Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lifebeyond

Guest
There is a facinating article on the Enterprise Mission website about how new images of Iapetus indicate it to be an artificial construct! Actually, the following is a link to an entire series of articals that detail all the evidence supporting this theory. <br /><br />Here is the link...<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm<br /><br />Seriously, look at the evidence and data that is provided at the above link. I was *very* skeptical at first, but after reading the above artical the truth does seem to be that we may have found the most anomalistic object in our solar system, and possibly a huge artificial construct!<br /><br />Again,<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
I was also very skeptical at first, but after reading the above article the truth does seem to be that we may have found the most anomalistic article in the entire internet, and absolutely an artificial construct!
 
M

meteo

Guest
Try visiting the front page on that site. All I can say is...yikes.
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
I'm skeptical that intelligent life wrote that article. I think it is somehow natural, just an anomalous.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Anomolous, yes. But let me ask you a question:<br /><br />Why is it that every time something "anomolous" is found in the solar system, everyone comes out of the woodwork to say, "it MUST be of alien origin?"<br /><br />This is not even remotely proven.<br /><br /><b>Above it lies a remarkably geometric “waffle pattern” – more evidence that all on Iapetus is not quite “natural.”</b><br /><br />No scientist wrote that. And none will, either.<br /><br /><b>All pointing toward an equally “unnatural,” if not extraordinary explanation for this “moon"</b><br /><br />A lousy science fiction writer wrote that. Someone who does not understand the meaning of "evidence." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

claywoman

Guest
Is this the same guy that thinks there are 'matrian snakes?
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Yeah. I'm sorry, sometimes, to be such a jerk about these things, but this is how it is. You can't just look at some odd pictures, and then suddenly declaim "an alien built this." What the hey! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Were all sitting here wetting our pants whenever a new spaceprobe first opens its eyes. Of course we all are interested in what awesome aspect of nature will be revealed, but we are all secretly dissapointed that something really, really, really shocking isn't sitting there looking back at us.<br /><br />As I see it, these people don't take dissapointment real well and aren't abashed at playing ink blots to fool themselves and anyone else who will climb on board. It gives them a few seconds of blissfull phermones in exchange for their virtual reputations. So, in other words, there are no drawbacks. They call this being imaginative, but it is quite the opposite - it is borrowing simply second rate science fiction plots recast. Someone elses imagination or some terrestrial known taken out of its context.<br /><br />For the rest of us, we know that something shocking is allways looking back at us. It just takes a lot of patience and effort to appreciate what it is. And whatever that might be it will nearly allways blow our minds with things far and away stranger than is dreamed of by second rate Sci Fi hacks.
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Just taking a look around the rest of his site. It seems he has evidence for 'HS' on Mars. I think the H stands for horse.
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
"Yeah. I'm sorry, sometimes, to be such a jerk about these things...."<br /><br />Be a jerk. This guy is making very good money by defrauding the public. He knows perfectly well what he's doing. <br /><br />In my eyes, a person who knowingly passes pseudoscience in the name of knowledge is a criminal in the worst sense of the word. Knowledge is sacred.<br /><br />Did I say that torture is a bad thing? Perhaps I spoke too hastily.
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
IMHO, the great Iapetus wall is a frozen tsunami from an impactor.<br /><br />The scenario:<br />Just after some great impactor nearly shatters the planetoid, a tsunami wave propogates across the surface. After the wave manages to propogate for some distance, the unusual surface material somehow refuses to deform downward anymore.<br /><br />The impact energy is sufficient to deform the material "up", but gravity isn't sufficient to deform the material back "down" again. This strange surface material would rather lie in a tall heap than fall down.<br /><br />The wave rises, and then refuses to fall back downward. The result is a frozen wave crest: a great wall.
 
C

claywoman

Guest
Don't be sorry Yevaud, this guy is pathetic. As soon as I followed the link and discovered it was Hoagland I started laughing! BTW...doesn't this belong on SETI so someone there can ooh and ahhh the way he wants it to be?
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
This is science the same way that professional wrestling is sport. At least wrestling has learned to wink at the world and make fun of itself -- and still make a lot of money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
"This is science the same way that professional wrestling is sport"<br /><br />No. I don't think you have the analogy quite right. Science is to Hoagland as the water polo team whose horses drowned is to sport.
 
