Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[maxtheknife]

If NASA hadn't lied about the second corroborating image of the Face after Tobias Owens made a remark about it back in the 70's, one could hold NASA in higher esteem. Sadly, they have been less than forthcoming w/ crucial data regarding Cydonia. Now they're being less than forthcoming w/ the Radar data concerning Iapetus. I'm not accusing NASA of anything here, I'm offering a means to redeem themselves.<br /><br />I'm sure that when we finally do get the data, and it does prove anomalous, you guys will shrug it off and say so what? Alien?? hahahahah, lololol, whatever. To address the situation would be the responsible thing to do. Period.<br /><br />A little background about myself and how I became interested in Cydonia....I've always been interested in unexplained phenomena. I'd heard about the Face and seen it's picture ('76 version) on National Inquirer cover in the supermarket. I didn't buy it. It looked like a face, but there was no other info given. I didn't even read the article, because when I flipped to the article in that issue, no other data was given. Just the '76 image of the Face.<br /><br />I went to a friend's house in 1992. He was actually online. Back then, that was pretty rare. He proceeded to pull up a full image of cydonia and said "Look! The Face". The first words out of my mouth were.... "If it's a face, then there should be objects nearby that somehow relate to it." Without any further comment from my buddy, the city jumped out at me as well as the D&M.<br /><br />I didn't start following RCH until many years later when I finally joined the internet age.<br /><br />The question of ET ruins on Mars and the Moon are valid. To ignore them is irresponsible. Now that we have a possible artificial moon, it is NASA's duty as a responible scientific organization to answer this question to the best of it's ability.<br /><br />From an ethical and moral point of view, it is MUCH easier for those on the 'ridiculous' side of the fence to say "Well, they deserve a

 

[geneftw]

In "Paint", I drew a circle (not an ellipse) around Iapetus. The shape is nowhere near as pronounced as it is in the overexposed image, but it is there.

 

[Leovinus]

Pictures can be distorted depending on the ration of horizontal resolution to vertical resolution. I wouldn't trust doing that circle experiment with anything other than an original image. And nobody says that a moon has to be a perfect sphere. The Earth, for example, is squashed at the poles.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

not to mention the actual bulge at the center is south of the earth's equator. Earth's a pear! Sorta, it's a very slight distortion, but a measurable one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow"> From Hoagland’s artcile: “…the limb of the moon – rather than being round (like Mimas or Dione) – is plainly composed of a set of sharply slanted planes …. The exact number is difficult to reconstruct (because of the overexposure and the viewing angle), but the outlined areas appear to mark at least six (tetrahedral?) amazingly flat “sides” – each measuring hundreds of miles in length!</font><br /><br />Compare that to the picture you posted (and Hoagland's overexposed hex photo). <br /><br />Where are the sharply slanted planes now?<br /> <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>

 

[aaron38]

Maxtheknife, I have a theory too.<br /><br />When the first orbiters passed over Cydonia they activated the hyperdimensional transducers that communicate with our symbyotic brain slugs that the aliens left us.<br /><br />Now I theorize that most of the brain slugs have died off (mine's dead), but some still remain and are able to deliver subconcious suggetions to us.<br /><br />Max, your slug appears to be alive and well. That's why the city and the D&M jumped out at you when you first saw the Cydonia image in '92.<br /><br />Now the slugs don't show up on MRI, but I know just where to look. So if you'll just come on over to my office we'll get that skull cracked open and get that slug out of there. This is a great chance! There's only a 30% risk of paralyzation, that's pretty good.<br /><br />If you don't agree I'm afraid I'll have to accuse you of conspiring against me and my beliefs. I deserve a fair shake at proving my theory. I believe this could be a very significant scientific finding of the new millenium.<br /><br />

 

[geneftw]

CalliArcale, <br />Please do your job.

 

[maxtheknife]

I dunno, Aaron. Sounds inviting! However, running not one, but three businesses takes up too much of my time. Perhaps you could bring your hammer and square peg to my office? I have a machine shop here....maybe we could just round out your square peg and not hurt anyone in the process? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[aaron38]

Max, On second thought, maybe my theory needs a little work. I think we can hold off for now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Now I have every right to believe in my crackpot brain slug theory. But I don't have the right to scream 'Conspiracy' when the government refuses to bring me patients so I can search their brains.<br /><br />If I want to work on my theory, I'm free to do so.<br />But from a moral and ethical point of view, my clearly ridiculous theory most certainly DOES NOT deserve a fair shake at being proven. Certainly not with a huge government program.<br /><br />When enough people believe hard enough in things that cannot be proven but demand proof and fast action, we get witch hunts and wild goose chases.<br /><br />That is not science.<br /><br />Now I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs. But you can't claim that it's NASA's scientific responsibility to prove that Iapetus ISN'T artificial.<br /><br />Just as I can't claim the CDC isn't being scientifically responsible by not proving that you DON'T have a symbiotic brain slug.<br />

