Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[claywoman]

Gee Sailph, I see a happy face in that crater and below it in a smaller crater, an angry face...Does that mean I'm falling into the Hoagland dementia? Help me!!! I'm falling!!! <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[claywoman]

telfrow,<br /><br />Tonight I was in a quandary, watch a NOVA concerning the tsunami in Indochina and the cascadia debate or listen to Hoagland on that channel...Guess which I decided on...But boy, it was a hard decision....NOT!!! <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

Steve, please read my post concerning Plait's arguements. How can any real scientist consider his report even remotely thorough?<br /><br />So, Mr. Clarke. While you were there, did an octagon appear before you proving your theory? Or are you still just putting forth a theory?<br /><br />How many men does it take to quarry, polish, move, and then place an 80 ton piece of rock? 100,000? If so, how do you propose they all exert their combined force on said rock? Remember, they didn't even have block & tackle. <br /><br />When can we begin differentiating theory from fact?

 

[maxtheknife]

Incidently, I also referred to Vanflandern... www.metaresearch.org<br /><br />I've neglected to mention Dr. Mark Carlotto. http://66.70.204.112/cydoniacontroversy/indexResearch.shtml <br /><br />I'm sure you guys will bash Carlotto too. I mean, god forbid someone has an open mind.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be better and more fun if we banned together and went to Cydonia or Iapetus. All the money spent on this war could have gone to finding the answers to our true history and heritage. <br /><br />Think of THAT coalition.

 

[najab]

><i>When can we begin differentiating theory from fact?</i><p>Well, first you need to differentiate reality from (drug-assisted?) fantasy, then you can work on differentiating theory from half-assed speculation, and then, hopefully, after you come to appreciate the difference between banal, rote, repetition of another person's near-psychotic rambling and a rational, intelligent debate - maybe then.</p>

 

[telfrow]

I didn't listen either. I'm working very long days conducting trainings...up early, in bed late. I had the choice of losing sleep or getting some rest. Guess which one I chose?<br /><br />It would have been interesting though. Not because of what he said, just to count the number of times the words and phrases like "conspiracy," "NASA cover up," "e-mail your Congressman," "Where's the radar data?", "running scared," "Mars," “Brookings Report,” “Change Cassini’s flight path,” “exploding planet,” “the McDaniel Report,” “Tom VanFlanderan,” "Cydonia," etc., were used in a discussion of Iapetus.<br /><br />Wait. Sorry. My mistake. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><br /><br />That's happening <i>here</i>. <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]

Max:<br /><br />Come on, admit it. You're "Frankknee," aren't you? <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 think I'm going to leave this thread alone now. Before I end up reaching though the Internet and giving someone a virtual trouting.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">This thread has become a series of advertisements for Hoagland's web site and his personal appearances, and has become a textbook example of the techniques of misdirection, deflection and avoidance. </font><br /><br />telfrow, I could not agree more. Thank you again for pointing out the Hoagie's advertising within this thread has taken a distinct spirit of misdirection, insinuation and conspiracy paranoia.<br /><br />This is why I have asked the moderators <b>four times already</b> to move this thread about <i>alien constructs</i> to the forum about aliens, "SETI- Search for Alien Life".<br /><br />I ask the moderators again, what does "artifical constructs" have to do with "Space <i><b>Science and Astronomy</b></i>" ? There is no content whatsoever in this thread subject that involves <i>science</i> or <i>astronomy</i>.<br /><br />Moderators, do us all a favor and move this thread to SETI, where it belongs. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

silylene, I will say this one last time.<br /><br />This thread is about two things: Iapetus and the possibility of alien life. Therefore, it is topical in more than one location. This is one of them. I am not going to move it just because it's kooky. I do not evaluate the merits of a claim when I decide whether or not to move a thread.<br /><br />I know you want SETI to be the kook bucket. But it's not. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Naj, are u accusing me of drug use?

 

[najab]

What I said was that the theory you are espousing is typical of the kind of nonsensical gibberish that might be expected from someone who is in the habit of consuming psychotropic substances. Poor quality ones at that.

 

[maxtheknife]

No, never hear of Frankknee....just your run of the mill, respected business owner. Don't know too many 'crazy, drug addicted folks' who can say the same. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />If you send me a private message, I'd be happy to share some details about myself. I would expect the same in return though.

 

[telfrow]

Just thought I'd ask. He was a poster who carried on a long dsicussion with me concerning Hoagland, his credibility and the Squyres incident. His writing sytle and debate technqiues are very similar to your own. <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>

 

[nazcalito]

"I understand that Hoagland's writing isn't the clearest, and I know most of his flock don't even have the basic understanding of science that would prevent them from regurgitating his nonsense, so...<br /><br />BLAM!!!<br /><br />There's your clue. Iapetus crosses the Saturnian equator twice every 80 days, true. But Cassini does not...one more time for those who came in late: Cassini is in it's own orbit around SATURN..."<br /><br />--- NajaB, I think your basic science is a bit rusty....<br /><br />If I am reading the Saturn tour page correctly (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-tour.cfm), and it certainly seems that way to me, from September 7, 2005 through July 22, 2006, and for the month of August 2007, Cassini's orbit is completely within the Saturn equatorial plane. So, for that period of time, Cassini's orbit does not merely cross the Saturnian equator twice every 80 days -- it "crosses" the Saturnian equator ALL the time.<br /><br />Of course, whatever inclination Cassini's orbit might be to the Saturnian orbital plane at some other time, Cassini's orbit would have to cross Iapetus' orbit at least twice every 80 days (Iapetus' orbital period), since both objects orbit the same point in space (Saturn). If Cassini's orbital period around Saturn is shorter than 80 days, Cassini's orbit would, of course, cross Iapetus' orbit more often than twice every 80 days.<br />

 

[nazcalito]

najaB<br /><br />"What I said was that the theory you are espousing is typical of the kind of nonsensical gibberish that might be expected from someone who is in the habit of consuming psychotropic substances. Poor quality ones at that."<br /><br />Ah, an expert in poor quality psychotropic substances. You'll have to tell us about your experiences. They must be interesting. Coffee's about it for me, I'm afraid.

