Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow"> It is just as credible of a theory as any proposed by NASA!</font><br /><br />Nasa doesn’t propose theories as you and Hoagland describe. Theories are proposed by scientists, some that work for Nasa and some who do not. The hypothesis that Iapetus is artificial is not one that I have heard proposed by any scientists anywhere on the planet. <br /><br />I think you’ve been reading too much Clarke<br />

 

[JonClarke]

Except that Clarke in his heyday would not have passed such drivel off as fact. Hoagland does.<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>

 

[thinefreewill]

Greetings Everyone!<br /><br />It seems here we have an issue to settle, regarding the credibility of Richard Hoagland and his proposals. <br /><br />I'm not here to flame anyone who chooses to disbelieve, since it is your right to believe what you want to. But out of fairness, in future discussions please stick to known facts, and back them up with some proof. If you are going to discredit someone, at least attempt to do so in a proper manner. Rude opinions of someone's careful measured theory, based upon your own biased opinions of it's creator, do not further the process of discovery and enlightenment for anyone. Stick to the message, and try not to kill the messengers. <br /> <br />For the 'board trolls', who live to discredit and and spread disinformation: Your 3 pages of factless garbage is enough, and honestly should be deleted. Please move on and spread your armchair opinions elsewhere. You do the scientific process no good. Firmly believe otherwise? Then -prove- it. We live in a world full of hidden agendas, and disinformation, neither of which belongs in an intelligent discussion. <br /><br />Now, let's clear the air here a bit about Richard's past accomplishments, with a -brief- listing:<br /><br />- Space science musem curator (at the age of 19!)<br />- NASA Consultant<br />- Science Advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News<br />- Co-proposed the message from mankind, the plaque aboard Voyager I0, as acknowledged by Sagan in SCIENCE (175 [1972], 881)<br />- Nominated for the Peabody Award for journalism.<br />- Nominated for a White House 'Point of Light' award, for excellence in space education.<br />- Was the FIRST to receive the International Angstrom Medal for Excellence in Science.<br />- Was the first to propose the possibility of life in the oceans of Europa, based on NASA's data from Voyager fly-by's. <br />- Engineered the Mars Tidal Model years ago, which proved the past existance of OCEANS on Mars. <br /><br />Some of those are major accomplishments, whi

 

[igorsboss]

Welcome to SDC, Richard.

 

[thinefreewill]

"Welcome to SDC, Richard. "<br /><br />LOL!<br /><br />If he -ever- posted here, he would do so under his own name. But thanks, I'm almost flattered!

 

[najab]

><i>It seems here we have an issue to settle, regarding the credibility of Richard Hoagland and his proposals. </i><p>Read this.</p>

 

[telfrow]

Mr. Hoagland and his positions have been discussed numerous times on these pages. I've actively participated in two of those discussions, particularly the one concerning Hoagland's very public plagiarism charge against Steve Squyres in 1988.<br /><br />You have obviously chosen to believe Hoagland's assertions concerning Iapetus and the Tidal model. Do you also accept his position on the presence of Nazi symbols on Pathfinder, numerology and Freemasons? Do you consider that "science" as well?<br /><br />I believe Abraham Lincoln said it best:<br /><i>He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.</i><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]

lifebeyond:<br /><br />Same questions...<br /><br />Do you support his position on Nazi symbols on Pathfinder, numerology and Freemasons? Do you consider that "science" as well? <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]

Here are the links to the "Nazi symbols..."<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/plaq-ss.jpg<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/plaqcom2.gif <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 guess it's true - stare at random pixels long enough and you <b>do</b> start to see things.

 

[telfrow]

I could stare at that photo forever and still never see the SS symbol... <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]

Not to offend anyone or anything, but it may depend on whether or not there's something you *want* to see in the picture. The human imagination is a hell of a lot more powerful than it gets credit for. It has a profound influence on our perceptions, which needs to be kept in mind. Just because someone perceives something doesn't mean it's actually there.<br /><br />One might wonder why it was a swastika that Hoagland saw, and what that implies about his subconscious. <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]

<font color="yellow">One might wonder why it was a swastika that Hoagland saw, and what that implies about his subconscious.</font><br /><br />Agreed, Calli. That's most troubling part of it for me... <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>

 

[mrmorris]

CE -- you just gave him another credential. Now TFW can add:<br /><br />- In 2005 Richard received the coveted 'Woo Hoo!' award from the prestigious Space.com organization

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">...an issue to settle, regarding the credibility of Richard Hoagland...</font><br /><br />Sounds good !<br /><br />Hoagie-Nut has Zero Credibility !<br /><br />There, its settled !!