 

[alpha_taur1]

"When the first orbiters passed over Cydonia they activated the hyperdimensional transducers that communicate with our symbyotic brain slugs that the aliens left us."<br /><br />hyperdimensional transcenders - get it right <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Uh, Nimbin, Australia. That fair dinkum, mate?"<br /><br />Absolutely - <br /><br />http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/2R189.html

 

[maxtheknife]

Aaron says: "But from a moral and ethical point of view, my clearly ridiculous theory most certainly DOES NOT deserve a fair shake at being proven."<br /><br />So do you deny that searching for life was an original mandate of our exploration of space? If not, was it ever specified that we were to look for extant or extinct life? Intelligent or single celled?<br /><br />The question of life elsewhere in the universe is not a question unique to our time. It's a legitimate question and one that needs to be taken seriously by you and ESPECIALLY NASA.<br /><br />Given NASA's reputation regarding the issue, I think we deserve the Iapetus radar data now.<br /><br />What if RCH is right? Don't you think we need to find out how and why this ancient civilization was obliterated?? Seems like a logical and serious question to me.<br />

 

[zenonmars]

Thank-you Calli, for your lucid and honest words. I wish to add some perspective on some of the things you mentioned, as it intersects on many of the criticisms about Mr. Hoagland and his work. You said, "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." The idea that Richard Hoagland sees interesting data, creates "wild" theories, then ignores "good science" to line his pockets is, at the least, false. The notion that he is a lone conspiracy theorist out to sell snake oil to us, the uneducated,gullible multitudes, is also an insult to the dozens of credible scientists who staked their professional reputations on the SAME data observations that characterize Mr. Hoagland as a "self-taught crackpot". <br /> <br />"These startling possibilities began to unfold in 1979, when two imaging specialists (Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar), working under contract at the Goddard Space Flight Center, developed the initial scientific evidence: independent analysis of the original 1976 NASA-Viking photographs, which revealed several potential structural artifacts located in the Cydonia region of the planet. DiPietro and Molenaar presented this provocative evidence in accord with standard scientific methodology at a major astronomical conference; NASA responded by ignoring their imaging analysis, while simultaneously taking the extraordinary step of deliberately deprecating the two authors."<br /><br />The pattern of NASA dismissal continued for years, (with MANY other lettered scientists, experts in astrophysics, geology, imaging, and many related fields), and continues to the present moment with NASA's Iapetus radar imagings of 12/31/04. Stan Johnston, Mark Carlotto, Tom VanFlanderan, are among the Names which you might be familiar with. Their work for NASA/JPL/JSC, and their reaction to NASA's overt denials of data, NASA's refusal to acknowledge their ideas, and NASA's refusal to pr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">Richard Hoagland sees interesting data, creates "wild" theories, then ignores "good science" to line his pockets is, at the least, false. The notion that he is a lone conspiracy theorist out to sell snake oil to us, the uneducated,gullible multitudes, is also an insult to the dozens of credible scientists.</font><br /><br /><br />This is like shooting fish in a pond !<br /><br />You've heard the phrase - 'Don't sell them the steak, sell them the sizzle' - obviously Hoagland has.

 

[nazcalito]

<br /> <br />Re: Facinating article: Iapetus artificial constru [re: lifebeyond] <br />Reply to this postReply <br /><br /> />The good thing is that we don't need to turn Cassini around. All that would need to be done is slightly adjust it's orbit so that it can have additional opportunities to re-image and re-scan Iapetus.<br /><br />"Could you please show me the calculations that lead to your statement that Cassini can re-image Iapetus any earlier than currently planned. Or is this just another baseless claim?"<br /><br />On August 28, 2005, Iapetus comes within 1.362 million km of Cassini. This is in between two planned flybys of Titan, one on 8/22/2005 (3,758 km) and one on 9/07/2005 (1,025 km). I don't have any calculations on what changes would have to be made to bring Cassini closer to Iapetus during this time interval.

 

[maxtheknife]

Thanks for the important and much needed context, Zen!

 

[Leovinus]

Don't you just hate it when you misspell a word in a thread title? It just lives on and on with every new post. I hate it when I do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nazcalito]

"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."<br /><br />this is funny. I don't see much evidence of "rigorous work" in this thread from the official science crowd. I haven't read it all, however...

