Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

claywoman · Mar 28, 2005

Geneftw, Excuse me, but this doesn't compute? Your picture is maybe a half an inch long? you only enhanced a small portion of it?

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

You don't see the hexagon? I can't help you with that one. Go to Google (or your favorite browser), and type in "Iapetus images". You'll find plenty. Feel free to compare them with the ones at EnterpriseMission.

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

LOL!! I did some image enhancement of the surface, and was astonished at what turned up:

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

Yeah, I just now found that. I deleted the post and reposted it. Hopefully, it will come out right this time. I don't want to tell you what it is...It would be funnier to just see it. I'm new here. I don't know if you've been here long enough to get the joke. (I'm familiar with what it references.)

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

And the response: http://www.3dcafe.com/sounds/animals/cricket.wav

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

"I thought we were discussing Iapetus." Yeah: Y'all sidetracked me. Alph_Tauri posted a humorous image, and I, too, attempted to post one. The image didn't load right, and Claywoman said, "Geneftw, Excuse me, but this doesn't compute? Your picture is maybe a half an inch long? you only enhanced a small portion of it?" I responded, "Yeah, I just now found that. I deleted the post and reposted it. Hopefully, it will come out right this time. I don't want to tell you what it is...It would be funnier to just see it. I'm new here. I don't know if you've been here long enough to get the joke. (I'm familiar with what it references.) " BTW, JonClarke and Stevehw33, below, present some very compelling counter arguments against the artificiality claim, don't they! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

alpha_taur1 · Mar 28, 2005

Steve, I think you're failing to take into account the obvious pentahedral symmetry of the feature known as the D&M pyramid. Unlike the tetrahedral symmetry of Iapetus, this obviously has an extra dimension. I think you'll agree that it has obvious pentahedral symmetry, and if we take 5^e , we get a value very close to 153. This is significant as I'll discuss later. It should be obvious from this, that we are dealing with a structure which is consistent with a hyperdimensional resonator. Now we have a similar hyperdimensional resonator at Giza on Earth, but I should point out that this also has tetrahedral symmetry, and is likely to be a hyperdimensional receptor, whereas Cydonia is a hyperdimensional transcender. This brings to the fore the distinct possibility that hyperdimensional teleportation between 10th century BC (10500 BCE to be exact) Earth and the transcender on Mars is extremely likely. Angkor Wat in Cambodia is another such receptor structure, as attested by Graham Hancock on his authoritative website: http://www.grahamhancock.com/ My intuitive guess would be that the massive Ice Age civilization that sprung up in Egypt, Cambodia, Japan and , of course central Latvia in the 11th century BCE were linked by a series of hyperdimension teleportation systems. The basic physics for all of this was first thought out by James Clerk Maxwell in 1858. Maxwell is probably better known for Maxwell's Law and of course, Maxwell's demon. Unfortunately the mathematics have fallen into disuse in the last 150 years, but thanks to the efforts of a few enthusiastic proponents, there has been a local revival of these techniques, particularly by workers in Russia, and Nimbin, Australia. Of course there are no demons involved in the basic e/pi extrapolation. Taking into account a continuity of primitives we can extend the equations to include the discont

claywoman · Mar 28, 2005

Alpha, Is this post in English? If so, HELP!!! I don't speak mathematics or Physics...I is a lowly Historian...

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 28, 2005

...It should be obvious from this, that we are dealing with a structure which is consistent with a hyperdimensional resonator. Now we have a similar hyperdimensional resonator at Giza on Earth, but I should point out that this also has tetrahedral symmetry, and is likely to be a hyperdimensional receptor, whereas Cydonia is a hyperdimensional transcender. This brings to the fore the distinct possibility that hyperdimensional teleportation between 10th century BC (10500 BCE to be exact) Earth and the transcender on Mars is extremely likely... ... I sure am glad that you know how all of these hyperdimensional whatsits work. 'Cause I know I'm going to be late to the office tomorrow and I sure could use a lift. ... Sorry, but I turned off my "Paying Attention" light as soon as you said obvious Then, the "PseudoScience" warning light came on when you said hyperdimensional resonator The "Bovine Byproduct" meter pegged when you said ..This brings to the fore the distinct possibility that hyperdimensional teleportation between 10th century BC (10500 BCE to be exact) Earth and the transcender on Mars is extremely likely.. How many unfounded and ill-constructed assumptions can you possibly make? Define "obvious", "Hyperdimensional Resonator" and "Hyperdimensional Teleportation." Define them specifically please and include the mechanisms where applicable. There, that should keep you busy posting nonsense for about another week or so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · Mar 28, 2005

