Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[geneftw]

My apologies, ma'am, for not noticing you're a woman.

 

[geneftw]

"I find that individuals who demand civilized discourse usually don't have a leg to stand on. "<br /><br />You have it bass ackward.

 

[zenonmars]

Hello, friends, and good morning! <br /><br />Silylene wrote, "This is why I have asked the moderators four times already to move this thread about alien constructs to the forum about aliens, "SETI- Search for Alien Life"." To which Calli graciously replied, " I am not going to move it just because it's kooky." <br />I am assuming, Claywoman, that you are of native American heritage? ("Red Power!"). I personally have always been facinated with the legends of many tribes about the 'Star Tribes', which are often characterized as alien visitors (especially in our x-files generation). <br />Calli wrote, "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 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?" <br /><br />I am going to try to address these isues briefly (possible?) because I truely understand why so many are baffled by all of this "nonsense" Many other scientists, even "NASA insiders", have studied apparent non-natural surface features, beginning first on Mars and our own moon, and now, it seems, as far flung as the Saturn moons (!) http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jsefnl.htm <br /><br />The 20+ year conclusion to these efforts, (and here come the boos and hisses!) is..........ready?....... <br />[BRACE YOURSELVES]..........is that: <br /><br />These apparent non-natural artifacts, constructions as it were, are NOT the work of little grey Star Visitors from a star system far, far away, but very possibly are of... <br /><br />HUMAN origin. (Oh, the screams! I know.) The notion that WE are the Martians, that w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My apologies, ma'am, for not noticing you're a woman.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />S'okay. I'm used to it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Lots of folks make that mistake, since my name isn't obviously female, and since I will certainly admit that a preponderance of space geeks are male. It's quite all right.<br /><br />And folks, thanks for defending my honor. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But don't worry about it. It doesn't bother me at all. "Male" is the natural assumption. I've even made that mistake myself about others. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <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]

Nobody's claiming proof. We're claiming there's evidence worth looking into. What we disagree on is whether there is that evidence. We present evidence, and some of you dispute it in an intelligent manner, while others dispute it on the grounds that we're kooks.<br /><br />Your second paragraph indicates that you haven't read a single word of our arguments.

 

[najab]

