Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[najab]

What's confusing the issue somewhat is that there <b>is</b> data from the radar instrument, but it's not in the form of images. During the flyby, the radio receiver was turned on in passive mode to measure the radio reflectivity of the surface. This is another way of determining the surface composition of Iapetus, but <b>it does not</b> produce pictures! Just squiggly lines on a graph. <p>This data <i>can</i> be overlaid on a map as was done for Titan, but note the low resolution even with <b>much</b> bigger Titan, and a closer pass.</p>

 

[telfrow]

If you don’t believe me, (and you, lifebeyond, et. al., obviously don’t) you can produce effects similar to those I’m describing by performing a little experiment.<br /><br />1) Find a digital or 35 mm camera. <br />2) Find a rubber ball or tennis ball.<br />3) Put a rod in a piece styrofoam. Place the foam and styrofoam on a table in a room that can be completely “blacked out.” (This will eliminate light or reflection from any additional sources.)<br />4) Put the ball on the end of the rod. (The rod will eliminate any reflected light from the table’s surface.)<br />5) Place a light source at an angle in the room so that the illumination of the ball matches the terminator shown on the photo of Iapetus. <br />6) Place a few Xs or marks on the “nightside of the ball. (To closely approximate the apparently highly reflective surface (albedo) of the moon, you should add reflective tape or foil to half the ball, approximately in line with the terminator, or cover the entire ball. Place the X's, of course, on the surface of the reflective covering.)<br />7) Take photos of the ball, over exposing until the X’s or marks appear in the photo with the same relative clarity shown in the photo in question.<br />8) Look at what happens to the well lit, leading edge of the photo as the exposure increases. <br /><br />(I'd do it for you, but I'm on the road, writing these posts between training classes and don't have the time and the materials with me.)<br /> <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>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">I'll set you straight on Greenberg later.</font><br /><br />When you “set me straight,” be sure to use the quotes and photos of Hilter and Gobels Hoagland did when he “defended” himself against Greenberg and Squyres in 1998.<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/orwell.htm<br /><br />Class act, huh? <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]

Yes, that is another problem. Of course, I don't think the Phoebe data was in the form of images either. It was more in the form of rough estimates of radar reflectivity of the overall object, if I recall correctly. Only with Titan has it been true SAR data, useful as imagery. And of course, Titan has unique reasons for wanting that sort of imagery, which are not really all that significant with an object like Iapetus, which has no significant atmosphere and thus nothing obscuring the surface. Very long exposures are sufficient to get very good information (actually better than the radar) about its surface. The radar will mostly tell us about its radar reflectivity, which could help in determining how solid and how young the surface is. It would be particularly interesting to find out how much difference there is in overall reflectivity of the leading and trailing hemispheres -- i.e. is Cassini Regio a lot more powdery than the rest of Iapetus. But the geometry of the passes so far have not been favorable for radar study of the trailing hemisphere. That will have to wait until later in the mission. Titan is suffering a similar problem; the geometry of the situation means that one hemisphere is being studied a lot more than the other. This will be rectified in 2006 by the 180 transfer sequence, which will result in Cassini encountering these moons on the opposite part of its orbit (and thus from the other side). <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>

 

[najab]

Also interesting is the fact that neither author is a planetary geologist. Dr. Carter is a theoretical physicist, and Professor Mc Daniel is a philosopher.<p>This doesn't mean that we should doubt the accuracy of their measurements or analysis, but it does put in question their ability to recognise and catagorise the geological features they say they are seeing in the photos, and also leads us to question if they can differentiate between natural and artificial features. This is an important question since, contrary to what we are told in elementry school, straight lines and geometric patterns <b>do appear</b> in nature.</p>

 

[geneftw]

LOL! I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned it. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[najab]

So does that mean that the aliens who built it had bad eyesight?

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">So does that mean that the aliens who built it had bad eyesight?</font><br /><br />Typical H. sapiens elitist comment. Maybe <b>we're</b> the ones with bad eyes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

telfrow:<br /><br />You rang Sir?<br /><br />Well the first problem with that image is there is no context or history. I assume it is on Iapetus, but what where? What is its scale? Which image is it from? This is all most unhelpful.<br /><br />The image has also been over enlarged and probably overstretched to with respect to contrast, to the point that it has actually been degraded. This can actually create artefacts, which is why it has to be compared against the original data, which is impossible as the context and provenance has not been given.<br />That said, it lookes like a cratered landscape lit by a low sun. The short straight bright areas are probably low scarps. Nothing out of the ordinary that one would would not expect to find on any cratered body.<br /><br />As to "right angles and hexagons, I can't see any of these. However, even if real, of themselves these are not evidence of alien technology. Lots of geological processes can cause right angles amd hexagons. Orthogonal jointing and faulting form right angles, as to some dessicatin and cooling cracks or ice wedges. Hexagons are found in polygonal cooling cracks, permafrost polygons, dessication cracks, and pachygermal weathering.<br /><br />The tesselated pavement in Tasmania is a good example of right angled patterns. http://www.walkabout.com.au/graphics/images/CD027035.JPG<br /><br />The Giants causeway in Northern Ireland is a good example of hexagons.<br /><br />http://www.emeraldtiger.com/countys/antrim/giants.htm<br /><br />Both these features look far more artificial than anything seen in Iapetus, but are entirely natural formations.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nazcalito]