 

[telfrow]

I've wanted to get this one off my chest for quite a while. This seems like a perfect opportunity. There's another Hoagland thread and I'm down for a week under doctor's orders.<br /><br />So, here's an example of Mr. Hoagland's ethics (or lack thereof) and ego (no lack thereof).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">We Told You So…<br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/WeToldYouSo_1.php<br />Story mast montage copyright by Astrobiology Magazine <br />• Note the 'Crinoid' fossil candidate - 2nd image from the right.<br />• This fossil candidate was discovered by Richard C. Hoagland.<br />• No mention or attribution was made to Hoagland in the article…<br />On August 30, 2004, Astrobiology Magazine published a story about life on Mars. In the image montage that forms the masthead for this story is a fossil candidate first recognized and published by Richard C. Hoagland.</font><font color="white"><br /><br />Interesting statements: <br />1) the "fossil candidate" ("crinoid") was "discovered" by Hoagland; <br />2) the "fossil candidate" ("crinoid") was first "recognized" and "published" (i.e., posted on the net) by Hoagland.<br />The statements beg the question: when did he make and publish his "discovery?"<br /><font color="yellow"><br />From the "Curious Case of the NASA Crinoid Cover-Up"<br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm<br />"After we discovered and posted an initial version of this remarkable series of events on "Enterprise" March 2...<font color="white"><br /><br />So we have an answer: the "crinoid" article was posted March 2, 2005. Logic dictates his personal "discovery" that the object was, indeed, a crinoid, must have occurred sometime prior to that date. (It should also be noted there is some discrepancy when his epiphany took place: in "Ignoring Fossils</font></font></font> <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>

 

[silylene old]

Fossils was first on the "crinoid", as I remember. Fossils always had an uncanny ability to recognize similarities to marine fossils. <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>

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Now, let's clear the air here a bit about Richard's past accomplishments, with a -brief- listing: "<br /><br />Quite a few were self inflation, however at one stage Hoagland must have come to the inevitable conclusion that he would never make millions of dollars by sticking to the facts, and that the way to success was to lay claim to totally outrageous ideas. The more outrageous the better. The gullible public like easy reading. They thrive on controversy. And when they relax with their tartan slipper clad feet up after a hard day at the office, they like nothing better that easy watching in the form of Pseudo Egyptology or Pseudo Science.<br /><br />Thinefreewill - Let me ask you a simple question - Does the sun orbit the earth once every 24 hours, or does the earth orbit the sun? A growing number of people believe the former. It is becoming one of the fastest growing ideas in general circulation today Maybe there is some truth to it.<br /><br />Pseudoscience is far more popular than science. Science is just too hard. They use words with too many syllables.<br /><br />Maybe the day will come when scientists are an endangered species. It's happening at the moment in my part of the world. Kids are doing far more fashionable things than science at university. There is a growing skills shortage. <br /><br />I can see the beginning of another dark age. Coming soon to a civilization near you! Especially when you read about things like this:<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050319_imax.html <br /><br />Then where will you be? There will be nobody around to design satellites to broadcast popular TV. However you'll still be able to go to church.

 

[lifebeyond]

I need to make a few very important points...<br /><br />1) This thread is to be focused on the stunning anomalies of Iapetus, and it is quickly drifting off topic. <br /><br />2) Phil Plait has made many vicious accusations against Richard C. Hoagland but has absolutely refused to have a debate against him on the Coast to Coast nation radio program. If Phil is so confident Richard's theories are all bunk why is he so terrified to debate against him?<br /><br />3) Richard is a real scientist. He has an extensive and broad knowledge of many scientific fields from the space sciences, to physics, and of course astronomy (among others). Many of you need to look up the definition of a scientist...<br /><br />The definition of a scientist from http://www.answers.com/topic/scientist<br /><br />sci·en·tist (s&#299;'&#601;n-t&#301;st) pronunciation<br />n.<br /><br />A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.<br /><br />--<br /><br />You do NOT have to be a professor at a University or have an extensive "formal" education to be a scientist!<br /><br />Richard C. Hoagland is indeed a scientist and the only reason people attempt to belittle him is because he dares to challenge the mainstream's collective phobia of anything that does not fit into the precisely measured box that defines what is possible in their limited view of reality and the universe!<br /><br />3) Is that a Nazi symbol on the lander? I sure don't know. But it does seem to be anomalous, but I don't know what it could be. Richard's attempt to provide a possible explanation is as likely as any other! Richard has a keen eye for pointing out REAL ANOMALIES that the professionally trained and educated scientists at NASA tend to at best repeatedly overlook and at worst run away screaming from.<br /><br />Alright, now back to the point of this entire thread!<br /><br />Iapetus is not a sphere when it should

 

[lifebeyond]