 

[Saiph]

actually, once every 80 days is the most often cassini will cross Iapetus's path, unless cassini is in a retrograde orbit.<br /><br />If they go in the same direction the number of times they pass eachother is larger than that, because after each pass, cassini has to go around, and catch up to Iapetus agian, which is also moving in the same direction. This makes for a longer synodic period (which is what we're discussing here). <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>

 

[najab]

><i>Of course, whatever inclination Cassini's orbit might be to the Saturnian orbital plane at some other time, Cassini's orbit would have to cross Iapetus' orbit at least twice every 80 days (Iapetus' orbital period), since both objects orbit the same point in space (Saturn).</i><p>True - <b>IFF</b> they orbited at the same distance. Cassini is in, and will be in for quite some time a <b>very</b> elliptical orbit around Saturn. While it will cross Iapetus' orbit <b>plane</b> frequently, it will not come close to intersecting Iapetus' orbital <b>path</b> until some time in 2007.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If I am reading the Saturn tour page correctly (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-tour.cfm), and it certainly seems that way to me, from September 7, 2005 through July 22, 2006, and for the month of August 2007, Cassini's orbit is completely within the Saturn equatorial plane. So, for that period of time, Cassini's orbit does not merely cross the Saturnian equator twice every 80 days -- it "crosses" the Saturnian equator ALL the time. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're referring to the petal rotation and icy satellites sequences in its mission, correct? These are quite close to the ecliptic, but I don't know how close. It's probably not exactly a 0 degree inclination, although since the latter sequence is meant as an icy moon tour, it seems reasonable that it will be as close to 0 as they can manage since so many of the icy moons are close to the ecliptic.<br /><br />No matter where Cassini orbits, its orbital plane only crosses Iapetus' orbital plane once. (Simple geometry.) Thus, how often Iapetus itself crosses Cassini's plane is determined by Iapetus' orbital period. The reverse is also true. Each body crosses the other's plane (or any plane intersecting their own within the ellipse of the orbit, for that matter) exactly twice per orbit.<br /><br />The orbits themselves do not neccesarily intersect, however, and even if they do, the two objects do not neccesarily cross one another's planes at the same point at the same time (or, preferably, *nearly* the same time, since otherwise it would be, as najaB says, "BLAM!!!"). <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>

 

[geneftw]

And your arguments are something like this:<br />I say, "Here in my left had I have a trans-dimensional teleportation device." I then press a button and an object appears in front of it. You attempt to pick it up, but your hand goes right through it. I have now presented evidence (not proof) worth looking at that I do indeed have a trans-dimensional teleportation devise.<br />And your response would be, "It can't possibly be one, because you're a kook and you mispelled 'device'."

 

[CalliArcale]

But what you are showing in those images is not as dramatic as a trans-dimensional teleportation device beaming a three-dimensional image into thin air. What you're showing is craters that aren't perfectly round and other things that really aren't all that remarkable. The main remarkable things I see about Iapetus are its vast 13-km high ridge, and Cassini Regio. These are its two big mysteries. I don't see anything odd at all about the craters. They look like very old craters. *shrugs*<br /><br />I guess part of me is baffled as to why these startling features aren't strange enough for some folks, who have to invent new mysteries in order to sustain their interest. Hoagland has always puzzled me that way. Why focus on the very remote possibility of structures built by intelligent aliens, when there are much more immediate, likely, and testable mysteries to explore? <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>

 

[geneftw]

Calli, I'm glad you're here.<br />See folks? Calli disagrees with me, but he stated his point in a civil way.<br /> Anyway...Calli:<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=180555&page=&view=&sb=&o=<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...but he stated his point in a civil way."</font><br /><br />Your powers of observation are sharp enough to pick out octagonal craters, but not good enough to note that Calli's title is 'Time Lady'? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

><i>...I then press a button and an object appears in front of it....</i><p>But you <b>haven't</b>! That's the whole point I am trying to make, you haven't presented <b>ANYTHING</b> that cannot be explained, quite easily, by entirely natural processes. You haven't even presented an alternative which can, in any way, be tested: short drilling a hole right the way through Iapetus there is no way we can test the theory you have presented. Even if Cassini was to do SAR radar imagery of the entire surface of <strike>Titan</strike> Iapetus you haven't presented a single observation that would prove or disprove your theory.<p>The entire argument as presented by Hoagland so far is: "Iapetus is artificial, because (a) I say so, and (b) Cydonia is artificial. Cydonia is artificial because (a) I say so, and (b) the monoliths on Earth are artificial. The monoliths on Earth..."<p>Once again - I agree that Iapetus is interesting. Not because it is an alien artifact, but because it's a freaking moon of Saturn! The mere fact that we can look, in detail, at the surface of an object a billion miles away is exciting in its own right. I don't see the need to invoke alien beings to make it so.</p></p></p>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">Calli disagrees with me, but he stated his point in a civil way.</font><br /><br /><br />Calli is a woman, <ad hominem deleted />!!<br /><br />I find that individuals who demand civilized discourse usually don't have a leg to stand on.