Good one Jim, I think they are taking you seriously <img src="/images/icons/wink.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>

alpha_taur1 · Mar 28, 2005

"Then, the "PseudoScience" warning light came on when you said hyperdimensional resonator." Well you can resort to insults if you like. But put your money where your mouth is and disprove what I said. I will provide a mathematical definition of hyperdimensional resonators as time permits. Look, I'll make a confession. I made a simple mistake in my calculations. Everybody knows that 10500BCE is at the end of the 106th century BCE, not the 10th. Oh , and when I said obvious, read 'apparent'. Happy now?

centsworth_II · Mar 28, 2005

Point made when a whiz like a_lost_packet_ can't tell the difference between a skillfully erected pile of gobbledegook and "serious" Hoglandesque postings. I guess to a serious thinker, serious gobbledegook is no different than jestfull gobbledegook. I appreciate Alpha_Tauri's humorus effort, but seriously, I hope that threads along this line (ET artifacts) are no longer allowed in the science forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Mar 28, 2005

You sure that isn't a Hoagland theory, 'cause it sure sounds like one. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

silylene old · Mar 28, 2005

into account a continuity of primitives we can extend the equations to include the discontinuous set. After differentiation on the subintervals we obtain the equations of invariability (1) [f!(1/g(y))]/=g(y) and [g!(1/f(x))]/=f(x). I think you need to do a Legendre transform using the 2cnd order time tensor. Setting the bounds of t = 10500 and t = infinity, it should be clear that the sinh(F(x)0) will repeat itself on the second derivative, if you use the approximation: e^ix = 1/i when i is small. Applying this as a 3rd order pertubation, I can easily show a reduction to: radius (horizontal) = pi/3 * radius(vertical) thus the shape of Iapetus is explained. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

najab · Mar 28, 2005

>What parts of his theory might perk your attention to it in a positive way?To be honest, the only thing about Iapetus that indicates that it might have been modified (not created) by intelligent beings is the equatorial ridge. That is not to say that there aren't natural processes that could have produced it - there are several - but it could also be a result of modification. Personally, I don't think it is artificial, but it could be.

telfrow · Mar 28, 2005

Gene: What parts of his theory might perk your attention to it in a positive way? Well, I agree is Iapetus is a strange looking object. And I agree we should study it further. But from there, not much about any of Hoagland's theory (or theories) peak my interest in a positive way. Let me explain. As you can see from my home page, one of my "hobbies" is historical research. One my projects required I spend a full ten years (off and on) researching the history of a popular sport. In the end, the paper was over five hundred pages long, had more than twelve hundred footnotes and referenced some three hundred plus sources. I detail this not to impress, but to make a point. And the point is this: I'm detail oriented and deal in facts. If you get your facts wrong, or fudge your facts, I’m immediately going to question your theory and conclusions. And as an example of why I don’t trust Hoagland’s theories and conclusions, consider the following. Hoagland: Iapetus’ orbit is tilted 15 degrees Actually, it’s 14.7. Hoagland: Iapetus’ diameter is 900 milesActually it’s 892 miles. Hoagland: places the orbital radii at 60, but later confesses it’s really 59.091 “to be exact” Hoagland: The inclination times the radii equal the diameter of Iapetus. So let’s try it…14.7 (inclination) times 59.091 (orbital radii) equals…868.6377. No match. Close, and an interesting coincidence, but not the match he proposes. Curiously, if you again take that orbital inclination of Iapetus in degrees (~ 15), and divide it into the ~ 60 Saturn radii of its orbit, the result is 4 … the number of the very planet where we found our first extraterrestrial “tetrahedral” design. So no <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>

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 28, 2005

centsworth_II - Point made when a whiz like a_lost_packet_ can't tell the difference between a skillfully erected pile of gobbledegook and "serious" Hoglandesque postings. I guess to a serious thinker, serious gobbledegook is no different than jestfull gobbledegook. How right you are! You see, this is what I read: "babble babble babble" <insert real world referrence here /> "babble babble babble" <insert real world referrence here> "babble babble babble" <insert spurious conjecture here> "babble babble babble" <insert ill-constructed assumption here> "babble babble babble", "Prove me wrong!", "babble babble babble", "Free thinkers are oppressed!", "babble babble babble" As my eyes glazed over, certain warning systems went on automatic. I was really defenseless against this elequently crafted ruse. However, I really should have picked up on it though. As Stevewh pointed out, the word "quantum" wasn't even mentioned! But, Alpha did manage to combine "Hyper" with <insert science related term here />. So, I guess that sealed it's authenticity in regards to my already overloaded woo-woo detector. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

maxtheknife · Mar 28, 2005

Re: Blurring issue.... According to JPL's own press release-- 2nd paragraph. "Despite this long exposure time, ALMOST NO BLURRING DUE TO THE SPACECRAFT'S MOTION IS APPARENT [emphasis added]." http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=1091 Does anyone here who vehemently opposes the E.T. Hypothesis care to explain why we set out in search of them in the 60's and now that we've probably found their ruins and legacy claim that their existence is impossible or highly unlikely? No matter what you all say, the theory deserves attention, not ridicule. Massive amounts of attention. Consider the path that we are on now....consider the path we could/should be on. The question here is not a simple matter of science. It's a matter of ethics, morals, politics, religion and more. I stand and type here because I fear the consequences of not taking the question seriously. Better safe than sorry.

