Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

najab · Mar 27, 2005

>The theory that this moon is a hollow artificial construction is a theory that must be considered. Is it the only possible theory? Of course not! But it is just as valid as any other at this time...Respectfully, I disagree. The central point of the theory is that Iapetus is a 'signpost' from extra-terrestrials. Yet, strangely, Iapetus has exactly the mass we would expect if it was a solid ball of rock and ice - it's density is within .1 g/cm3 of almost all Saturn's major moons (link).So here is this artificial construct, a message from the 'ancients', yet it has the exact density as the other moons. This means that they had to take the time and effort to hide the most obvious means by which we would discover that Iapetus is artificial - it's density - and hope that its surface features wouldn't be destroyed before we discovered them.

najab · Mar 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The same data could be found elsewhere, but at EnrerpriseMission, it's all right there in one place. Of course it's accompanied by RCH's interpretation, but we're capable of agreeing or disagreeing. NASA's data is right there for you to intrepret differently, if you wish. If you need more data, search JPL and NASA for it.<hr /></blockquote>The 'problem' with NASA is that they insist on providing "raw, unprocessed version" of images instead of "[p]roperly processed and ortho-rectified version~~" (Link - scroll down to the section on the Face on Mars). How dastardly of NASA to provide access to the raw images instead of processing them to bring out the features you want to be there.~~

hagar99 · Mar 27, 2005

Telfrow: I look forward to your conversations with Gene regarding the straight edges, and the other explanations for them. There may be something that we've overlooked. You guys should continue along that theme. I mentioned the Coast To Coast show for anyone interested in hearing more about Iapetus. It's the only one I'm aware of right now, but I'll post any other radio or tv shows that I come across that's discussing the topic. Mr Hoagland isn't the only one that's considered Iapetus as being of possible artificial origin. These ideas go back to at least 1980 (if not further, considering how many centuries Iapetus has been an enigma to observers on this planet). In 1980 Goldsmith and Owen said: … the only object in the Solar System which we might seriously regard as an alien signpost – a natural object deliberately modified by an advanced civilization to attract our attention [emphasis added] …. Mr Hoagland happens to be the most current and up to date, as far as I know. If there are other models for artificiallity at other sites, we should include them as well. Good luck on your business trip. I understand your feelings of frustration, but try not to let that interfere with posting your ideas. We're all here to discuss Iapetus, and present all the views, no matter how controversial it may get to be. The debate is a healthy one, and we should try hard to keep it that way.

centsworth_II · Mar 27, 2005

"I suggest Iapetus has nothing to do with SETI and their search for radio signals." -- Hagar99 SETI can be achieved by other means than searching for radio signals, such as direct physical contact, as some UFO/ET people claim, or archaeological investigation of artifacts left by ET civilizations as is being claimed in this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

hagar99 · Mar 27, 2005

>...considering that Jupiter is the giant vacuum cleaner in our solar system, and could destroy, or severly altered the path of an incoming object... Please, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion you need to brush up on your "space science". Jupiter only serves the 'vacuum cleaner' role for objects which cross its orbit. It is entirely possible for objects in a heliocentric orbit to intersect Saturn's orbit, but yet not come close enough for Jupiter to have any significant effect - Jupiter is the 5th planet out from the Sun, Saturn is the 6th, and there's a lot of empty space between them. Hi najaB. As I said, I didn't know the likelihood of that happening. Since Jupiter keeps the inner rocky planets safe with it's size and mass, I wondered what effects it might pose on it's neighbor, Saturn, and it's moons. I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about Iapetus being an interloper, and travellig by our solar system and being captured into it's orbit around Saturn. Would that be a possible explanation for it's highly irregular orbit, in comparison to the other moons? If anyone knows more about this kind of thing, please feel free to post and share your ideas. I admit I don't know much about how that type of scenerio works, or what conditions have to be met, in order for something like that to occur.

geneftw · Mar 27, 2005

Thank you, Hagar, but I don't know what else could be added. I've already made the comparison to the roof on that building, the guys "tinker toys", etc. I suppose I could ask for geological explanations, but a lack thereof would only be weak support of artificiality, if any at all.