Regarding the objection: We can't change Cassini's schedule, it's been planned carefully...<br /><br />I've reviewed the Saturn tour schedule for Cassini and it appears that from December of 2005 through June of 2007, Cassini will essentially be parked in an orbit around Titan. This seems especially obvious for the period of July 22, 2006 through May 12, 2007, when the tour shows a regularly repeated flyby of Titan at 950 km.<br /><br />This doesn't even make sense from an official point of view of exploring the Saturn system. Forget about Iapetus and artificiality. On the present schedule, Cassini makes a flyby of the following moons besides Titan:<br /><br />Enceladus - 4<br />Iapetus - 2<br />Rhea -2<br />Phoebe -1<br />Mimas -1<br />Dione -1<br />Hyperion - 1<br /><br />There are no close flybys for any of the other moons. Granted, most of them are pretty little, but Janus and Epimethus would seem to be logical candidates (not too far away, reasonable size.)<br /><br />Why spend a year and a half just orbiting Titan? <br /><br />Unless Cassini is really a Titan mission and not a Saturn system mission, my hunch is that Cassini's schedule is provisional and that the intention has always been that it could be altered if warranted. That is why Cassini's design includes fuel for such changes.

 

[najab]

><i>I've reviewed the Saturn tour schedule for Cassini and it appears that from December of 2005 through June of 2007, Cassini will essentially be parked in an orbit around Titan.</i><p>It will <b>NOT BE IN ORBIT AROUND TITAN</b>!!!! Please go and learn some basic orbital mechanics and stop disturbing us with this purile nonsense! If you want to engage in a meaningful scientific discussion you will have educate yourself to the point that you stop spouting childish gobbledygook!!!<p>In fact, don't do that. Just go away and do something more suited to your intellectual level, like using sticks to try to get termites out of a mound!</p></p>

 

[thermionic]

Hey Everyone! I just swung by the Cassini images thread, and what should jump out at me, but proof of extraterrestrials! Look at the enlarged image of Rea on page 15. Right smack in the center is an hexagonal crater! Slighly above is a pentagonal crater! I insist that Cassini be redirected to orbit Rea! And where is the radar data? Stop the cover-up!

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">The tesselated pavement in Tasmania is a good example of right angled patterns. http://www.walkabout.com.au/graphics/images/CD027035.JPG </font><br /><br />Jon, that's a cool picture - never heard of this "walkway" in Tasmania. 'Course I've never been to Australia either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Here is how I interpret work of others. I was told of this method many years ago from a very noted IBM Research Fellow, and have used and referred to it ever since.<br /><br />Let me explain........<br /><br />I usually make a mental note of the constant "B" when faced with new raw information.<br /><br />"B" ranges from 0 to 1.<br /><br />A value B = 1 implies high credibility and believability: For example, a carefully planned experiment, impecable logic, a well-refereed paper, or an author with a very good reputation for credibility and accuracy might get a B=1.<br /><br />A value of B = 0 means that the information just related to me is utter garbage. For example, if the author is a known liar, or the information source is the <i>Weekly World News</i>, I would assign a value of B = 0.<br /><br />When faced with new, raw information, one multiplies it by "B". The result is the credibility and usefulness of the raw information you just received.<br /><br />Now you ask, what is "B"?<br /><br />Well, <b>B = "bogacity"</b><br /><br />Bogacity is defined by the degree of bogusness of the information.<br /><br />In summary,<br /><br /><i>(usefull, accurate information) = B * (raw information)<br />where B = bogacity</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[telfrow]

In case you haven't (or have decided not to) try my tennis ball experiment, here's a "real life" example: Earth's moon.<br /><br />http://ottawa.rasc.ca/pictures/mearl/film/moon/<br /><br />Overexposed. See the leading edge of the moon. Looks a lot like what we see on Iapetus, doesn't it?<br /><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>

 

[lifebeyond]

The denial of facts, data, and images of and about Iapetus directly from official NASA sources is to be expected. However, it is very, very sad. <br /><br />It is very sad that individuals who claim to be interested in "space" and the great "beyond" do not notice an amazing anomaly when it is presented right before their eyes, don't desire to get more information about such an enigmatic object, and would rather run off than take the least bit of effort to encourage NASA to further investigate.<br /><br />Regardless as to what you think about Richard C. Hoagland or others such as myself that have recognized Iapetus as amazingly anomalous you cannot deny certain facts:<br /><br />1) Iapetus is AMAZINGLY geometric.<br /><br />2) The ordinary visual and "saturn shine" images are accurate and both sets of images have revealed an object with a clearly unique shape (geometric and not just irregular or bumpy). <br /><br />3) Iapetus has a so far unexplained equatorial ridge.<br /><br />4) Iapetus is in a very unique orbit around Saturn.<br /><br />5) There are geometric crators on the surface of Iapetus.<br /><br />6) Radar data is being withheld that was taken the moment this mission reached the Saturn system while radar data from other moons of Saturn was released quickly after being acquired.<br /><br />These are FACTS. But only a few of the facts that many on this board seem so TERRIFIED to consider!<br /><br />Want to read more facts and of course a theory as to what may be responsible for all the amazing features of Iapetus?!<br /><br />Then please visit the following URL and read a fantastic five part (soon to be six part)article about this object:<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm<br /><br />Many people have been attacking, slandering, and bashing the author of the above information (Richard C. Hoagland) without even reading his article or considering the merits of his theory! The truth is that they ar

