Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

Rhea, a slightly larger body, appears to be very similar to Dione, although Cassini hasn't been able to image it close enough to date to confirm speculation that its wispy streaks are also fractures. If something did a 180-degree deceleration to quickly, the smaller mass, (spaceship), would tear away from the foundation, (shielding), thus fracturing the Moon on the trailing hemisphere. For example, try thinking of two points in space-time that are 50-lightyears apart. If artificial gravity were important to the survival of a biological life form, then that life form would create G-forces from thrust. Create a constant thrust that is equivalent to the life forms desired atmospheric pressure for 25-lightyears, and then flip the craft 180-degrees to decelerate for the remaining 25-lightyears. The acceleration and deceleration is equivalent to the life forms desired atmospheric pressure. Okay, fuel is a problem, so I better address this issue. The moon, (artificial shielding), is hollow, but why? Because the Moon, (shielding), used to house water, WATER. Why water: Hydrogen, Oxygen, Hydration, etc.

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

If the shielding is water, then you've got one major thing working in your favor -- most of Saturn's moons have a density consistent with being made mostly of water ice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

If the shielding is water, then you've got one major thing working in your favor -- most of Saturn's moons have a density consistent with being made mostly of water ice. That is an odd coincidence. I guess if I were Star hopping, I would execute a similar plan. Maybe they spotted an Earth like planet with a powerful telescope from their home world Star, and then they instinctively sent a colony to our solar system to insure the survival of their species. Maybe they are our ancestors. How could they manufacture shielding of this magnitude, in mass, and volume? If they discovered that Dark Matter acts sticky in the presence of traditional matter, then they could tow a handful of Dark Matter through an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. The dust would collect on the sphere to the depth of a few miles along its perimeter. The hollowed out sphere is filled with water, and then froze.

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

Are you an archeologist? I am curious about what is beneath the polar caps here on Earth. From what I understand, some archeologists suspect that a whole civilization, could in theory, be buried under miles of artic ice. Science Fiction writers often refer to spaceships, pyramids, and structures buried under the ice. There are dinosaur fossils in Alaska, so it is quite possible that the Poles were once wet and warm sometime in Earth’s past, meaning that the plate tectonics could of pushed upward, and then froze.

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

There aren't just dinosaur fossils in Alaska -- there are also dinosaur fossils in Antarctica! However, it is not that the poles were once warm; its that those landmasses weren't at the poles a hundred million years ago. Antarctica was indeed warm and wet! Also, there appear to have been cold-weather dinosaurs with adaptations to enable them to survive in cold climates. It is doubtful, however, that there was a civilization under the Arctic ice at any time. There is life there, strange life that isn't fully explored. It's a virtually alien habitat, and from what I've heard, exploring it is like exploring the black smokers in that it's not always the kind of life we're used to. The Arctic seabed isn't fully explored, of course, but it isn't unexplored either; it is mapped and traversed by nuclear submarines. Granted, if they do find something extraordinary, it's quite possible they won't be able to report about it, as they usually cannot disclose their position. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

geos · Apr 1, 2005

If you could NEVER build a pyramid with 3000BC technology That is a DISCOVERY of a FACT You and your friends have your "geology" theories derived from learning about Earth. Just admit that the pyramids are impossible to have been built (but you never have to explain because it is "pseudoscience")

geos · Apr 1, 2005

The Ball and sockets joints are in the corners. I did not make it clear in the original post. You don't need to tell me how to find granite. Just tell ALL of US how the BIG blocks were MOVED ONE CENTIMETER. The platform at Baalbek in Lebanon has over ONE THOUSAND TON blocks. Try sawing granite with authentic tools ? Wood and ropes and copper tools (ignore the fact that the tooling marks on the granite closely resemble a diamond saw)

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

Never send a geologist to do an archeologist's job. I've been thinking about this one all day, and to tell the truth, the more I've thought about it, the more it's irritated me. It was "your side" (Gene to be exact) that asked a geologist to join this thread for a discussion of cratering and geologic features. And a respected geologist with impressive credetintials - Jon Clarke - did just that. As always, Jon, whose professionalism and civility are both appreciated and valued among SDC posters, entered the discussion and offered his insights. Your snide response to his contributions was petty and unwarranted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