 

[aaron38]

In law there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a resonable doubt. Without this we get the Salem witch trials.<br /><br />Science must work the same way. For Iapetus, there is a presumption of naturality until artificiality is proven beyond a resonable doubt.<br /><br />NASA's mission IS to explore and search for life. Cassini is there to explore, to gather data, not to prove or disprove anything. I know it's exciting and fun to come up with these theories, but you must let the exploration pan out. You'll get the radar data, it's not a conspiracy.<br /><br />And in the realm of science, we really must be extremely careful not to get too attached to our theories. For you it's already become a belief, which is dangerous. How much proof will you require before you stop believing that Iapetus isn't artificial? Will you simply alter your theory and continue the belief? What if RCH is wrong?<br /><br />This is the way it has to be, you can't jump the gun. The alternative, while more exciting in the short run might end up with you having to prove that you don't have a brain slug.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't have any calculations on what changes would have to be made to bring Cassini closer to Iapetus during this time interval.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If it helps you consider whether to make calculations for that, bear in mind that any adjustment to Cassini's trajectory is not without consequences -- every subsequent encounter is affected.<br /><br />And everybody who thinks NASA is hiding something or not giving Iapetus a fair investigation, I'd like to repeat something I said several pages ago but which seems to have gone completely unremarked by others.<br /><br /><b>NASA is still imaging Iapetus.</b><br /><br />The most recent picture of Iapetus currently available was taken yesterday, March 27. I'm sure more will turn up soon; Iapetus seems to be the most heavily observed (by Cassini) object in the entire Saturn system. (When close in, Cassini concentrates more on the rings, though.) To help make sure people are aware of this fact, I'm going to post the raw image. It was taken by Cassini on March 27, at a distance of approximately 2,150,433 km. <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>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">this is funny. I don't see much evidence of "rigorous work" in this thread from the official science crowd. I haven't read it all, however...</font><br /><br />Read the thread and then comment. <br /> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The idea that Richard Hoagland sees interesting data, creates "wild" theories, then ignores "good science" to line his pockets is, at the least, false.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There are certainly those who think him malicious, but I don't think he is. I think he's quite honest about his beliefs. I just don't think very highly of the thought processes that give rise to them.<br /><br />NASA isn't alone in dismissing the idea that Cydonia is artificial. Almost everybody dismisses it. But they did not dismiss it immediately, as is often portrayed by Hoagland. They gave the idea it's time. More time than it deserved, in my opinion. Cydonia has been much better imaged than a lot of other worthy features. Yet Hoagland persists in saying that NASA is blowing Cydonia off. They're not. It's just that there are lots of things worthy of study, and it's not worth spending huge amounts of effort on a hunch that frankly isn't well supported by the evidence.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Let us hope this delay with the Iapetus radar isn't a part of the same political agenda that Professor McDaniels wrote about in his "McDaniel Report: On the Failure of Executive, Congressional, and Scientific Responsibility in Investigating Possible Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars".<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That doesn't make any sense to me -- suggesting that the data is being maliciously delayed by an evil conspiracy without first waiting anything like a reasonable period of time for the data to become available. But that gets back to my impressions of Hoagland; I really do get the impression that he is very close-minded, and has such firm preconceived notions that it really doesn't matter what NASA may do to try to appease him. He'll come to his own conclusions regardless, and then adjust whatever data he does get to fit those conclusions. A preemptive rejection of poss <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>

 

[5stone10]

Hoagland -<br /><br />Self-Portrait -- />

 

[maxtheknife]

In regards to the legitamacy of Plaits "refutation"/debunking: This was taken from his 'city slicker' link. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html<br /><br />Plait says..."First off, his claims of measurement accuracy are too high, given that he measured these angles off a photograph. This throws off his amazing relationships. He claims one angle is exactly 120 degrees, but if his ruler is off by a tiny bit, then his angle might be 119 or 121 degrees. This in turn completely negates all the fancy math he then does before he even turns on his calculator."<br /><br />Then please "Dr." Plait, reproduce the results for yourself and show us why and where Hoagland is wrong. Hoagland did his measurements on an orthorectified image. I'll take his work and conclusions over your lack of work and classic 'debunking' any day.<br /><br />More from Plait...."Second, by picking and choosing which features to use (he uses a hill in one spot, but not another very similar hill next to it) he ups the odds of finding what he wants. A suspicious person might assume he initially drew lines from all the available features, and only kept the ones he liked. That makes the mathematical relationship seem a lot stronger than it really is."<br /><br />Show me......which mound does or doesn't Hoagland use? I notice a glaring lack of refrences here. It's interesting to note that the only pics on Plait's front page are the '76 viking image of ONLY the face and the worst version imo, of the geometry at Cydonia. Why not reference these sites for the best images? www.keithlaney.com and www.enterprisemission.com, or more specific to this post.... http://www.enterprisemission.com/planet.htm<br /><br />Here is Plait's conclusion.

 

[nazcalito]

"If it helps you consider whether to make calculations for that, bear in mind that any adjustment to Cassini's trajectory is not without consequences -- every subsequent encounter is affected."<br /><br />Not necessarily. It depends what is done after an alteration to Cassini's schedule to compensate for the deviation from it. Some encounters will no doubt be affected.