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Why spend a year and a half just orbiting Titan?</font><br /><br />Because that is, and always has been, the purpose and plan of the mission? <br /><br />And we are going back - in September 2007. And Iapetus is rapidly becoming one of the most photograped objects we've ever encountered. <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>

 

[telfrow]

<i>[Insert heavy doses of sarcasim here.]</i><br /><br />Gee..Hoagland's going to be on CTC?!?!?<br /><br />And he wrote an article? <br /><br />How'd I miss <i>that</i>? <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Lol, what about most pinged by radar?

 

[telfrow]

LOL, what about the density and mass of an artifically constructed spehere? <br /><br />Find a new mantra, Max. <br /><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>

 

[najab]

><i>1) Iapetus is AMAZINGLY geometric.</i><p>Well, I guess that depends on how easily you are amazed. Personally, I can't see anything in any images presented by RCH that even raises an eyebrow, but I guess that your low-stimulation environment means that it doesn't take much to get you excited. It's a shame how people develop tolerances to CNS depressants over time, then they have to up the dose so you don't get AMAZED and excited all the time.<p>><i>2) The ordinary visual and "saturn shine" images are accurate and both sets of images have revealed an object with a clearly unique shape (geometric and not just irregular or bumpy).</i><p>The images are 'accurate' in that they show what was seen by the camera - but since they are grossly overexposed they <b>CANNOT</b> be relied about for shape information. Anyone with even an elementry knowledge of optical systems would know this. Then again, I guess it is true that when one has a tenuous grip on reality, it becomes easy to see things in images that noone else would see.<p>><i>3) Iapetus has a so far unexplained equatorial ridge.</i><p>True.<p>><i>4) Iapetus is in a very unique orbit around Saturn.</i><p>There is <b>NOTHING</b> unique about Iapetus' orbit. If you had even an inkling of the beginning of the slightest hint of a scap of the ability to read, process and comment on scientific matters in an intelligent manner, you would know that. Thinking about it more, it would be good if you could manage even the first step in that process.<p><i>5) There are geometric crators on the surface of Iapetus.</i><p>You would think with all the money being spent on the mental health system, they would have a spell checker on the computers. Anyway, the word is C-R-A-T-<b>E</b>-R or K-R-A-T-E-R, and of course they are geometric - <b>EVERYTHING</b> has some shape or another!!! All the craters I see in images of Iapetus have a geometric shape, most of them are...wait for it....<b>round</b>.<p><p><i>6) Radar data is being withheld</i></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[maxtheknife]

Mr. Hoagland contends that it could also be a modified moon.<br /><br />Just wondering if Mr Clarke can "prove" those pics are natural or if he is just relying on more theory as accepted fact.<br /><br />Seriously, I've never seen those images before....pretty cool.<br /><br />I'll get a new mantra when you get a new paragdigm, Telfrow. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

Don't ya just love the shots they take? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Mr. Hoagland contends that it could also be a modified moon. <br /><br />Just wondering if Mr Clark can "prove" those pics are natural or if he is just relying on more theory as accepted fact. </font><br /><br /><i>Bogacity</i><br />Hoagland: <i>B = 0</i><br />Maxtheknife: <i>B = 0</i><br /><br />On the other hand, Jon Clark is a practicing research geologist, and one of the most respected members of this forum.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<b>Abstract - lifebeyond's post</b><br /><br />"babble babble babble","babble babble babble" <br /><br />1.<insert qualitative statement without quantitative fact and present it as "scientific" /> <br />2.<insert qualitative statement without quantitative fact and present it as "scientific" /> <br />3.<insert the word "unexplained" an offer a spurious explanation implied as fact /><br />4.<insert a plainly comparitive statement and present it as unique while ignoring all similar and natural occurances of the phenomenon /><br />5.<insert a plainly comparitive statement and present it as unique while ignoring all similar and natural occurances of the phenomenon /><br />6.<insert groundless accusation for conspiracy /><br /><br />"babble babble babble", "FACTS!", "babble babble babble"."The truth-givers are being oppressed!","babble babble babble" <Insert blatant propoganda advertisement for a website here />"babble babble babble" <insert groundless accusation for conspiracy><br /><br />"babble babble","?"<br /><br /><b>End Abstract</b><br /><br />There, I saved the thread some room.<br /><br />P.S. lifebeyond - I wouldn't have listed your post in Abstract if you hadn't manage to insult every thread reader by not even acknowledging that points 1-6 have already been countered by previous posters. Your post is obviously nothing more than a bad advertisement. You are obviously not interested in discussing the issue. You're only interested in promoting it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>