Professionalism and Civility are buzzwords for "keep the status quo - no science allowed." Geos: They are, by no means, "buzzwords" that translate to "keep the status quo - no science allowed." They are simply good manners. The fact you do not understand that speaks volumes about you, your values and your education - both academic and social. Edit: The orginial post this quote appeared in has disappeared. I'm not sure why - prelude to another crash?!?!? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

If you could NEVER build a pyramid with 3000BC technology That is a DISCOVERY of a FACT The Ball and sockets joints are in the corners. I did not make it clear in the original post. You don't need to tell me how to find granite. Just tell ALL of US how the BIG blocks were MOVED ONE CENTIMETER. The platform at Baalbek in Lebanon has over ONE THOUSAND TON blocks. Try sawing granite with authentic tools ? Wood and ropes and copper tools (ignore the fact that the tooling marks on the granite closely resemble a diamond saw) http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

geos · Apr 1, 2005

quote: "Wedges were then inserted into the holes, and slabs of stone were broken loose by pounding on the wedges with mallets. The slabs were subsequently dressed down to finished dimensions. " That would work for the limestone - NOT the granite - Never happened and never will. Does the word GRANITE occurr anywhere in the story?

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

No, you're right. It doesn't. My mistake. Try these: http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/hunt.htm or http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/building/building_in_stone.htm “Working with stone was enormously laborious. In order to pry a granite obelisk from the bedrock for instance, trenches had to be excavated all around it, wide enough for the quarry-men to work in. With hammerstones the rock was slowly ground to dust. This back-breaking work was seemingly performed by gangs, probably working in unison and accompanied by chanting. Simultaneously masons shaped the surface. Then the workpiece had to be split from the bedrock by cutting holes underneath it and wedging well dried pieces of wood into them. After wetting them the wedges expanded causing the rock to crack. Finally it was hauled out of the quarry by large numbers of workers, loaded onto a barge and shipped downriver.” or http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_introduction_tools_and_methods.html “Igneous rocks like granite, anorthosite, diorite, basalt, and hard sedimentary rocks like siliceous sandstones (quartzite) and travertine (Egyptian alabaster) were skillfully worked by the ancient Egyptians for many thousands of years during their history. Recently, Stocks (1989; 1993; 2001) has demonstrated through experimentation the use of simple stoneworking tools that were very likely available to the ancient Egyptians. These tools reflected both lapidary and percussion stoneworking techniques. Copper slabbing saws and a coring drill were used to work granite from Aswan, using quartz sand as an abrasive. Copper coring drills and stone borers were used to make <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

And these.. http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/ancients/stonecutting.html “Neither do we need complex machine tools to shape granite. As Christopher Dunn says on his own site, his theory is totally dependent on scratches on a granite core that form a double helix. I have had drills stick before now and keep a lever to hand to twist them out. This action applies enormous force on the grit stuck in the drill - and produces helical scratches on the walls or core of the cut! Working granite is a slow but steady process. First you drill access holes in the quarry face, or you wedge out blocks much bigger than your final requirements. Then you saw out the block. This, if you are carefull gives you a nice rectangular block of granite. Or you cut an angled prism if that is what you require. You cut with your saw running between wooden guide rails, so that the finished blocks is close to the exact size you require. You polish down to size using grit and water, and another slab of granite as the polishing quern. You use coarse grit until all the saw marks have been polished out, then you use fine grit until all the marks from the coarse grit are polished out, then you finish with tin oxide which will give you a mirror smooth finish. Provided your polishing block is reasonably flat, and you rotate the polishing block as you move it in circular paths over the block you are polishing, you will automatically end up with an absolutely smooth surface on both blocks in contact. There is nothing magical in achieving this precision, just years of apprenticeship and care.” ------ http://www.duke.edu/~jpw5/quarries/hardstone.html “In order to see how granite was extracted from Aswan by the ancient Egyptians, it is best to look at abandoned quarries such as the famous unfinis <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

geos · Apr 2, 2005

OOH look they had copper saws that they used in wood carpentry! After ten seconds of sawing granite the blades went dull and then they had to resharpen them. (round and round the fruit loop)