maxtheknife · Mar 27, 2005

Telfrow says: "Unfortunately, that's not the way it appears. SDC has been flooded by new posters, all of whom are defending Hoagland's postions and only citing Hoagland's data in their arguments (re: the constant posting of the location of the article, etc.). They offer no other defense of their position. None. " Ahem, put it all into context, please <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Sily, can one not be redeemed? Wow, excellent points Lifebeyond. Gene, you deserve a banana <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

najab · Mar 27, 2005

>I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about Iapetus being an interloper, and travellig by our solar system and being captured into it's orbit around Saturn.I'm no expert on this topic, but the fact that Iapetus is in a nearly circular, prograde orbit doesn't really suggest that it was captured. Certainly, if it was captured, it couldn't have been an exo-solar object since, given its mass, I would be very suprised if Saturn could have captured it.

telfrow · Mar 27, 2005

And by context, you mean dragging the issues I mentioned in post back into the arguement. Once again, Max, thanks for making my point. Contribute something. I've tried. Gene's tried. Why don't you try? <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 · Mar 27, 2005

The over exposed image is not the cornerstone of hoagland's argument; only another piece of evidence. You caused me to see that piece as a weak one by stating that thing about ghosting and blooming. That seemed to make sense. But then along comes Hagar and says ghosting and blooming don't cause straight lines. Wull, I dunno nuthin' 'bout that fotograffy stuff, so I'm torn on that...But that ain't "the cornerstone." (Remember that there are straight lines where there is normal lighting, as well.) The other stuff (as well) is not RCH's information. It comes from NASA. The same data could be found elsewhere, but at EnrerpriseMission, it's all right there in one place. Of course it's accompanied by RCH's interpretation, but we're capable of agreeing or disagreeing. NASA's data is right there for you to intrepret differently, if you wish. If you need more data, search JPL and NASA for it. It''s the cornerstone inasmuch as he uses to launch his theory. Once again, ghosting and blooming caused the effect seen in the series of photos we discussed only. As for Hagar, he can tell you what he was thinking. I don't know if he agrees with my presentations or not. Personally, I believe he was talking about the straight line problem we were discussing in the other photos. But I feel very confident I've provided a sufficent amount of information and photos to demonstrate how ghosting and blooming can cause the effects seen in that specific series. At no time have I said it caused the effect under normal lighting conditions. I have clearly stated I believe there are other explanations for the appearance of straight lines under "normal" lighting. Besides, leaving RCH out of it and presenting your own "spin" on the issue was a friendly suggestion to make your message more receptive to the individuals here at SDC. You can choose to ignore it if you like. But it will leave the impression you don't really <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>

CalliArcale · Mar 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />>I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about Iapetus being an interloper, and travellig by our solar system and being captured into it's orbit around Saturn. I'm no expert on this topic, but the fact that Iapetus is in a nearly circular, prograde orbit doesn't really suggest that it was captured. Certainly, if it was captured, it couldn't have been an exo-solar object since, given its mass, I would be very suprised if Saturn could have captured it. <hr /></blockquote> Agreed. Another factor to consider is that it rotates synchronously -- i.e., it always faces one side towards Saturn. This fact was actually discovered centuries ago by Cassini himself, who noted that Iapetus was only visible on one side of Saturn. He concluded that Iapetus had to be tidally locked, just like our own Moon, and that one side had to be dark while the other side was light. As we know now, he was correct. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Being tide-locked suggests (but does not prove) that the object has been there a considerable time. Of all the Saturnian moons for which rotation rates are known (many of the itty bitty ones aren't known that well yet), only two are not synchronous. These are Phoebe and Hyperion. If you think Iapetus has a strange orbit, you'll be flabbergasted by these two. They're much weirder. (And some have hypothesized that the dark surface of Phoebe may have provided the material for Iapetus' leading face and for the surface coating on Hyperion. This theory has lost popularity recently, however, as the spectral data between the three bodies doesn't seem consistent.) Phoebe orbits retrograde (inclination 175 degrees; so it's basically 5 degrees inclined and going around backwards). Phoebe seems to be made of extremely dark material consistent with a comet or other minor planet from the far reaches of the solar system. Hyperion, meanwhile, is the la <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>