aaron38 · Mar 28, 2005

Alpha_Tauri: But put your money where your mouth is and disprove what I said. So we have to disprove every crackpot theory that someone dreams up?? What you are seriously suggesting is that we PROVE that aliens WERE NOT hyperdimensionally teleporting between Earth and Mars 10,000 years ago!!! How exactly are we supposed to prove this? I can see it now: In 2040 we'll have astronauts on Mars at the FACE and they'll find it to be a pile of rocks. At which point the 'theory' will be made: "Actually, the hyperdimensional reactor is in a chamber 40km underground. Now dig down 40km and prove us wrong!"

a_lost_packet_ · Mar 28, 2005

Maxtheknife - Does anyone here who vehemently opposes the E.T. Hypothesis care to explain why we set out in search of them in the 60's and now that we've probably found their ruins and legacy claim that their existence is impossible or highly unlikely? Note the word "probably" in your question. Probably? " probably found their ruins " I don't think that the possibility of ET is impossible nor do I think it, necessarily, highly unlikely. However, it's pure speculation until we have evidence of life evolving totally seperately from life on Earth. Then we can start speculating with at least proof of life existing, independently, of life on Earth. However, I do believe that the "ruins and legacy" of ET that you may be referring to is "highly unlikely." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

telfrow · Mar 28, 2005

Re: Blurring I'm aware of that. The discussion we were having concerned the overexposed, leading edge of the moon, not the night side surface. See comparrison of normal exposure versus overexposure here: http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/cassini_iapetus_1209.html IMO, there's blurring over that edge, possible ghosting and certainly blooming in the over exposed photo. Try finding tha same hex shaped features on the photo taken under normal exposre conditions. <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>

geneftw · Mar 28, 2005

In part 4 it is stated that layers of shells could have been built around a natural moon.

aaron38 · Mar 28, 2005

And just to further highlight the dangers of following the 'DISPROVE' philosophy of reasoning, let us consider this wonderful example from history: Frightened Girl: "What's going on???" Angry Townsman: "You're on trial for being a witch!" Girl: "But I was just playing some tricks. I'm not a witch" Townsman: "Sure, you say that now you've been caught! But we'll give you one chance. PROVE to us you're not a witch" Girl: "But... I'm not a witch, I'm just a girl! How do I prove that?" Townsman: "I know, we'll tie you up and throw you in the river. If you're a witch you'll float!" Very Frightened Girl: "What!!??!! Wait, stop...." Townsman: "Shut up, throw her in!" Girl: "Glub, glub, glub...." Townsman: "Hmm... Maybe she wasn't a witch. But the next girl is a witch for sure! NEXT!!" Far too many of the artificial Iapetus crowd don't want to do the rigerous work necessary to prove out their claims, or want us to do it for them. They just want to throw the girl in and see if she floats. Well, what if she doesn't??

CalliArcale · Mar 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Maxtheknife - Does anyone here who vehemently opposes the E.T. Hypothesis care to explain why we set out in search of them in the 60's and now that we've probably found their ruins and legacy claim that their existence is impossible or highly unlikely? Note the word "probably" in your question. Probably? " probably found their ruins ". I don't think that the possibility of ET is impossible nor do I think it, necessarily, highly unlikely. However, it's pure speculation until we have evidence of life evolving totally seperately from life on Earth. Then we can start speculating with at least proof of life existing, independently, of life on Earth. However, I do believe that the "ruins and legacy" of ET that you may be referring to is "highly unlikely." <hr /></blockquote> My big problem with Hoagland is that in this case and in a number of others (cf Cydonia), he choses a conclusion long before it is tenable. That's okay, as long as you remain aware of and acknowledge the fact that it's not yet tenable. It's just speculation. I can say that Mount Everest is really a giant pizza factory serving a subterranean race of mutated chelonians, but it is pretty meaningless without evidence, and I need to acknowledge that fact or I end up looking petty, arrogant, and close-minded. Perhaps a poignant example comes from religion. I am a person of faith; I believe very strongly in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. So I don't want anyone to think I'm attacking Christianity with what I'm about to say. Far from it. I am merely criticizing a certain mode of thought. There are those who have reached certain conclusions about God and the universe, and who will hold to those convictions and decry anyone who disputes them, despite the lack of evidence. For instance, consider one of my friends from church. He's a very nice man, b <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>

telfrow · Mar 28, 2005

Well said Calli, as usual. <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>

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

claywoman

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

claywoman

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

najab

Guest

silylene old

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

aaron38

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geneftw

Guest

aaron38

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page