><i>We present evidence, and some of you dispute it in an intelligent manner, while others dispute it on the grounds that we're kooks.</i><p>Gene, of all the new members who have joined this thread, you are the one who I would least describe as a Kook. You have demonstrated the ability to construct a logical argument <b>of your own</b>, and have shown that you're willing to modify your argument when presented with additional information. I never meant to imply that you are a kook. As for the others...<p>><i>Your second paragraph indicates that you haven't read a single word of our arguments.</i><p>Believe it or not, I have read the "<i>Moon with a View</i>" article through a couple of times. And, yes, once one throws out all the innaccuracies, half-truths and fudged numbers RCH's entire 'theory' boils down to "Iapetus is artificial because I say it is. And I know artificial when I see it, 'cause I've seen in on Mars and the Moon." (Of course the word 'hyperdimensional' gets thrown in there a couple of times to make it all scientific sounding).</p></p></p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>These apparent non-natural artifacts, constructions as it were, are NOT the work of little grey Star Visitors from a star system far, far away, but very possibly are of...<br /><br />HUMAN origin. (Oh, the screams! I know.)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I gotta hand it to you -- that is indeed one I hadn't heard outside of a few SF stories. (And honestly, it's not all that common even in SF, where people can let their imaginations really roam.) But you are correct that it is testable. In fact, it is more testable than the notion of aliens. Invoking unknown technologically advance aliens is a bit like invoking God in that one cannot really test it since one knows absolutely nothing about the aliens. They are effectively magic. (Clarke's Law: any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.) We do know a lot about humans, though, so we should be able to test that idea.<br /><br />It can't be disproven. No idea can be, because in an effectively infinite universe you can't prove a negative. But we can weigh it against what we know, and against what we learn as time progresses. I find it doubtful, as the archeological evidence does not support a past history of humans that technologically advanced. And of course there is little to really point that way in what we've got from Iapetus and even Mars. It's a hunch at this point. Maybe you're right, but I'm putting my money elsewhere, personally. No offense, but a natural origin seems like a safer bet to me.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We REALLY need the ground-penetrating radar we are about to image on Mars.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Bear in mind that there is no ground-penetrating radar data for Iapetus -- or anything in the Mars system. Cassini's radar is not like Mars Express' MARSIS instrument. It's nowhere near as good. It won't penetrate ground. And I don't think we'll get anything usefu <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>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...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.... <br /><br />I know you want SETI to be the kook bucket. But it's not." -- CalliArcale</font><br /><br />I wish that as a SCIENCE FORUM we could agree on one thing: ET artifacts and constructions are NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for any observed features in our solar system. This should remain so until there has been the slightest inkling that ETs have ever even visited or existed in the solar system. Until then, I gladly cede any talk of ET visitation evidence to the SETI forum. Let them have the glory when the big announcement is finally made. <br /><br />Talk of ETs in our solar system belongs only in the SETI forum. I'm not passing judgement either. Thinking that UFO or ET sightings is kooky or not is up to the reader. I just think that if you want to read of such things you should know where to go: the SETI forum.<br /><br /><br /><br />To paraphrase stevehw33: "There are no ETs in the solar system -- in, on, or ouside of Earth!"<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>I wish that as a SCIENCE FORUM we could agree on one thing: ET artifacts and constructions are NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for any observed features in our solar system.</i><p>I agree with you that ET is not required to explain anything we've seen so far, but...<p>In an infinite universe, anything is possible. So if we close the door to the discussion of the possibility of ETI, then we have become exactly the closed-minded 'scientist types' that they accuse us of being.<p>So what to do? If we entertain the discussion, the SNR drops precipitously. If we stifle it, it just 'proves' their point. The only solution is a compromise: insist on rigourous application of the Occam/Segan principle: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."<p>Let them know, from the time they post, that we will not discuss any theories based on 6 pixels in the corner of an image, or those which violate basic physical laws, or any which includes the phrase "...it's true, [Insert name of pseudo-scientist currently in vogue] says so!"</p></p></p></p>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Gene... You have demonstrated the ability to construct a logical argument of your own, and have shown that you're willing to modify your argument when presented with additional information.</font><br /><br />I'd like to second that. My interaction with Gene has been enjoyable, in spite of the fact we take opposite views on the subject. Reasonable people can agree to disagree...and be [relatively] civil about it.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><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>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">The notion that WE are the Martians, that we are the remnants of a very ancient, very advanced HUMAN civilization that built a very HUMAN face at Cydonia, and possibly more, is a WORKING MODEL ONLY, advanced by very bright minds. It may be correct, it may not.</font><br /><br />I know this is off topic but this kinda strikes me funny. I've had the kooky idea in the back of my mind of Noahs' ark being analgous to a space voyage to escape a dying planet (Mars?) along with the variety of life to seed a new planet. Sorry. Now we resume our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">I wish that as a SCIENCE FORUM we could agree on one thing: ET artifacts and constructions are NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for any observed features in our solar system.</font><br /><br /><br />I'll second that sentiment !!<br /><br />'Cept I also wish I'd stop getting calls from telemarketers during dinner !

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">The notion that WE are the Martians, that we are the remnants of a very ancient, very advanced HUMAN civilization that built a very HUMAN face at Cydonia, and possibly more, is a WORKING MODEL ONLY, advanced by very bright minds. It may be correct, it may not. </font><br /><br /><br />Or it may be the plot of a really bad Hollywood movie - ie., Mission to Mars !

 

[maxtheknife]

Gene writes, "Nobody's claiming proof. We're claiming there's evidence worth looking into. What we disagree on is whether there is that evidence. We present evidence, and some of you dispute it in an intelligent manner, while others dispute it on the grounds that we're kooks."<br /><br />Exactly the message I've been sending. If some of you took the time to read my first post you would know that I certainly don't consider myself to be Hoagland "troll" as it were. Do I need to apologize for respecting a man that has risked and accomplished so much? It just so happens that the Enterprise Mission is one of the few places around doing any serious investigating. <br /><br />I could really care less what y'all believe. The point is the theory is testable, the questions are valid, the evidence is strong enough to merit serious investigation. "When two people in business always agree, one of them isn't necessary." The same can be said of science. Hoagland is the guy who disagrees.<br /><br />I don't think I have, but just in case I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. When I look around and see what's going on in the world and I see people attacking other people the way I've been attacked here, it makes me sad. That's how the church was way back when. That's not how science is supposed to be today. <br /><br />However you may view the evidence and theories put forth by RCH is irrelevant. The quest to know the truth has the power in and of itself to bring us together. <br /><br />We set out to look for life. Why do we continue to ignore what we've found?<br /><br />I mean wouldn't Mr. Clarke like to go see if his theories can account for this? I'd like to go w/ him and see if Hoagland and others are right. We can agree to disagree, for sure. What we can't afford to do is repeat the mistakes of the past. Recent and ancient.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks mate, for the contex image.<br /><br />I am sorry, but that just looks like typical heavily cratered terrain to me. And the craters you highlight in the next post don't look polygonal, simply irregular. There are a few right angle intersections, but no more than I would expect from chance in a poorly lit over streched image of such crater terrain.<br /><br />Jon <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]