T

telfrow

Guest
Personally, I've always viewed Hoagland, et. al., as modern versions of snake oil salesmen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
I am very surpised that Hoagland never picked up on my (joking) explanation of the Iapetus circumferential ridge, when I first saw it: that the ridge is the debris remaining from a collapsed space elevator!<br /><br />~sigh~ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
D

davp99

Guest
Still, it's a fun read on a boring Sunday...<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not really. Just that there is a screw loose in the human brain and it's a rather widespread mental disorder, AKA the Delusion. This thread of course, belongs in the SETI forum.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think I'll leave it here, though, unless it gets seriously sidestepped into alien life talk. Some threads fit in more than one place; this is an example. It is about alien life (which belongs in SETI) and it is about planetary science & image analysis (which belongs here).<br /><br />One thing I found interesting about the Enterprise website is that it is one of many debunking the "moon hoax" nonsense. But one shouldn't be fooled into thinking it's rational; Hoagland thinks the Apollo pictures HAVE been tampered with, because NASA wouldn't want the world to know about the crystalline aliens that build huge fortresses there..... My main problem with that theory is that it would be in NASA's best interests to find life offworld, and there would be particular financial incentives for any and all NASA employees to announce the existence of extraterrestrial life, because it could easily mean a substantial pay raise. (And that's not even considering the huge academic acclaim such a person would receive.)<br /><br />On the topic of the thread.....<br /><br />Iapetus is an intriguing world. Somebody earlier in this thread commented that it's disappointing when a huge revelation doesn't stare us in the face, but what's amazed me the most about the Cassini mission is how often such huge revelations HAVE leapt out at us. Here we all were, waiting with baited breath to find out if bets could be settled regarding the nature of Cassini Regio on Iapetus. It wasn't hugely surprising to find out that the matter still isn't completely setttled, although Cassini did manage to rule out a few theories. The big shock was finding out that Cassini Regio is NOT the weirdest thing about Iapetus! For three centuries, scien <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Iapetus is indeed an interesting and anomalistic object.<br /><br />But I can re-create that "great wall" in my kitchen.<br /><br />I ask you to think about an ice cream cone. As the spherical scoop of ice cream impacts the cone, you get that nice ridge all the way around the cone that you have to lick off.<br /><br />And even as a layperson, as soon as I saw the image of the Death Star next to Iapetus, the read became solely for entertainment value.<br /><br />Anomalistic? Absolutely. Artificial? Not at all likely.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
The word is anomalous. 'Anomalistic' does exist, but it has a very specific meaning relating to the orbits of the Earth and moon. <br /><br />My use of the term in my earlier post was supposed to be ironic.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
<i><font color="red"><b>Almost</b></font></i>nobody.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tee hee. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
5

5stone10

Guest
<font color="yellow">Seriously, look at the evidence and data that is provided at the above link</font><br /><br /><br />Reminds me of an old John Candy bit on Second City TV.<br /><br />John plays a scientist researching the impact of tight underwear. His conclusion />><br /><br />"Its true ! If ya' wear your underwear too tight .. you ... ya' know ... can die !!"
 
5

5stone10

Guest
<font color="yellow">professional wrestling is sport...</font><br /><br />&%$#@! !!<br /><br />Some wise guy has always got to make the Pro Wrestling / Pseudo-Science analogy !
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<i>"Some wise guy has always got to make the Pro Wrestling / Pseudo-Science analogy!"</i><br /><br />Must be something to it. <br /><br />Are you a wrestling fan... or a pseudo-science fan? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

lifebeyond

Guest
I respect Richard C. Hoagland's opinions far more than any from NASA which lives by the motto (Never A Single Anomaly) and runs away screaming from every single anomalous object they find in the solar system. <br /><br />Iapetus is clearly very anomalous and of course we do not know for an absolute fact if Iapetus is artificial or natural. But from reading Richard Hoagland's report I feel that there is more evidence that it is artificial than it is natural.<br /><br />Don't just look at a few images and dismiss the entire theory! Read what he has to say, think about the propositions he states, and digest the DATA and FACTS he has presented.<br /><br />And for goodness sakes, READ ALL FIVE PARTS! <br /><br />Now, lets look at it this way...<br /><br />I believe there is more evidence Iapetus is artificial than not, but that is beyond the point.<br /><br />NASA's top and most important goal (and that of any true space scientist or enthusiast) should be to find evidence of other intelligent lifeforms in the universe.<br /><br />If that is the case (it sure should be more important than finding a dozen new category of rock fragments or sand dunes) then if an object has even a 10%, 5%, or even 2% chance of being artificial then it should be investigated with TOTAL VIGOR AND IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE!<br /><br />Iapetus is the most anomalous planetary body found yet in our solar system. Richard has proposed a theory that clearly shows Iapetus COULD POSSIBLY be artificial. If there is even a small chance of this the study of Iapetus should become a top priority of NASA and especially the Cassini mission!<br /><br />By the way, someone accused me of getting paid to post this. I'm not paid one tiny cent. I am a college student that once worshipped NASA but then eventually realized that the mainstream scientific community has blinded themselves by refusing to look at possibilities that could be beyond what is the currently accepted politically sanctioned mainstream view.<br /><br />I don't b
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts