Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[maxtheknife]

Feel free to speculate, Naj....Most good scientists do <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[geneftw]

It's density wasn't MADE to be identical; it started out identical. A natural satellite modified...completely encrusted in a shell.

 

[najab]

><i>A natural satellite modified...completely encrusted in a shell.</i><p>So then you don't ascribe to the theory that it is hollow?</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>In reply to:>Iapetus is very slightly less dense than other moons of it's size...<br /><br />Which brings to mind a question I asked earlier, which noone has cared to try and answer: If Iapetus is:<br /><br />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"...<br /><br />Why would it's creators then go to such lengths to 'hide' it, by making its density virtually identical to the other 'natural' moons?<br /><br />Good question. I like stats, so I'm going to dump out the density data (as best as is currently known) for a number of satellites:<br /><br />Ranked by increasing size, various satellites over 100 km in radius:<br /><br /><br />SatelliteRadius (km)Density<br />Mimas1991.14<br />Miranda2361.20<br />Enceladus2491.12<br />Tethys5301.00<br />Dione5601.44<br />Ariel5811.67<br />Umbriel5851.40<br />Charon5862.24<br />Iapetus7181.02<br />Oberon7611.71<br />Rhea7641.24<br />Titania7891.71<br />Triton1,3532.05<br />Europa1,5652.99<br />Moon1,7383.34<br />Io1,8213.53<br />Callisto2,4031.85<br />Titan2,575</p> <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]

In an effort to help smooth the waters here, I offer the following words taken from David Jinks' The Monkey and the Tetrahedron. <br /><br />Jinks writes: "How do you define 'anomalous'? .....there is no objective way to define an 'anomaly' without a diametrically opposed 'normality'. When we have no preconcieved idea that human evolution should be like this or like that we have no difficulty accepting the reports in Cremo and Thompson's study alongside with the accepted reports. It is only when we choose to unfairly discriminate among evidence that anomalies start to arise. Cremo and Thgompson elaborate;<br /><br /> 'In general, a piece of evidence is anomalous only in relation to a particular theory. One prominent feature in the treatment of anomalous evidence in this field (archeology) can be challenged, for if nothing else, one can always raise charges of fraud. What happens in practice is that evidence that goes against an accepted theory tends to be shubjected to intense scrutiny, and it is expected to meet very high standards of proof.'<br /><br />Archeologist George Carter also wrote about this double standard; <br /><br /> "When a new idea is advanced, it neccessarily challenges the previous idea. This disturbs the holders of the previous idea and threatens their security. The normal reaction is anger. The new idea is then attacked, and support of it is required to be of a high order of certainty. The greater the departure from the previous idea, the greater the degree of certainty required, so it is said. I have never been able to accept this. It assumes that the old order was established on high orders of proof, and on examination this is seldom found to be true."<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

I also offer these bits of data in support of the idea that ancient human history as accepted today is wrong and the possibilty that our true heritage is much richer than anyone has dared to dream. The following data is supplied by Cremo and Thompson.....<br /><br />1. a 2.8 billion year old grooved metallic sphere discovered in ottosdalin, south africa.... http://ufologie.net/htm/transvaalspheres.htm<br />(I like that one <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> perhaps a toy Iapetus? lol)<br /><br />2. A human skeleton found in material dated to 38-45 million years BP in Delemont, Switzerland<br /><br />3. A 9-55 milliion year old human skeleton, jaw and skull fragment (accompanied by a mortar and carved stone, a hatchet, spear heads, scoops, ladles, a stone muller, grinders and a stone bead) found in strata at Tuolumne Table Mountain, the Stanislaus Co. Mine, the Sonora Tunnel and Valentine Mine, California.<br /><br />4. Human bones discovered in 8.7+ million year old material in Placer County, California.<br /><br />5. A 5-25 million year old human skeleton found in Midi de France, France.<br /><br />6. A human vertebra in material dated 3-5 million years old in Monte Hermorso, Argentina.<br /><br />7. A human humerus, four partial human skeletons and a full human skeleton, dated at from 3-4.5 million years old, in Kanapoi, Kenya and Castenedolo and Sayona, Italy.<br /><br />8. A human femur in material dated 2.2-3 million years old in Sterkfontein, South Africa.<br /><br />9. A human jaw, as well as intentionally broken bones, polished bones, bolas (perhaps used as projectiles), a leather working bone tool, a stone circle and simple stone tools, all dated at between 1.2-2 million years old, in Olduvai, Tanzania; Kanam, Kenya; and St. Prest, Fance.<br /><br />10. A 1.15 million year old human skeleton found in olduvai, Tanzania.<br /><br />11. Human jaws, a human tooth, talus, ulna, humerus and skull, as well as simp