"True - IFF they orbited at the same distance. Cassini is in, and will be in for quite some time a very elliptical orbit around Saturn. While it will cross Iapetus' orbit plane frequently, it will not come close to intersecting Iapetus' orbital path until some time in 2007."<br /><br />Your answer amounts to saying "Cassini won't make a close flyby of Iapetus until it does." Does such a tautology really merit a separate posting?

 

[nazcalito]

"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)."<br /><br />I think we are talking about two different things. You seem to be concerned with how often Cassini will pass Iapetus, or approach to Iapetus, or something like that. I was merely saying that Iapetus would cross Cassini's orbital plane at least twice every 79 point whatever days (Iapetus' orbit being somewhat less than 80 days.) <br />

 

[claywoman]

I am writing this to no one but just some ramblings straight out of my head.<br /><br />Until we can get things like Iapetus rovers and drilling little holes down into the ice or whatever, we are never going to know.<br /><br />I've made fun of some of the postings in this and expecially the 'Matrian' thread because of the absurdity of that one thread. I don't believe in Hoagland, not that I know the man, and I don't know him but I do know that his work is shown in the 'National Enquirer' and other classy rags instead of in Scientific Journals. That right there makes me wonder about him, I know I don't have a degree in science and I know why, too much math!!! But this man pretends to be a scientist and I have no clue to his background!!!<br /><br />I usually stay on the fringes here because I know I have little to offer except a sarcastic remark now and then. But I'm learning! I'm learning that you can see strange, unexplained things in distant pictures, but they look totally different if you see them up close and personal. I can offer you a comperable photo of something called the 'Sleeping Chief' cliff in Glacier National Park, or could have if his nose hadn't slipped. To me, that's comperable to your 'face on Mars' any day of the week, and the sleeping chief is her in North America. I can offer you the 'Jumping Off Place' where you can 'see' a full length Indian woman ready to jump off the side of a mountain, on Flathead Lake in Montana, and yet, its just a fluke of water and rock. I imagine we can all find stuff like that here.<br /><br />My point is, you can see what you want to see anywhere. Maybe there were ETs, I am firmly convinced that we are not the only one's in the whole universe, I'm not that stupid. But why would they build on Mars and 'move' to earth? because this is warmer? For that one, I have to see skeletons and tissue folks. <br /><br />I'm a writer, I've got two published books and working on two more plus my children's books. This might be

 

[maxtheknife]

Claywoman writes, "Until we can get things like Iapetus rovers and drilling little holes down into the ice or whatever, we are never going to know."<br /><br />That is so true. Why didn't we land pathfinder at Cydonia? It's time to start asking ourselves....why not?<br /><br />"We mock what we don't understand"<br /><br />You're alright Claywoman <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />

 

[zenonmars]