By the way... I hate getting off topic, but I have to share one bit of advice with those criticising Richard Hoagland's articial about Iapetus at http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm<br /><br />Have you ever heard of a little old phenomanon called "Cold Fusion" or "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"?<br /><br />You probably have and for years you have probably heard many people debunk it, criticise it, belittle researchers involved in the study of Cold Fusion, or even claim that it does not exist at all. People like Bob Park have viciously attacked those investigating Cold Fusion or LENR for years and years...<br /><br />But now there is so much evidence (because there wree people around the world that were willing to give it an honest look and repeat the experiments) that it exists many of these same overly skeptical naysayers refuse to even comment about it!<br /><br />In the last couple of years there have been over two hundred successful CF or LENR experiments done around the world. Scientists in Japan, China, and elsewhere are conducting these experiments, getting amazing results, and getting them published in the most distinguished of scientific journals.<br /><br />However, it took a LONG TIME for this first *start* of recognition of cold fusion to take place! <br /><br />The mainstream scientific community had the mindset that it was impossible because it did not fit into their little box of reality so they claimed it was nothing but a hoax, miscalulations, and the researchers investigating it were cranks.<br /><br />But now look! Around the world Cold Fusion is becoming accepted as REAL! The folks at the Department of Energy are still pretty skeptical, but who cares about them! China, Japan, and other nationals will further research the technology, eventually develope full scale commercial reactors, and their nations will have all the power they will ever need. <br /><br />They will be laughing at the

 

[geneftw]

I'd like to say a few things about RCH:<br />RCH doesn't know how to read. His wife reads to him.<br />RCH is insane.<br />RCH kicks dogs.<br />RCH has the IQ of a june bug.<br />RCH finds great humor in helping little old ladies half- way across busy intersections.<br />And if the above isn't enough, he mixes mustard with his chocolate milk!!<br />Go ahead, assume the above garbage to be true, if you wish, and forgive me for talking about stuff that is COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.<br />Now, back to the topic which is, I believe, evidence that Iapetus may be artificial:<br />Read the evidence. Y'all know where to find it....<br /><br />Have you read it? .... Good. Now refute it. Refute the evidence, not the author. It doesn't matter if it was compiled by Richard Hoagland or Albert einstein or Goldy Hawn. I'd like to hear somebody address the EVIDENCE.

 

[najab]

><i>Iapetus is not a sphere when it should be!</i><p>Many celestial objects are non-spherical - even the Earth is an oblate spheriod. There is nothing unusual about Iapetus being non-spherical, at least given the fact that we don't know its internal composition with any detail there's no reason to be suprised that it's not spherical.<p>><i>Iapetus has numerous sides and appears to be very geometric in shape!</i><p>No, it doesn't. There are a few pictures in which it <i>appears</i> to have a non-spheroid geometry to it, but then there are many more in which it does not. Anyway, as everyone knows, the strongest shape for a hollow space station - which is what it is being claimed Iapetus is - would be a sphere (or oblate spherioid). Any other geometric figure introduces joins and seams which are potential failure points. I would be more inclined to believe that it was artificial if it were <b>perfectly</b> spherical - I would hope that any race capable of building a hundred-mile diameter space station would know that a sphere is the strongest shape.<p>><i>Iapetus has a mysterious ridge running around it!</i><p>Yes, it does. A <b>very</b> interesting feature, which is definitely worthy of more study.<p>><i>Iapetus has a very odd orbit around Saturn!</i>Precisely <i>what</i> is odd about the orbit? Can you tell me?<p>><i>Iapetus has geometric crators on it's surface!</i><p>No, it doesn't. Again, there are some images in which it is possible to argue for straight lines (if you squint), but they really aren't that impressive. As a general rule, if someone has to draw yellow lines on an image to outline a 'feature', it's not a feature, it's in their head.</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[najab]

><i>Phil Plait has made many vicious accusations against Richard C. Hoagland but has absolutely refused to have a debate against him on the Coast to Coast nation radio program. If Phil is so confident Richard's theories are all bunk why is he so terrified to debate against him?</i><p>Because Mr Hoagland doesn't want a fair debate. Read this page to find out why Mr Plait hasn't accepted the 'offer'.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

Be nice, geneftw. I'm not going to edit out your statements about Hoagland because, to my knowledge, he is not a member here and we usually don't bother editing attacks on nonmembers. But please try not to antagonize lifebeyond. A lot of us here consider Hoagland to be a charlatan. But lifebeyond doesn't, and clearly is very emotionally invested in the subject. I don't want to see this thread become a flamewar. It doesn't need to. The facts are certainly adequate for any debunking anybody wishes to do. <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]

<font color="yellow">Let's demand NEW images of Iapetus. </font><br /><br />Additional images of Iapteus will be obtained on September 10, 2007, from an altitude of just 763 miles, as compared to the January, 2005 fly by at 40,000 plus miles. <br /><br />See:<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-tour-dates-05.cfm <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>