Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

silylene old · Mar 28, 2005

I have done much thinking about the anomaly of Iapetus. I respect Jessica Prentice opinions far more than any from NASA which lives by the motto (Never Believe Astrology) and runs away screaming from every single anomalous object they find in the solar system, or Richard Hoagland who lives by the motto (an artifical construct under every stone). Iapetus is clearly very anomalous and of course we do not know for an absolute fact that Iapetus is neither artificial nor a rock. But from reading Jessica Prentice's report I feel that there is more evidence that it is a cosmic seed neither artificial nor natural. Iapetus is the most anomalous planetary body found yet in our solar system. Jessica has proposed a theory that clearly shows Iapetus COULD POSSIBLY be a living seed 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! If there is even the slightest chance Iapetus is alive, Richard Hoagland should take off his artifical construct blinders and raise his arms to the Seed Moon! The Seed Moon is new! We have just moved through the Spring Equinox -- the day when lightness and darkness hover in balance as daytime and nighttime hours are equal. The days are getting longer, and will continue to do so until the summer solstice on June 21. Spring has officially sprung, and we have entered the Seed Moon, also often called the Egg Moon. Seeds and eggs are not so dissimilar -- both are little packages of precious life, carrying the genetic material safely within a protective shell that will create the next generation. Give each what it needs -- the right amount of water for the seeds, the right amount of warmth for the eggs -- and each will burst forth with the miracle of new life: the seed will sprout, the egg will hatch. To quote from Jesus in the Bible:<</safety_wrapper> <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>

zenonmars · Mar 28, 2005

OK, Calli, I'll do my best. You stated: <<"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" />> Did you know that the preliminary results from the Phoebe radar pass last June, were released by JPL within one week? Do you remember the Mars Pathfinder mission? Do you recall how the images, including the re-imaging of the Face at Cydonia were, by contract, property of Malin Space Science Systems, and could, by same contract, remain in possession of Michael Malin's company for up to ONE YEAR? Do you recall the tens of thousands of emails and faxes to Senator John McCain about the possibility of NASA data-altering and coverup? Senator McCain made this important and revealing statement: "If the media reports are true -- that NASA withheld critical information from the public and elected officials -- then the trust that is vital between this government and its citizens has been violated and warrants a very serious examination of how this agency operates." Do you recall how Dan Goldin told his folks to brace for possible Senatorial investigations? Do you recall what Malin did next? How he then dumped thousands of raw, un-annotated Mars images up to his website? You stated: <<" it really doesn't matter what NASA may do to try to appease him" />> All Richard has EVER asked is that NASA release, in a timely fashion, to us taxpayers who pay for the missions, the data needed to TEST the theories. That's what science is. Now, where is that 3-month-old Iapetus radar? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Mar 28, 2005

Greenberg's work on the subject: http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/moundillustrations.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>

djd1 · Mar 28, 2005

Highest-Resolution View of "Face on Mars" MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-283, 24 May 2001 Sorry if this is old footage, MGS pictures really dispute any Face on Mars view that we had previously with Viking.

Leovinus · Mar 29, 2005

But wait a minute: The right-hand picture still looks like a face if I blur my eyes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Mar 29, 2005

Zen: that data may not be avialable for immediate release. Quite often NASA has a contract with the researchers not to release the data for ~12 months after aquisition. This allows the primary researchers time to analyze the data themselves, as compensation for all their efforts. Since NASA is publicly funded however, it is released after that period (regardless of what the researchers have done, or want to do with the data). as for you leo, Here's an image you don't have to squint at! <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>

lifebeyond · Mar 29, 2005

On the "blooming" of images verses the "saturn shine" method of imaging... It has been stated on this website that the "saturn shine" images taken of Iapetus that indicate a truly *geometric* overall shape to this object (not just bumpy or irregular) are simply camera "blooms" and therefore the geometric lines and shapes recorded are nothing more than meaningless artifacts in the image. This is not at all the case. Fact #1 The Cassini team starting in October of 2004 wanted to obtain data from the side of Iapetus that is permanently facing Saturn. To obtain this data they started utilizing the method of data acquisition termed "saturn shine". Fact #2 The light reaching Saturn and then reflecting off it to "shine" on Iapetus is very dim. However, it is easily recorded of CCD imaging technology. Their idea was to take time exposures of the side of Iapetus permanently facing saturn during the "night" (very low light conditions close to that of 1/10th the intensity of our moons shine). Fact #3 The purpose of this new technique was to test if these time exposure images could detect surface features such as mountains, crack, ridges, etc. Additionally, for such features to be detected in low light levels the signal level had to be higher than the noise reaching the camera. Otherwise no details of this objects surface could have been obtained. Fact #4 Another important matter is that for such a technique to work the computers controlling Cassini had to hold the camera very still during this time duration image. Remember, the space craft and Iapetus are both moving. If such absolute precision was not maintained any surface features imaged would have been smeared. Even if the data level was high compared to the noise the image would be worthless. The camera had to be maintained perfectly aligned for this time lapsed image to be taken! Not just for a few seconds, but for a couple MINUTES

centsworth_II · Mar 29, 2005

Highest-Resolution View of "Face on Mars"... Sorry if this is old footage... Its those who continue to use the even older footage of a blurry, facelike image who should be sorry, that is to say, ashamed. But wait... does the high-res image not show a monument severely degraded by erosion? Look at all the orbital images of Mars. There are thousands of monuments so severely damaged by the elements as to be unrecognisable as artificial constructs. There is not a moment to lose. Manned missions must be undertaken to start a preservation campaign before all is lost. It's almost too late. The artificial nature of these fantastic structures is lost to all but the most skillfull eyes already. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

geneftw · Mar 29, 2005

That shape is more apparent here: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/cassini/iapetus.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/cassini/science.html&h=191&w=175&sz=8&tbnid=Ja264JloEu8J:&tbnh=96&tbnw=88&start=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Diapetus%26start%3D80%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

geneftw · Mar 29, 2005

Carl Sagan said, "The first evidence of intelligent life on Earth [from satellite observations] is revealed by the geometric regularity of its constructions..." Look closely at the image below; very closely. You will see right angles and hexagons all over the place. The wall-looking formations are of uniform width. Geometric regularity. Of course artificiality is not the only possible explanation. Some geological processes that could have formed this landscape are: 1. Uhm...Let's see...hmmm. I need help with this one. Are there any geologists out there? Anybody?...

telfrow · Mar 29, 2005

http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/cassini_iapetus_1209.html Compare the images halfway down the page. Normal exposure. Overexposure. Where are the "precise lines and geometry" in the normal exposure? I have contended the effect seen in the second photo, which Hoagland uses to launch his theory the object is artificial, is a result of one or more of the following, or a combination of the following: blurring, artifacting and/or bloom. I continue to stand by that. Certainly, the "startling geometric pattern" disappears when the image is not over exposed. Perhaps it isn't bloom.. perhaps it isn't blurring, but in any case, it is an artifact of over exposure. That evidence can clearly be seen in those two photos and by examining the photos in the rest of the imaging sequence. Any photographic system will create some form of artifacting under extreme lighting conditions. My position on that issue was detailed in an earlier post. And before we go down this road again, my comments concerning these factors apply only to the photos in that sequence. The "geometry" seen in other views of the moon (the "close ups") have other explanations. As I noted earlier, Gene and I had just abour finished our discussion of the overexposure photo and were about to go down that road. BTW, yet another advertisement for his appearance and the web address? Now, address the fudging of the math (see my previous post)... <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 29, 2005

Of course artificiality is not the only possible explanation. Some geological processes that could have formed this landscape are: 1. Uhm...Let's see...hmmm. I need help with this one. Are there any geologists out there? Anybody?... Jon Clarke, are you out there? Your services are required. <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 29, 2005

BTW, discussions on the shape of the moon and how those "straight lines" may have been formed are taking place elsewhere on the board. <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 29, 2005

And another BTW, what is the mass and density of a hollow sphere the size of Iapteus? And if it was built around a small moon, what is the estimated combined density of the moon and the construction around it? I asked someone in the "artificial" camp to provide this earlier...still waiting... <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 29, 2005

Lifebeyond: WYSIWYG? (what you see is what you get) Or image artifacting casued by overexposure? <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>

maxtheknife · Mar 29, 2005

Tefrow, having been around the microfilm business my whole life, I know a thing or two about photography. To claim that the straight lines are product of overexposure is flatly wrong. We've already established by NASA's own words minimal blurring occured. Any thing that shows up when one overexposes the image, is an ENHANCEMENT of what the camera picked up. Couple that with the magnification images that Hoagland supplies, and it becomes more and more difficult to dismiss the straight lines as a camera artifact. I might buy your arguement if we were seeing dots like in the '76 viking image of the face, but that isn't the case. I'll set you straight on Greenberg later <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

telfrow · Mar 29, 2005

Over exposure and artifacting. Maybe blooming and blur. At one point in my life, I sold 35mm and 2 1/4 photographic equipment. And I've been an amatuer photographer for thirty five years. Any thing that shows up when one overexposes the image, is an ENHANCEMENT of what the camera picked up. In some cases that can be true. But if the over exposure is caused by a bright light source, it obscures detail and causes artifacting. See the image posted above. <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>

najab · Mar 29, 2005

>Couple that with the magnification images that Hoagland supplies...How about an argument based on someone else's work - you claim not to be a Hoagland flunkie - prove it by showing that you have the ability to make your own analysis and your own conclusions. All I've heard from you so far is "Hoagland said..." and "Hoagland's pictures show...".