Saiph · Mar 27, 2005

I've read the last....94?! posts since I last saw this thread...geesh. And here's my comments on a few interesting things that came up: In response to someone's comments about Plaits discussion of the "e/pi redundancy" that by Plait's logic <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sorry, the burden of proof is on NASA. By Plaits arguements, one could also contend that Giza and Teotihuacan are natural too. <hr /></blockquote> Plaits discussion of the e/pi redundancy specifically mentions that a Hoagland style analysis of known artificial sites (like San Fransisco) will show similar results. However, it will also show those results (even better ones according to that paper he quoted) when tested on completely random numbers (i.e. no real relationship). As such his test cannot distinguish between the two (as the results are similar in both cases), and is not a valid test for artificiality. Genetfw:<hr />Geneftw It was once a commonly accepted fact that Earth is flat, etc. My "Flat Earth" example may be in error, but the point stands that there were many "commonly accepted facts" that were wrong, and there are, no doubt, still "commonly accepted facts" that may be wrong. <hr /> Most of the "wrong" commonly accepted facts that are quoted aren't really wrong, but incomplete (the scientific ones anyway). The earth is more or less flat on most human scales. It bends something like an inch every 10 miles (IIRC, and it's an easy calculation if you care to do it). That's pretty flat to me. So saying it's flat is fine for the most part. It certainly acts like it under most circumstances. geneftw <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Ya know what, Telfrow? I'm with you on that. The over exposed image is NOT the best evidence. However, it is accepted that Iapetus is not round, but it should be becaus</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

maxtheknife · Mar 27, 2005

Just tryin' to help you and others understand what's goin' on, that's all Telfrow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Sorry if my contributions don't suit your paradigm, but I can't resist posting them when you keep proving my point! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> How thorough can Plait really be in "refuting" (I call it debunking) Richard's work if he admittedly isn't familiar with the details? You can ignore the evidence all you want, it won't go away. Neither will we. We've been patient and polite for too many years. And still we remain polite. Like I said earlier, if y'all want us to go away you should champion our cause to have them take more pictures, release the "secret" radar data, and start practicing science in an ethical, moral, and professional way. You all love to put the burden of proof in our hands and then strip us of the very tools we need attain said proof. Don't you think that's unprofessional and even a bit immoral?

bobw · Mar 27, 2005

yet you are unable to cite evidence and explain why you think it's nonsense. I have a question about Hogland's science. Why did he rotate PIA06166.jpg 19 degrees clockwise without telling us in his gripping image "Deathstar-16a.jpg"? For the life of me when I look at the original I just can't see the hexagon. It looks like a crater to me. There is one very much like it to the south-east. In the original the contrast is better but in the one on his website the whole south-eastern hemisphere looks way smooth. I never did like his image manipulation. To be honest the only time I visit that website is when someone here posts about his latest joke. I never thought anybody takes that stuff seriously. But you asked for a scientific question so there one is. Hogland says it's artificial because it looks artificial and posts "selectively processed" photos to prove it. Yecch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Mar 27, 2005

>How thorough can Plait really be in "refuting" (I call it debunking) Richard's work if he admittedly isn't familiar with the details?You don't spend time worrying about the ants in the kitchen when there's an elephant in the living room. The Bad Astronomer doesn't have to bother learning the intricate details of the theory when the basic premise it is based on represents poor to non-existent science.

najab · Mar 27, 2005

>...champion our cause to have them. . .release the "secret" radar data...What was the distance at closest approach during the Iapetus encounter?

najab · Mar 27, 2005

>As for the orbit? How is it unique? It's in an orbit that could easily be achieved by any captured object.Actually, the only thing that points to it being a captured object is the inclination. As Calli and I pointed out earlier, the fact that it is near-circular and synchronous points to it being formed in the Saturn system a *long* time ago.

geneftw · Mar 27, 2005

Oh, c’mon, man, that’s an EASY one: You see, all Cassini has to do is swing around Titan, make a slight adjus…no, wait a minute…Make a slight adjustment, swing around Titan, and, uhm..and then…Oh, heck, I guess it ain’t that easy. Scroll down a little in part three. Then read the following: (I got help on that one!!) "The timing of that slingshot maneuver was such that, by passing Titan at a certain distance and speed -- and using the on-board Cassini thrusters to accelerate by a few tenths of a meter per second at just the right time! -- the subsequent Cassini trajectory was neatly tweaked to ultimately (a few weeks later) pass only 80,000 miles away from Iapetus the night of December 31, 2004. In fact, if Iapetus had been the TARGET (it wasn't -- the maneuver was actually designed solely to set up the Hyugens landing on Titan two weeks after both spacecraft PASSED Iapetus ...), the timeframe could have been shortened significantly. And, the fly-by did NOT involve any expensive (in terms of fuel) "plane change" -- to match Iapetus' highly tilted orbit (that pesky 15-degree inclination ...). Because it was all timed to take place when iapetus was crossing through the plane of TITAN'S ORBIT!! The same could be done again ... and again ... and again. Because-- The "little secret" of the entire Cassini Mission Plan is that JPL has planned a fly-by of Titan on EVERY ORBIT. It HAS to ... to redirect the spacecraft to any other place in the Saturn system, because only Titan has the mass required for a successful "sling shot maneuver!" So, there are 44 currently planned close-approaches to Titan in the official Cassini Mission Plan -- at varying distances, angles, and approach velocities. If only a couple of those were reconfigured -- to allow a slingshot out to Iapetus again, as it was crossing through the Titan orbit plane -- ALL of our requirements for much better data, and SOONER than 2007, could be