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 2, 2005

Telfrow has gone to the effort of providing links for varying methods of cutting/shaping extremely hard stones such as granite. Tools such as those described have been found at quarry sites. (With the exception of large quantities of Emory, which may or may not have been used.) Still, you say: Geo - OOH look they had copper saws that they used in wood carpentry! After ten seconds of sawing granite the blades went dull and then they had to resharpen them. (round and round the fruit loop) Do you read? The copper saws did not do the "cutting." They used sand as an abrasive, trapped in between the saw's teeth, using this method, that is what did the actual "cutting." Other methods were also mentioned in the links provided. There is no logical reason to refuse to believe that the Pyramids were built by the Eqyptians themselves using methods and tools of their own design. None whatsoever. None. Pyramid development in Egypt follows a very logical timeline of design from simple mound-forms to ziggurats to pyramids. Clear and straightforward evidence of a developing architectural style in a nation of people who were the masters of building with solid stone. I have some very simple questions for those out there who believe the Pyramids were built by little green men from outer space or using some form of advanced "woo woo" technology: Why did the Egyptians make mistakes when building pyramids? Why did they build different shaped pyramid structures like ziggurats and mounds? Why were pyramids left unfinished? Why were they modified years after they were built? Why did such constructions employ thousands of laborers and skilled craftsman? Why did they quarry stone when they could have used concrete? Who built all of the other structures in Eqypt that used the same types of materials? Anyone who tells you that the Pyramids were built by aliens or using some sort of sc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · Apr 2, 2005

Gene I have taken your original image back on page 33 and increased the gamma in Photo editor to bring out some of the dark detail. I also put a margin round it to help later work. This I call image 1. Realistically this a difficult image to work with because it has been over stretched and has an extremely low sun angle. Ideally the sun angle needs to be about 45 degrees above the horizon. This is probably only 10 (at a guess). Much of the landscape seems to be in shadow, the rest is dark, except for a few surfaces that directly face the sun and are very bright. So the reality of many of the apparent linear and curvilinear features is doubtful. With these caveats, I used a standard methodology for image interpretation that highlights linear and elliptical features. This methodology is standard in geological mapping where both elliptical and linear features are very important indicators of features such as intrusions, impact craters, hydrothermal alteration, faults, and fractures. To do this I converted image 1 to a bit map and used the ellipse draw function to highlight elliptical features in yellow. I then used the line draw function to put in red lines where I could see possible linear features. I then saved the result as a jpeg and call it image 2. The result is a series of near circular ellipses of various sizes that match the actual shapes much better than your polygons on page 39. The one possible polygonal feature is the large crater partially visible on the left hand side. But there are at least 8 peripheral linears of different lengths in the part that is visible so it is neither an octagon or regular. This is an entirely consistent with an old impact crater modified by slumping along geological fractures. There are a lot of linear features too, these show a range of orientations. The exact orientations are doubtful, because this is a non rectified image. But I printed out image 2 an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Apr 2, 2005

Max On page 53 you wrote: "Never send a geologist to do an archeologist's job." So, what's your expertise. Most geologists certainly lacks the specialist skills and background knowledge to carry out an archaeological dig. However the basic methodologies of the two sciences are quite similar as both reconstruct the past. Further, as most places geologists work have been inhabited and modified by humans for thousands of years we have to be very cognisant of modifications that humans make to landscapes and materials. So geologists are certainly well capable of recognising artificial features in landscapes. Tell me, are the Giants Causeway and Tesselated Pavement artifical or natural features? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

alpha_taur1 · Apr 2, 2005

"If you could NEVER build a pyramid with 3000BC technology That is a DISCOVERY of a FACT" This thread seriously needs to be locked. We already have Hoagland nutters, and we are in serious threat of invasion by Hancock nutters, Bauval nutters and Von Daniken nutters, not to mention diffusionists. There is ENOUGH nonsense elsewhere on the internet. Can we save SDC as an island of civilization? Moderators - save us!

alpha_taur1 · Apr 2, 2005

"Tell me, are the Giants Causeway and Tesselated Pavement artifical or natural features?" Och Jon, the Giant's Causeway was the result of a battle between two giants, Finn Mac Cuimhail in Ireland and Bennendonner in Scotland. Everybody knows that.

geos · Apr 2, 2005

I was not too impressed with the PBS Cutting Granite pictures. Too labour intensive.

geneftw · Apr 2, 2005

You seem to believe from the onset that this issue is totally without merit, ridiculous, if you will. And yet you’ve put in a lot of effort studying the evidence in a serious way, rather than simply dismissing it as you walk away muttering derogatory things about us. I like you! Now, on to your post: We’re both biased. You’re on one side, I’m on the other. I feel that our biases can cause me to see things that ain’t there, and/or you to not see things that are. I’m being honest with my observations and I believe you’re being honest with yours, but a bias can affect the way a person interprets what he sees. You said this isn’t an easy image to work with because of being over stretched and has low sun angle. You went on to say the apparent linear features are doubtful. So, you do see the features, but choose to doubt them due to poor image/lighting. (Is the image/lighting your mind’s way of justifying a bias?) The image isn’t so bad that you can’t make things out, and it seems to me that with the angle from which we’re viewing Iapetus, the shadows from low sun angle would serve to highlight linear features, rather than create the appearance of them. You said elliptical and linear features are indicators of craters, faults, etc. Would you not also find elliptical and linear features in a bustling city? About that partially visible crater on the left: I guess I’ll give you that. I don’t know, from my perspective, why there would be an octagon on Iapetus, anyway. You said your circles match the actual shapes better than my (crudely drawn) polygons. Your bias…or my bias…could be coming into play, here. But when I look at that image (without anything drawn on it), I CLEARLY see polygons…More importantly, I see hexagons and pentagons. I must say that the fact the HUGE pentagon is not regular bothers me. Nonetheless, how could such very straight lines run along the landscape for hundreds of miles, and form a p

JonClarke · Apr 2, 2005

Of course! How silly of me to forget. And the tessalated pavement was the camping ground of the Eaglehawk neck Nargun <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Apr 2, 2005

Gene We are all are free to think what ever we like. However, if we put our ideas before the public we have to expect them to be scrutinised. Especially if we claim they are actually true. it is called peer review. By this principle I took the ideas on the artificial nature of the surface of Iapetus seriously enough to spend several hours in image analysis. I tested them critically and showed that the features are not regular and therefore are not likely to be artificial. In fact everything in that image is what you would expect in a naturally cratered landscape. That is how science works, in fact, that is how all reasoned discussion should work. We learn something, even from the wrong ideas, and move on. There is no quantifable evidence in this image that Iapetus is artificial. As to not being able to answer my questions, why don't you look for the answers? It is no good saying "NASA" should do this or do that when you don't even know what is or is not possible. The data is out there in libaries and on the internet. Don't just believe everything you are told by Hoagland. I want you to think, not just repeat what others have said. Bias is a funny thing. I have followed most planetary missions, I have read the original papers on just about all of them. I am alos an amateur astroomer and fairly familar with what the moon looks like. I have done archaeological field work and worked as a geologist for 25 years. So I have a fairly good idea of how planetary processes work and what the results look like. So when I look at an image and make a judgement that it looks natural you can call it bias if you like. I called it an informed professional judgement. On the basis of that judgment I predict better imaging of that part of the surface will show even more evidence that it is the result of natural processes. However, if better imaging shows the opposite then I will correct my position. In the mean time we have t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 2, 2005

FYI: this thread has reached the length limit, and will shortly be locked. Please refer to the "part two" version of the thread, which I will start momentarily. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

jatslo

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geos

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geos

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

geos

Guest

geneftw

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page