maxtheknife · Mar 29, 2005

DJD, sorry but these are the best images of the Face available. http://www.keithlaney.com/The_Face_on_Mars/The_Face_on_Mars.htm Let me remind all of you....because it is ignored by you and the media. Hoagland predicted that the face was/is half humanoid, half lion. He was right. If you disagree, do an experiment and show the best images of the Face to 10 people who know nothing about the subject. That shouldn't be too hard as the media has been lazy and less than dilligent in their efforts to report this story. Let us know your results. Be sure to show the images to a few artists as well. http://www.enterprisemission.com/ArtTrad.html I'll look for and post the left side mirrored when I get a chance....

maxtheknife · Mar 29, 2005

Fine. Does Crater or McDaniel suit you? This paper "Mound Configurations on the Martian Cydonia Plain", first appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 13, no. 3 1999, pages 373-400. http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jsefnl.htm

maxtheknife · Mar 29, 2005

Telfrow, we know what the light source is. We know where the light is coming from. We know how bright it is.

najab · Mar 29, 2005

From my first quick read-through of that paper, two conflicting statements pop out: <blockquote>Although the 47-meter/pixel resolution is insufficient to reveal their fine structure, in the best image enhancements some of the mounds appear to cast a distinct shadow that comes to a point.</blockquote> and <blockquote>The recent images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor displayed only a very few of the mounds and were not used in our analysis.</blockquote>In other words, if I read correctly, they use the 30 year old, low resolution data which has to be enhanced to see features, but throw out the fresh, new data because it doesn't show the features they are interested in. Is it possible that, like the 'face', the features aren't really as prominent as appeared in the Viking data?

najab · Mar 29, 2005

>This paper. . .first appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration...Okay, I was going to sneer and point out the fact that the JSE also publishes papers on Out of Body Experiences and the Loch Ness Monster, but that would be unfair of me. It is a journal and deserves the respect one should give a peer-reviewed publication.

CalliArcale · Mar 29, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Did you know that the preliminary results from the Phoebe radar pass last June, were released by JPL within one week?<hr /></blockquote> Yep. The results released after a week were very preliminary, but they were released. There were two reasons for that, I think. One was that Phoebe was relatively mysterious; it had never been imaged so close before, and this would in fact remain the only encounter Cassini could have with Phoebe. Therefore, there was considerably more interest in the results than there would normally be for a flyby of a moon. Iapetus, while still very mysterious, has at least been studied by the Voyagers. Phoebe had barely been studied at all; really, nobody knew much more than its raw orbital data and lightcurve parameters as observed from Earth. But more significantly, Phoebe was the first event in Cassini's primary mission -- its Saturn tour. This occured before the first Titan pass, and before SOI. Thus, there was intense non-scientific interest in the data as well. The engineers were desperate to know how well the instruments were performing, and so it was vitally important to the mission for them to get data as quickly as possible so they'd have time to make software, trajectory, or mission changes if neccesary to get things to work properly. This of course also has budgetary implications; they had to impress Congress. Once SOI had occured, everybody relaxed a lot more I think, and now that Huygens is over, they can relax even more. Everything is working beautifully. There's no need to rush now. They can take their time and do a really good job. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Do you remember the Mars Pathfinder mission? Do you recall how the images, including the re-imaging of the Face at Cydonia were, by contract, property of Malin Space Science Systems, and could, by same contract, remain in possession of Michael Ma</blockquote> <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>

najab · Mar 29, 2005

Calli, it's actually worse than that. There is no radar data to release, at least no SAR images like the ones taken at Titan.As I explained in a previous post, Cassini was 54 times further away from Iapetus than it was from Titan. The inverse-square law of radio signal strength means that SAR measurements during the Iapetus encounter would have required nearly three thousand times more electrical power than at Titan, and the small dish size would mean that the resolution of the images would have been about 20km/pixel at best.

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

silylene old

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

djd1

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Saiph

Guest

lifebeyond

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page