Hi, Claywoman. I am here to help <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />You wrote "I don't believe in Hoagland, not that I know the man, and I don't know him but I do know that his work is shown in the 'National Enquirer' and other classy rags instead of in Scientific Journals. That right there makes me wonder about him, I know I don't have a degree in science and I know why, too much math!!! But this man pretends to be a scientist and I have no clue to his background!!!"<br /><br />At the age of 18, Richard C. Hoagland became curator of the Boston Museum of Science. He was a NASA consultant during the Apollo missions, before becoming Space Science Consultant to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.<br /><br />Richard, in the mid 60s, at the age of 19, created and co-produced the Mariner 4 (unmanned fly-by of Mars) all-night transcontinental radio program, linking his museum and the JPL control center. Richard and WTIC-Radio, in Hartford, Ct., were subsequently nominated for a Peabody Award.<br /><br />In the early 1970's, Hoagland proposed to Carl Sagan (along with Eric Burgess) the placement of a "message to Mankind" aboard Pioneer 10 -- humanity's "first unmanned probe of Jupiter", resulting in Pioneer 10 becoming the first artifact to successfully escape the solar system into the vast Galaxy beyond -- carrying "the Plaque" -- whose origins were officially acknowledged by Sagan in the prestigious journal, SCIENCE (175 [1972], 881).<br /><br /> Richard's Europa Biological Model was cited over 20 years ago, in the main science journal for Solar System Studies, Icarus (Nov. 1983). Arthur C Clark wrote, "The fascinating idea that there might be life on Europa . . . was first proposed by Richard C. Hoagland [in a 30-page article] in the magazine Star & Sky... This quite brilliant concept has been taken seriously by a number of astronomers (notably NASA's Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow), and may provide one of the best motives for the projected GALILEO Missio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That is so true. Why didn't we land pathfinder at Cydonia? It's time to start asking ourselves....why not? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not to drag this thread too far offbase or anything, but the short answer to that is that we're not ready to land rovers in such rough regions yet. Too much risk of losing the probe if it lands badly, and what with Mars' reputation as a spacecraft graveyard, I don't think the engineers are quite ready to accept that risk yet. (It's a constant battle between the engineers and the scientists to get maximum return with minimum risk.) They were really concerned about the twin MERs, and picked pretty benign landing spots. That did sacrifice some science. It'd be awesome to drive a rover down Valles Marineris or another of the really interesting features on Mars, but it ain't happening in the next decade, I suspect.<br /><br />But it'll be cool when it does. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It's only a matter of time, and if enough rovers in wimpy locations prove successful, I have no doubt they'll get confident enough to try rougher terrain. <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>

 

[odysseus145]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Why didn't we land pathfinder at Cydonia? It's time to start asking ourselves....why not?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because scientifically Ares Vallis, Gusev, and Meridiani Planum had more to offer than Cydonia, Cydonia had too rough terrain, and it's too far from the equator (~40 degrees). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Well, I was perusing lunar pictures from SMART-1.<br /><br />And look at what I found!!<br /><br />The lunar crater Pythagoras (130-km wide) is SQUARE-SHAPED !!!!<br /><br />No, this crater is not a hexagon like Iapetusian craters, or an ellipse like one may expect from an acute collision, but a beautifully formed SQUARE, tilted at a 45 degree angle (so it looks a bit like a diamond).<br /><br />Let me back up a little bit. Pythagoras is not easy to see from the Earth - it resides on the limb of the moon and its shape isn't obvious to the casual terran observer. (However, using "old pre-computer technology", it should be obvious to anyone that projects the image of this crater onto a sphere to remove the effect of the acute viewing angle, that this crater is SQUARE)<br /><br />And, well the hard-to-explain thing is, we should have known all along that the crater Pythagoras was square shaped, even before SMART-1 imaged it! I ask, what the hell were Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 doing anyways?? What was the Lunar Observer doing? Exactly why didn't the Russians report this???? <br /><br />Did we all somehow forget to point our cameras at a prominent 130-km wide crater on the moon and thus somehow not notice that its SQUARE? I think not!<br /><br />So I propose that the aliens who constructed the hexagonal craters on Iapetus also constructed a PERFECT SQUARE CRATER ON OUR MOON. Why? Who knows! Maybe to confound us. More likely, I think the crater Pythagoras was constructed as a square because this is a perfect Euclidian 2-D object.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to point out the KNOWN FACT that the Egyptians constructed their pyramids with SQUARE bases, and the bases of the Egyptian pyramids are in perfect alignment with the crater Pythagoras. Coincidence? I think not!<br /><br />Now I leave you with the picture of Pythagoras. <br />http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050203.html<br /><b></b> <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>

 

[geos]

"We" want close ups and radar of Iapetus<br />That would mean a few somewhat lower quality images of Titan

 

[geos]

All you say is "NASA and us are professionals. You support RCH and he is an outsider. Let us make up anything we want about the outer solar system. We don't have any theories about anything"