 

[maxtheknife]

I know what rhymes w/ Crock....<br /><br />"We MOCK what we don't understand" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Human beings did not exist in modern form until about 50K to about 100K years ago. To call them 10's of Millions of years old is yet another wild and false claim contrary to the scientific facts and all reason. </font><br /><br />You got proof to back that up, /* ad hominem deleted */<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It's typical Hoaglandite misinformation and is not science. It's not even astronomy. and does not belong here</font><br /><br />/* ad hominem deleted */<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The Modus Operandi is when the latest ridiculous claim is thoroughly shown to be a 'crock', & the facts & all reason are insulted, then to trot out more wild claims. Really, it's all quite hopeless. You need professional help.</font><br /><br />/* ad hominem deleted */<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Yet another deception trotted out by these persons from their endless bag of tricks." </font><br /><br />The same old song; that's all you do. Cut and paste the same old song, that's right cut and paste, /* ad hominem deleted */

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">In an effort to help smooth the waters here, I offer the following words taken from David Jinks' The Monkey and the Tetrahedron.</font><br /><br /><br />Book Review - David Jinks <br />REVIEWS. David Jinks says: Ph.D.'s New Crop Circle Book Deals Crippling Blow to Hoax Explanation ... Review by David Jinks. November 14, 2001 ...<br /><br />-- /> You mean that David Jinks who claims he's dealt a serious blow to Crop Circle Hoax theories.<br /><br />That guy's a Hack !!

 

[5stone10]

Oh sorry - got the wrong Hack !<br /><br /><br />Jinks is this Hack />><br /><br />"If you're familiar with UFOs and Crop Circles, the Cold Fusion/Free Energy scene and the research of Richard Hoagland, and if you've read Graham Hancock and Creno & Thompson, you could have written this book yourself. It contains no original research, only a summary of the works of others, held together by some speculation and interpretation ... While <font color="yellow">David Jinks's master's degree is in business rather than physics</font> he compiles information and documents his contentions with the fury of an accountant searching for misappropriated funds."

 

[yevaud]

Hi.<br /><br />Sorry to break your train of thought here.<br /><br />I'm working on an "Official History" of SDC. There's a thread in "Free Space" called, simply enough, "Official History."<br /><br />When you get a chance, please post your basic information there (there's no obligation, and you can post as little or as much as you wish, or nothing at all).<br /><br />Basic Info. sought:<br /><br />1. Username(s) used on SDC<br />2. When you joined.<br />3. Any long-term absences (so a chronology of when you were and weren't an active member can be determined).<br />4. Your age (not a requirement).<br />5. Geographic location.<br />6. Profession.<br /><br />Hopefully, somewhere down the road, I will have an "official, free history," replete with a chronology, names, significant events, and so on.<br /><br />As well, any odd, curious, funny, or interesting stories about SDC are appreciated.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />*We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

From the "For What It's Worth" department...<br /><br />Flaming is the performance "art" of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet). Such messages are called flames, and are often posted in response to flamebait. <br />Although the trading of insults is as old as time itself, flaming on the Internet started in the Usenet hierarchies. A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished by its intent. A flame is never intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is never dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers merely wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls.<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>

 

[jatslo]

"Don't talk to the inmates. It only upsets them." <br /><br />The above is a space.com search is representative of all points in space-time that consist of the words ""Don't talk to the inmates. It only upsets them".<br /><br />stevehw33 keeps singing the same tune, and almost never backs up his/her claims with anything original! <br />/* ad hominem deleted */

 

[yevaud]

You've completely lost me there. Huh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[claywoman]

He's not flaming, he's trying to gather information for the history of SDC...have a problem with that telfrow?

 

[CalliArcale]

Okay, folks, let's all try to be nice, okay? There's no need to take the argument to a personal level. The merits of the debate should be fine by themselves; no need for mudslinging. Okay? <img src="/images/icons/wink.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>

 

[telfrow]

No, no, no.<br /><br />No problem with the request...I just did it.<br /><br />It's my observation of what's been taking place on the board over the past few days (weeks?). I posted earlier this morning bemoaning the fact that this thread had deteriorated into a flame war.<br /><br />I made the mistake of simply hitting reply on the last post...not one of Steve's or Jatslo's.<br /><br />Again, my mistake. It wasn't directed at the request, just what's going on in this thread. <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]

Doing The Math, Part II<br />(From Part Five of Hoagland’s “Moon with a View”)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Take the specific geometry that now seems to shape Iapetus – a truncated icosahedron, a duplicate of the “C60 fullerene.” Multiply it by the number of radii Iapetus is orbiting away from Saturn (60 …). And discover— 360 -- the exact number of degrees in a full circle/orbit….</font><br /><br />When I first read this, I assumed he was talking about the basic geometric shape involved in the “fullerene,” the hexagon (6 sides of the hexagon multiplied by 60 radii = 360). <br /><br />Okay. It’s interesting, but not quite correct. As Hoagland admits in an earlier portion of his article, the radii is really 59.091, meaning the result would actually be 354.546. He works around this 59.091 value by stating the value has changed over time…but only (as noted in my previous post) if the value decreased from 60… not if had increased from, say, 58. 58 x 6 = 348 - even further away from the projected number.<br /><br />However, the caption for the illustration that follows is <i>very specific</i> about the formula that was used: <font color="yellow"> <i><b>“60 radii times 60 vertices = 360 degrees.”</b></i></font>/i><br /><br />60 radii x 60 vertices = 3,600, <i><b>not</b></i> 360.<br /><br />Anyone care to explain this basic error in math?<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'm more concerned when he multiplies the size of Iapetus' orbit by it's inclination and claims to get it's diameter.<p>For one thing, he mixes units - Saturn radii divided by degrees gives you miles. Secondly, he rounds some numbers up and others down without any consistency. Thirdly, the result he gets is 900 miles. Iapetus is 907 miles in diameter, meaning that even after he fudges the numbers it still doesn't come out. Finally, why should we assume that the aliens worked in miles.<p>If we, as humans, on Earth have not only a completely different system of measure (metric), but also have variation between different definition of units in the <b>same</b> system (nautical miles, standard miles, US miles, etc), why should we be as arrogant as to impose imperial units on long deat ETIs?</p></p>

 

[maxtheknife]

Yo, Steve...chill, bro. Data is data, sorry.... Have a Sweedie! Maybe you'll like these trolls a little better <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />www.sweedie.net<br /><br />All of a sudden, business men aren't allowed to think for themselves, sheesh! You go, Jinks!! <br /><br />Fyi... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science<br /><br />Peace y'all

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">...why should we assume that the aliens worked in miles...</font><br /><br />I had the same thought. Miles?<br /><br />If - and it's a <b>big</b> if- they were trying to leave a message, why choose miles? How could they possibly know that we would be using that unit of measure a few eons down the road? <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>

 

[odysseus145]

>>All of a sudden, business men aren't allowed to think for themselves, sheesh!<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with thinking for yourself. The problem arises when you come to a completely outragous conclusion and then try to press it upon others.<br /><br />BTW, thinking for oneself is an excuse often used by moon hoax believers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, followers of Nancy Lieder, Sumatran earthquake conspiracy theorists, and just about any other conspiracy group. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[geos]

RCH told me that getting a good view of Iapetus soon would be easy. What are you worried about?

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">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 </font><br /><br /><i>Exactly!</i><br /><br />My satirical posts about the square crater on the moon (which actually does look square!) are intended to make that point exactly.<br /><br />The logic is this:<br />Hoagies claim that:<br />1) Iapetus craters are hexagonal<br />2) Hexagonal craters could only be artificial<br />3) therefore, Iapetus is an artifical construct<br />4) People didn't constrct Iapetus<br />5) Therefore alien visitors constructed Iapetus.<br /><br />I simply point out that:<br />1) I think even Hoagies and their dittos accept that the moon is not an artifical construct.<br />2) There is a 130-km crater on the moon named "Pythagoras" which is <i>square-shaped</i> (and similar size to the one on Iapetus).<br />3) If anything, this crater is closer to a square shape than any Iapetus craters are to a hexagonal shape.<br />4) Since the Moon was not an artifical construct, then this square shaped lunar crater was not an artificial construct.<br />5) Therefore all craters which have regular geometric shapes are not artifical constructs.<br /><br />I hope this logic is clear! <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>

 

[JonClarke]

In a post-2001 essay A C Clarke wrote that he used Japetus because Willy ley had spelled in this way in a famous book on the solar system and he did not check other sources. Unfortunately by the time he found out the error Ley was already dead, and so his reason for it could not be determined.<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>