Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[JonClarke]

Hi telfrow<br /><br />Yep, that's me! I am indeed an associate of ACA <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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>

 

[nexium]

Scarsely anything can be proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Neil

 

[geneftw]

"You put a polygon around a circle and it gives the purely visual illusion of polyhedral craters."<br /><br />No it doesn't.<br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Max<br /><br />Your wrote:<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />The two features I referred to are geological formations in rocks, they are not crystals. The Giant's Causeway is formed by tensional polygonal cooling fractures in basalt. I have not been there but I have seen equivalent features in many places. The tesselated pavement, which I studied as part of my education consists of two sets of compressional fractures at almost 90 degrees (plus a third extension fracture set at an angle to both).<br /><br />With respect to Iapetus I see no evidence for any significant patterning in the posted image. If there is such patterning it is very weakly developed and complete consistent with geological processes. <br /><br />If you want me to talk about Cydonia, start another thread.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

Gene<br /><br />Well the big "octagonal" crater is certainly irrgular, but to say it is polygonal is over stating the case, IHMO. Bot impossible, many old craters do develop polygonal structures with later modification, as has been pointed out.<br /><br />The other rectilinear features features, again, I am not convinced. But if there a series of more or less orthoganal features it would point to a widespread series of fractures at a steep angle to each other in the crust. <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>

 

[geneftw]

Just a vague thought(s), here...nothing concrete:<br />The inch we use today is very slightly different than the pyramid inch, which is 1/500, 000,000th the diameter of the Earth. (This is according to Adam Rutherford in his 4 volume Pyramidology.) The diameter of the Earth (and many other things about the Earth) were known to whomever built the pyramid, as evidenced by many other measurements of the pyramid. (The Great Pyramid of Giza.)<br />IF this knowledge were passed down from either ET or an ancient advanced human race, could the mile not be derived from some terrestial ratio, as well?..........This is why I called my thought vague: because I do not know from what the mile is derived. I tried to find that info, but the explanation of "how far a Roman could walk in a certain number of paces did not hold up, because of too much variance in different versions of "mile."

 

[geneftw]

"So then you don't ascribe to the theory that it is hollow?"<br />No. It's too dense to be hollow.<br />I believe it to be a natural moon encased in an artificial shell, but I will continue referring to Iapetus as artificial, simply because it requires less typing that way.<br />Artificial or encrusted artificially: either way is just as astounding.

 

[geos]

Ok smart guy - How did they know to build the pyramid with ball and socket joints in the corners like we do with modern bridges and such? How did they know that the Giza plateau would support such a gigantic structure? Why is it in the middle of both the largest land mass north south and east west? Why is the height the average height of the land on the earth? Why does the sides curve in with the curvature of the earth? How were the massive granite grand gallery blocks quarried?

 

[geos]

thinking for oneself is an excuse?<br /><br />I don't need an excuse to think for myself. Why wouldn't you not go there. If you need an excuse you can withdraw into Plato's Cave.

 

[geneftw]

You said, "...but to say it is polygonal is over stating the case..." <br />Did you, by any chance mean to say "regular" instead of "polygonal"? To me the octagon is clear enough, albeit a bit battered. But that octagon is not one of the more well defined polygons, anyway.<br />You said that older craters develope polygonal structures. Do you see the hexagonal craters? I sure hope so, 'cuz to me there are several that are VERY obvious. If you see them, then you might see that they appear to be regular. Would older craters form REGULAR polygons?

 

[geneftw]

"It has No effect on the round craters."<br /><br /> No comment. I'll let others ponder that.<br /><br />

 

[geneftw]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is ACA? I Gooooogle-searched "ACA" and found page after page of different things that ACA is an acronym for.

 

[telfrow]

Gene:<br /><br />See: http://aca.mq.edu.au/People/jclarke.htm<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]

Geos:<br /><br />RCH also said 60 x 60 equals 360. And that 59.091 is "almost" 60. <br /><br />If his math for the orbital change is as faulty as his math for the "connections," we'll end up sending Cassini out of the solar system. <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]

Yeah, but 59.091 <b>has</b> to be almost 60 because "almost 60" multiplied by "approximately 15" gives exactly 900 (give or take a bit) - which is approximately equal to the radius of Iapetus (in an abitrary, geocentric, measurement unit).