najab · Mar 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the subsequent Cassini trajectory was neatly tweaked to ultimately (a few weeks later) pass only 80,000 miles away from Iapetus the night of December 31, 2004<hr /></blockquote>Thanks. Actually, if you had looked it up for yourself, instead of depending on Hoagland, you would know that it was 'only', 40,400 miles or so on Janurary 1st 2005, but let's not quibble over a mere 40,000 mile error (side note, don't trust Hoagland to be right on little things like the facts).The question I have for you is this: How much radar data do you think they got from that distance - wait, think about it for a while, think about how far 40,000 miles is - that's almost 4 times the diameter of the Earth. Remember that the last Titan radar pass was 746 miles high and could resolve features down to about 300 meters, Cassini was 54 times further away on its pass over Iapetus. That means that the smallest features that would have been visible if they had used the radar would have been something like 20km across!!! How useful would that have been? The whole moon would only take up about 700 pixels at that resolution.There are no "secret radar images"!!!

geneftw · Mar 27, 2005

Post deleted by geneftw

odysseus145 · Mar 28, 2005

I thought we were discussing Iapetus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

Hey, Max, buddy: I gotta hit you a little, here(Sorry): The burdon of "proof" IS in our hands by the very nature of our extraordinary claims.

JonClarke · Mar 28, 2005

It is the classic woo woo mind trick. when you aren't getting anywhere oin one tack, you change planets. The simple fact is that Iapetus is a very interesting little world that we are only just beginning to understand. Almost every new world we have imaged has revealed the unexpected - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Halleys Comet, Triton, Phobos, Miranda. We have learned a huge amount about how planets work. But there has never been the need to evoke alien technology to explain anything. However, for some, it is easier to explain everything they don't understand as an "anomaly" and invoke aliens as a universal explanation than it is to come to grips with the real issues of planetary science. Hoaglands supporters on Iapetus have not contributed anything meaningful to the discussion of this odd little world, but, just like their mentor, they have muddied the waters. So I think this discussion should be moved to the SETI forum, where it belongs. 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>

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

I cannot argue about the ghosting and blooming. I don't have the knowledge to, and I'm too lazy to take a crash course in photography. As far as referring to EnterpriseMission for details, I do that to give convient means to get questions answered that are already answered in the article. (I don't expect everybody to remember every word in every part of the article, so I consider the reference to be a courtesy.) Create my own spin? That would be very difficult for me to do (pertaining to the MAIN THRUST of this topic), not having an education in planetary physics, etc. So I do what the vast majority of people in that situation do: I look at the theory and the evidence for it, and decide if I find it plausable....Kinda like scientists do (NO, I'm not comparing myself to a scientist.): They look at their peers' theories and the evidence, and decide if they find it plausable. But those guys have enough knowledge to put their own spin on it if there's room for another spin on it. Not understanding the theory? Of course I understand the theory: "Iapetus is artificial." There is one thing I couldn't wrap my mind around, though, and I wasn't ashamed to admit to that (in a somewhat humorous way) in a post about altering Cassini's course. There, in order to provide an answer to a question that somebody asked, I not only referred them to the article, I got some help explaining it further. That answer is not my words (I should go back, come to think of it, edit, and put " "s around it.), but so what? This thread is about Iapetus; not me. I don't care none 'bout no contest. What are other explanations for the straight lines under normal lighting? Mass and density? Uhm...I dunno. I saw that data somewhere, I think the link was posted by somebody here. I didn't pay attention to the mass, but the density is the same as the other moons. That's not a very good argument for my side, is it? I'll look into that. Since

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

So refute some of his "ridiculous" claims that any highschool debate team could see through....

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

hagar99

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

hagar99

Guest

geneftw

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

bobw

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

geneftw

Guest

najab

Guest

geneftw

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

geneftw

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page