the “Seeing-Is-
Believing” variety. Despite their straight-forward characteristic, actual
photographs probably will not establish conviction for everyone. For
example, personal beliefs may deleteriously impair the communication
process. Not withstanding this difficulty, effort has been exercised to enhance
communication effectively through use of supplemental illustrations. Burdening
detail of enhancement methodology, aerospace equations and technical
jargon intentionally has been omitted to favor simple, broadly comprehensible
Considerable technical data have been published concerning Voyagers 1
and 2 on-board instrumentation results during the Saturn flybys. Interpretation
of the visual data presented poses no conflict with data from other
on-board instrumentation. In fact, all data are mutually compatible. Interestingly,
the visual data stand on their own without the need for other
measurements redundantly to attest to the accuracy of the analysis. A
fundamental attribute of any correct analysis is that it supplies answers to a
wide spectrum of relevant questions. When the physical nature of a problem is
understood, a predictive ability then ensues which enables achievement of new
progress. Such achievement can be expressed simply as a breakthrough.
Magnitude of the Saturnian breakthrough would appear to be substantial.
Saturnian space vehicles, strangely unusual in their great size and appearance,
introduce a new and unpredictable variable into affairs world-wide. Some
hitherto reported events are recounted in terms of vehicle capabilities with a
view toward postulating some concept of what the future portends. Compelling
reasons exist for obtaining a much more complete understanding of these
vehicles and the inferential superlative intelligence behind them.
Photographic enhancement has been accomplished by enlarging negatives with a microscope having recording and high-intensity lighting capabilities.
Self-developing positive film recorded the various selected images contained
in negatives. Copies of original photomicrographic recordings are the product
of professional film-processing services.
To recall, launch date for Voyager 1 is 5 September 1977 and for Voyager 2,
20 August 1977. Date of closest approach to Saturn is 12 November 1980 for
Voyager 1 and 26 August 1981 for Voyager 2. Without photography from
these flybys, the science story presented herein could not be told. Universality
of interest in the findings renders disclosures singularly through disciplineoriented
channels inappropriate. Further, absence of disciplinary-boundary
constraints permits discussion of humanistic concerns relevant to the findings
which otherwise would be omitted. This broad approach is expected to
catalyze more readily and more realistically the priorities which should be
given to the many, highly diverse, aspects of the subject matter.
NASA photographs are utilized from Voyager 1 and 2 flybys of Saturn
and from Ranger and Orbiter lunar-mapping spacecraft. Appreciation is extended
to NASA for releasing this information to the public that others might
Appreciation also is extended to my wife and life-long friend, Claire
Michaelson Bergrun, who supplied generous encouragement during all phases
of producing this book.
To Dr. Walter Vincenti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at
Stanford University, special thanks are given for his valuable suggestions at
the final phase of the manuscript.
Clark Constable, noted for exceptional skills which have made it distinctive
over the centuries, is particularly recognized for continued pursuit of
Acknowledgment also goes to Edinburgh’s Meg Ross for her untiring
reading and re-reading of the processed manuscript.
And finally, for his making everything come together speedily with gracious
Scottish hospitality and manner, the author extends heart-felt gratitude to
Douglas Law of Pentland Press.
IMPEDIMENTS TO PROGRESS
Puzzlements of Saturn
Saturn has beguiled observers since the dawn of recorded history
over 50 centuries ago. In earliest history, Saturn has been associated
with omens concerning both political and daily life. This situation
changed little until the beginning of the 17th century when Galileo and
his contemporaries, using telescopes, began systematic observations of
Seventeenth century observers documented a variety of shapes for
what are now known as Saturn’s rings. Galileo himself pictured the
“rings” as solid circles, one on either side of the planet. Others pictured
a solid elliptical ring plane, but one containing unusual openings such
as circles and diamond shapes. Absence of rings also is recorded.
Variance among observers and the uncommon appearance of the rings
have been attributed to poor telescope quality in early days.
Poor telescope quality also has been cited for the wide range in ring plane
thickness documented by various observers later in the 18th
century. Reported thicknesses range from 335 km (280 mi) to 16 km
(10 mi). Whether Saturn had any rings at all continued to be
questioned into the 19th century. In a carefully timed observation, a
definitive shadow was expected to be cast on the ring plane by Saturn’s
moon, Titan; but no perceptible shadow ever occurred. The observer,
W. R. Dawes, carefully concluded in 1862 that the rings must be
Near the end of the 18th century, luminous points were observed on
the edge of the ring plane. One of these is reported to have moved off its
position. None of the luminous points persisted very long (less than
16 hours), thereby negating the possibility of their being satellites. The
observer, William Herschel, postulated in 1789 that some sort of
unstable source must be responsible, such as an intense fire. Another
puzzlement has been the sighting of one arm of the ring when the other
arm could not be detected.