 

[najab]

What I also find interesting is that in this image, he includes the inner satellites, but conveniently forgets to add Titan and Hyperion (thereby implying that Iapetus's orbit is <b>way</b> bigger than any other moon) and Phoebe (thereby implying that no other moon is as highly inclined).

 

[telfrow]

This helps put that in perspective. (It's also fun to watch.)<br /><br />http://janus.astro.umd.edu/javadir/orbits/moons.html <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Whether you see regular or irregular polygons is overstating the case, IMHO. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in that image that you would not find on the moon, Mercury, or any other cratered world. It is up to use to demonstrate otherwise. So...<br /><br />Please define regular. What degree of precision are you using? <br /><br />Since you are looking at an unrectified image, and one stretched to the proverbial, what level of confidence to you have in your measurements?<br /><br />What is your proposed hypothesis for your supposed regularity of shape?<br /><br />How would you test this hypothesis?<br /><br />What would falsify it for you?<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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Never send a geologist to do an archeologist's job.

 

[davp99]

Cool Link Telfrow...thanx <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Steve writes, " From an archeological standpoint, the Egyptians did everything with the tools we've seen carved into the stone pictures."<br /><br />Don't look Steve, lest your facts turn into theory....<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/opentomb.html <br /><br />Steve then writes "And unlike people, like myself, who have actually BEEN in Egypt and seen and read about and observed for myself, what was going on. Get the fraggin heck outta your armchair and go on a simple archeological tour in Egypt."<br /><br />Lol, I didn't know time travel was possible....at least backwards time travel <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Does anyone else find it disturbing that people have pics of dead animals and people being burned alive waiting on their hard drives to be posted to forums like this?<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

"Outrageous" conclusions based on Anomalous data, thank you. It isn't responsible to throw out data in favor of another theory. Nor is it responsible to demean and bash people who care to consider said data.<br /><br />Just because data is anomalous, doesn't make it any less valid.<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Steve writes "For the simply reason that once a thief has been found to commit the same crimes again and again, he's called a thief. We do NOT have to in detail tally up all his transgressions. A few blatant examples of Hoagland's transgressions against reason & all facts are MORE than enough."<br /><br />Did I miss the trial????<br /><br />Please keep going, Steve....this is fascinating <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just because data is anomalous, doesn't make it any less valid. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />However, one must also consider that just because data seems anomalous doesn't meant that it is, nor does it mean that technologically advanced aliens were involved.<br /><br />There many things that have seemed anomalous in the exploration of the solar system, but which have not been caused by aliens. By not artificially limiting themselves to the alien explanation, scientists have been able to learn astonishing things that in many cases could not have previously been imagined. Here's an example:<br /><br />Earth is not the most volcanically active body in the solar system. Io is. That was discovered when a woman working on the Voyager project, collecting the newly downlinked images during the Jupiter flyby, noticed something quite remarkable, definitely anomalous, and certainly unexpected: a luminous object rising over the limb of Io's dark side. It turned out to be a volcanic plume, and if memory serves, it was from the volcano now called Pele. She didn't know what to make of it at the time, but as the Io images were studied, it became clear what was going on. Yet if she had not fortuitously noticed that plume, and not artificially limited herself to the notion that it might be an alien beacon, we might not have known about Io's vulcanism until the Galileo mission.<br /><br />It is not the investigation into anomalies that bothers me. It's the willingness to discard all explanations save one that bothers me. Hoagland criticizes NASA for doing this, and yet he does it far more than they do. He *assumes* that if something is anomalous, aliens must be involved. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but we won't find out by jumping to conclusions or becoming acrimonious to those who point out other possible explanations for a given feature. <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">Steve: A few blatant examples of Hoagland's transgressions against reason & all facts are MORE than enough.</font><br /><br />To Steve's point: an example is the very basic mistakes in the math, which some of us have tried to present for discussion. <br /><br />60 x 60 = 360? <br />59.091 equals 60? <br />14.7 equals 15? <br /><i>Miles</i>? <br /><br />The point: If he can't support his theory using real numbers and basic math, it begins to fall apart. <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>