Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

geos · Mar 31, 2005

He stole the idea of the mollusc? What are you upset about? That you didn't get to grind it to dust because someone else did?

geneftw · Mar 31, 2005

Thank you for looking. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on those craters. They look pretty darned regular to me, though a bit battered. There is one (a smaller one I outlined) that looks like a perfect pentagon. The right angles I outlined are, in many cases, only a part of what looks to me to be part of square or rectangular structures (also battered). There are too many of those right angles to attribute to chance, in my opinion. Have you zoomed in on other parts of the image looking for similar terrain? I haven't, but I have a hunch most of Iapetus looks like that. What geological processes could cause that? And if the question applies, what could cause that on such a scale as to cover the whole moon?

geneftw · Mar 31, 2005

"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 of your own, 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..." Thanks for the compliment. It's obvious who "some" are and who "others" are. To "others", anybody who views the artificiality arguments as having merit are cooks. And of course if they mispell a wurd, or use bad syntax, then they must be wrong about everything else, two. "Believe it or not, I have read the "Moon with a View" 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)." I give more credence to the information presented than you do. "... you are the one who I would least describe as a Kook." Thanks, but you really don't know me, do you? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

davp99 · Mar 31, 2005

Good Post Silylene. But <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The lunar crater Pythagoras (130-km wide) is SQUARE-SHAPED !!!! <hr /></blockquote> Am I the Only One who doesn't SEE the SQUARE-SHAPED crater ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Dave.. </div>

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

Looking at what has been posted over the last couple of days, I assume any attempt to have a discussion of the issue at hand, the artificial nature of Iapteus, is dead. Personally, I’ve made a number of posts that attempted to discuss substantive issues surrounding the matter. I’ve also requested data from those supporting artificiality (mass and density of a hollow sphere, and a carbon nanotube structure built over an existing moon), attempted to point out flaws in the basic math, and posted photos, experiments and supporting documentation for my arguments. These posts and requests have been largely ignored. This, my friends, has turned into a flame war. If, and when, this thread returns to the subject at hand, I’d like to rejoin the discussion. Edit: With the exception of Gene and Jon's discussion of the surface features. Credit where credit is due. <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>

geos · Mar 31, 2005

So you and your theories about Iapetus is the same as other people at NASA ? We need to look harder at Titan (since it is an obvious outsider and NOT a boring iceball?) I think you have no theories about either. But if you are an expert in celestial mechanics you might find a way to see a lot more of Iapetus and win us all over. Thanks in advance.

JonClarke · Mar 31, 2005

Max: What's this "Mr.Clark" stuff? People here call me Jon. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> What am I supposed to want to go to see? What theories of mine are you talking about? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

So you and your theories about Iapetus is the same as other people at NASA ? Nope. Never said they were. That was never the point. The early stream of posters here asked us to "refute" the data. Some of us have tried. In our own words and with our own interpretations. Edit: Who do you want to debate? Posters here at SDC or NASA? We need to look harder at Titan (since it is an obvious outsider and NOT a boring iceball?) They are. That's the whole point of the mission. I think you have no theories about either. Really? Read the entire thread and see what I've posted. I've presented information, theories and attempted to dicsuss the concepts in a civil manner. The tone of your post proves you don't want to do the same. But if you are an expert in celestial mechanics you might find a way to see a lot more of Iapetus and win us all over. Thanks in advance. Nope, I'm not. And I never said I was. I haven't posted a thing about changing the flight path of Cassini. I'm not even remotely qualified to discuss it. And, unlike some indviduals here, I freely admit it. Thanks in advance. And thanks for proving my point about this becoming a flame war. <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>

silylene old · Mar 31, 2005

Am I the Only One who doesn't SEE the SQUARE-SHAPED crater ? Well, Pythagoras has a more defined square shape than any crater on Iapetus has a hexagon. I am sure you can see that! ~The square is tilted at a 45 degreee angle, so it looks a little like a diamond. The sides are all the same length and the interior angles are approximately 90 degrees~ I simply offer my crater Pythagoras as a square against Hoagland's Iapetus crater as a hexagon. I am certain, if one did a least squares shape comparison, Pythagoras would be the better geometric figure. <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>

silylene old · Mar 31, 2005

He stole the idea of the mollusc? What are you upset about? That you didn't get to grind it to dust because someone else did? I never agreed that those were fossils on the Martian surface. I actually think they are nothing but unusually shaped rocks. However, the first person to my knowledge to notice these unusual shapes, and point out their similarity to terran molluscs was "Fossils", a guy who used to be a prolific contributor to these forums. It was not Hoagland. I simply think that Hoagland should give credit and attribution where it is due. He hasn't. <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>

nexium · Mar 31, 2005

Seeing squares and hexagons in craters is like seeing them in clouds. The ground was likely hilly before the impact and some rock is stronger than other rock, so we should not be surprised that craters are rarely perfect elipses or circles. Neil

maxtheknife · Mar 31, 2005

Calli writes: "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" Calli, Cydonia was an original landing option/choice for the viking missions. There is absolutely no good reason NOT to land at Cydonia and answer the question. Did you see where they landed Pathfinder? Jagged, sharp rocks were everywhere! Telfrow, sorry to say but you rely on 'conclusions' that omit glaring evidence to the contrary. Example.... The last time the three biggies at Giza had any meaningfull celestial alilgnment was approx 10,500 years ago when they were aligned w/ the Orion constellation. "Coincidently", the Sphinx was pointing directly at the constellation Leo during the same time. Also, I can't remember his name, but a forensic police officer from New York compared the face of the Sphinx to known sculptures of Chefren.... It was proven beyond a doubt that it was NOT a match. I believe that the stone tablet you refer to as having Chefren's name on it is actually broken and the full name of Chefren is NOT present. They've assumed it says Chefren. Jon,,,,sorry, habits of courtesy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If you don't or won't see the obvious, I can't help ya. I was referring to the crystal formations that you posted earlier claiming that they are natural. I've done a little (admittedly, very little) checking into your post. Would you argue then that crystals are responsible for the geometric craters seen on Iapetus? Would you argue the same for the features seen at Cydonia?

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

Re: Discovery of the "Crinoid" This issue was addressed on 3/23/05. Page 5. <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>

tap_sa · Mar 31, 2005

"Am I the Only One who doesn't SEE the SQUARE-SHAPED crater ?" It's in the upper-left corner, very dark almost black. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

Telfrow, sorry to say but you rely on 'conclusions' that omit glaring evidence to the contrary. Example.... The last time the three biggies at Giza had any meaningfull celestial alilgnment was approx 10,500 years ago when they were aligned w/ the Orion constellation. "Coincidently", the Sphinx was pointing directly at the constellation Leo during the same time. Also, I can't remember his name, but a forensic police officer from New York compared the face of the Sphinx to known sculptures of Chefren.... It was proven beyond a doubt that it was NOT a match. I believe that the stone tablet you refer to as having Chefren's name on it is actually broken and the full name of Chefren is NOT present. They've assumed it says Chefren. When did we discuss this? I've never posted anything about the pyramids or a stone tablet with Chefren's name on it. You asked me about Abydos. By the way, I've read the book(s). <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 31, 2005

Considering that you have demonstrated with your earlier posts a total lack of understanding of orbital mechanics and the tortuous processes involved in planning a mission of the complexity of Cassini/Hygens: <blockquote> 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 <hr width="10%" align="left" /> 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. <hr width="10%" align="left" /> Why spend a year and a half just orbiting Titan? 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. </blockquote> I will simply say that there is no way that they could include a flyby of Iapetus without totally redesigning the whole mission - that is assuming that Cassini even has the delta-v available to make the manouver in the first place.

maxtheknife · Mar 31, 2005

Sorry, Telfrow....maybe it was Therm....At any rate, someone here said it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

I don't think so Max. A site search only shows Chefren mentioned in our last two posts. Maybe you had that discussion with someone at another site... <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 31, 2005

Jon: I don't think I've ever asked you this: are you the Jon Clarke associated with ACA? <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>

CalliArcale · Mar 31, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Calli, Cydonia was an original landing option/choice for the viking missions. There is absolutely no good reason NOT to land at Cydonia and answer the question. Did you see where they landed Pathfinder? Jagged, sharp rocks were everywhere! <hr /></blockquote> Yeah, Cydonia was on the very long "wish list" for landing spots. It got rejected for a variety of reasons, among them the fact that there were too many mesas and other large scale features within the landing ellipse. Pathfinder did indeed land on a rock-strewn plain. But there are several crucial points that need to be made here. 1) The jagged boulders at the Pathfinder landing site aren't visible from orbit. You can't really tell if there are going to be rocks like that. All you can do is try to avoid the large scale features like hills, valleys, canyons, mountains, mesas, and so forth. Remember that Opportunity's serendipitous "hole in one" was pure luck. That crater wasn't even known about prior to Opportunity's landing. I think you'll agree with me that the "Face" is a lot bigger than any of those rocks. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Really, Pathfinder's site is pretty flat compared to Cydonia. 2) The Vikings could afford a wider variety of landing sites for several reasons: they were not dependent on good sunlight, they didn't rely on airbags for landing and instead had much more powerful descent engines, and they were descending from Mars orbit and thus were coming down a lot more slowly. 3) The Vikings had smaller landing ellipses. This relates to the point above, that they were coming from Mars orbit. All subsequent lander missions have been from heliocentric orbit, which is a lot faster and more difficult to aim. 4) Pathfinder came within a hairsbreadth of failure due to all of those sharp rocks, and testing revealed more and more potential weaknesses in the landing system f <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>

geneftw · Mar 31, 2005

I can't dig for details right now. I'm watching markets. I'll edit later, adding a density chart of Saturns moons. If my memory serves correctly, Iapetus is very slightly less dense than other moons of it's size. The nano-tubes (fillerenes) are about 1/6 the weight of steel, I believe. If the moon is shielded with this material, we can't know how thick the shield is. There would be too much guess work involved in the calculations. However, it does appear that Iapetus is a natural moon---modified. EDIT: Here's the link. I can't tell about the size, but the chart shows the surface to be carbonaceous and icy. http://www.mira.org/fts0/planets/100/text/txt002x.htm

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

I'll edit later, adding a density chart of Saturns moons. I've got that info, thanks. An estimate or series of educated "guesses" concerning the mass and density of a hollow and/or modified moon could answer some questions. Iapetus has a density about the same as water ice (1.1, I believe). <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 31, 2005

Sorry, Telfrow....It was Stevehw33.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

telfrow · Mar 31, 2005

No problem. <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 31, 2005

>Iapetus is very slightly less dense than other moons of it's size...Which brings to mind a question I asked earlier, which noone has cared to try and answer: If Iapetus is:<blockquote> a spaceship "moon" built within this solar system, for equally obscure reasons ... which also ended up at Saturn -- but with a visible signature, the baffling "light/dark dichotomy" -- which would flag it across the entire system and future millennia as "anomalous"...</blockquote>Why would it's creators then go to such lengths to 'hide' it, by making its density virtually identical to the other 'natural' moons?

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

geos

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

davp99

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geos

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

silylene old

Guest

silylene old

Guest

nexium

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

geneftw

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page