Luminous points continued to be reported by discriminating
observers into the 19th century. Again, satellites of Saturn had to be
ruled out as none could be located in the vicinity. The most astounding
and now famous observations of a light source came in the 20th century on 9 February 1917. Two astronomers, Maurice Ainslie and John Knight of Great Britain, observed the source independently.
Brightness of the source was so intense that Ainslie referred to the
object as a “star”. The star traveled a straight-line course which, in
effect, subtended a chord across the ring system. Length of the chord
was of the order of 125,000 km (77,700 mi). Observed time to traverse
this chordal distance across the ring system was 1 hour and 40 minutes,
making the average velocity 21 km/sec (13 mi/sec). This value
compares with an average velocity for Voyager en route to Saturn of
about 13.7 km/sec (8.5 mi/sec). That is, the star was about 1 1/2 times
faster. During the observations when the star was in plain view, the
light therefrom appeared to be elongated. There was a strange aspect
about the traversal itself. Seeming to move through the ring plane
without difficulty, the star appeared to devour material ahead as it
proceeded. Further, at no time did the rings completely block out the
Results from Voyager 1 have added new puzzlements. For example,
so-called “spokes” of light stretch across part of the ring system; the F
ring, which is positioned alone outside the main ring plane, contains
entwined strands or “braids”; intense electrical discharges similar to,
but much greater than, terrestrial lightning have been recorded; and
Saturn’s moon Iapetus is about 10 times, or one order1 of magnitude,
brighter on the sun-shadowed side than on the sun-exposed side.
Ring-plane thickness has been an exasperating frustration for
almost 200 years. Voyager 1 did not shed any new light on the matter.
Later, Voyager 2 added mystery to the existing enigma when, on 26
August 1981, instrumentation indicated the effective ring-plane thickness
to be in the neighborhood of 1000 km (about 600 mi). This value is
about twice those reported at the turn of the 18th century, and over an
order of magnitude greater than measurements obtained during the
onset of the 20th century. The problem is how to explain such a wide
spread in measurements of the same thing. Pressure mounts to
recognize all ring-thickness values as being approximately correct at
the time obtained. Such recognition, however, requires discarding a
belief that 20th century telescopes could yield vastly better gross ring pattern
definition than 18th century telescopes.
How is it possible for so many conscientious observer-analysts to
encounter so many blocks to progress? Part of the answer to this
question seems to be that preconceived ideas have been converted into
fixed ideas. Then, when new data are received which do not conform to
the fixed ideas, an impediment to progress is experienced. The reported variance in ring-plane thickness is a really good example. A preconceived
idea which tacitly has become fixed is that ring thickness
should be a constant, whereupon, variable thicknesses are intolerable.
An impersonal method for dispensing with unwanted measurements
has been to attribute variances plausibly to poor-quality telescopes.
Notwithstanding the tendency to dispose of untoward data, another
part of the answer to the question is that something in or about the data
is being overlooked. Oversight unobtrusively is convenient when fixed
ideas are being promulgated. However, oversight also can occur
because of presumptive expectations that confirmative new findings
will be obtained. Important facts have an uncanny tendency to remain
Correct explanations of Saturn’s mysteries not only must be
consistent with flyby observations, but also they must agree with the
general thrust of findings by earlier observers. For example, 17th
century observers indicate that Saturn’s present annular-ring system
has not always been so configured. On an absolute scale, 17th and 18th
century telescopes admittedly were not sophisticated. However, recorded
differences in ring-system configurations were made with
nearly equally unsophisticated telescopes. Therefore, while minutiae
concerning ring shapes can be questioned, gross differences in form
most likely are valid.
A valid explanation for ring configuration as seen by Voyager flybys
should be capable also of encompassing 17th, 18th and 19th century
observations. When a single causal mechanism explains several events,
the correct explanation almost certainly has been found. Conversely,
when a plurality of mechanisms is required to explain several events,
the correct explanation almost certainly has not been found. In the
former instance, no coincidences are required. In the latter instance,
unlikely coincidences are required. Existence of concurrent happenings,
or a multiplicity of sequential happenings, only can be hypothesized.
Introduction of coincidences into an analysis potentially is
fraught with error.
Though the facts developed herein resemble science-fiction fantasy,
impersonal photographs convey real-life non-fiction. Photographs
and illustrations, coupled with their captions and labels, provide a
skeletal framework of this scientific reference work. Pieces of the
Saturn puzzle are presented in an ordered manner. Consequently, the
reader is urged to proceed as though each chapter is a prerequisite to
the subsequent one.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
© Norman R. Bergrun 1986
1.An estimate of magnitude expressed as a power of 10.
source All rights reserved
Excerpts may be made freely in furtherance of knowledge and understanding
First published in 1986 by
The Pentland Press Ltd
Kippielaw by Haddington
East Lothian EH41 4PY
Printed and bound in Scotland
by Clark Constable, Edinburgh and London
Jacket design by Ann Ross Paterson
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 86-81530
ISBN 0 946270 33 3