Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

CalliArcale · Mar 24, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />>Iapetus has a very odd orbit around Saturn!Precisely what is odd about the orbit? Can you tell me?<hr /></blockquote> I was curious about this claim, so I looked up Iapetus as The Nine Planets (which, lest anyone claim conspiracy, is unaffiliated with NASA, except in that like all Americans above a certain income level, the site maintainers do pay taxes, which fund NASA). The orbit of Iapetus is greatly inclined with respect to the plane of Saturn's ecliptic -- approximately 14.72 degrees. Most of the other moons are closer to 0, with the notable exception of Phoebe, which has an even weirder orbit. Phoebe has an inclination of 175.30 degrees, which means you could think of it as being inclined 4.70 degrees but going around Saturn backwards. It orbits retrograde. The fact hat these *two* moons have unusual orbits, combined with the fact that Phoebe is very dark and Iapetus has a coating of dark material on its leading face, have led some to speculate whether there is some kind of connection between the two. But the dark material on Iapetus doesn't seem to have the same spectra as the surface of Phoebe, and Phoebe's odd orbit is consistent with it being a captured asteroid, so this may simply be coincidence. Of course, it's also possible that Iapetus is a captured object. It's radius is only 780 km; it may be a captured Centaur. However, its orbit is pretty circular (eccentricity of 0.03; our Moon's orbit is more eccentric, at 0.05) and it rotates synchronously, so it is reasonable to think that it may have been around Saturn for a very long time indeed. One other thing to consider -- it is not all that unusual for a moon to have an orbit not directly in the plane of the ecliptic. Our own Moon does not orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator, which is part of the reason why the Apollo astronauts di <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>

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

Mr. Plait has made an appearance or two here. He may answer for himself. <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>

robnissen · Mar 24, 2005

Thanks for the excellent post. I am glad to see someone getting back to discussing Iapetus and not whether Hoagland is a dufus (he probably is, but who cares). The one thing I think everyone here can agree on is that the ridge on Iapetus is VERY interesting and deserves MUCH more study. BTW, as far as outlandish hypothesis (please don't use the word theory, that just gives the creationist the opportunity to falsely disparage evolution because it is only a "theory"), and Iapetus being artificial is about as outlandish as you can get, there is nothing wrong with speculation, even if the odds of it being correct are a billion (trillion?) to one. But noone is going to listen to you if you insist that your speculation is correct and that the goons at NASA know it and are deliberately hiding it from the public. Give me a fricken break.

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

Iapetus has geometric crators on it's surface! Please look at this surface close up and tell me where.... http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06171.html <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 24, 2005

My main problem with phrase "geometric craters" is that it's fairly meaningless, at least to me. Strictly speaking, everything is geometric, which really just means it has *a* shape. To me, it really says nothing about *what* shape the craters have. Circles and ellipses (which is what craters generally crudely resemble) are defined geometric shapes, of course. I *think* what he means is that the craters are polygonal, which I don't really see at all. They do have very rough and jagged edges in many cases, but that's not really unusual. It just means they're very old, because other craters have disrupted their edges. One of the most interesting crater pics I've seen of Iapetus shows a massive landslide, as if a crater wall gave way and subsided. It's breathtaking. <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 24, 2005

I see many hexagonal craters.

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

In this photo? <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 24, 2005

Craters that look like this? <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 24, 2005

>I see many hexagonal craters.Which brings us right back to people seeing what they want to see.

zenonmars · Mar 24, 2005

Greetings, friends, interesting thread. I am a first-time poster here, and appreciate the ease with which Space.com facilitates these boards. It is immperative that all parties concerned READ the Hoagland Iapetus papers, ALL of them, to fully know what we are discussing here. And this Iapetus issue mirrors EXACTLY what hooked me into the Enterprise Mission's arguments way back in the 80's. It wasn't the pictures, the data, Richard's theories, or even my own vivid imagination or hopes and dreams. In fact, the "thinking" part of my brain kept me slightly skeptical. What really hooked me was NASA's refusal to even CONSIDER the stuff. Forget the non-roundness of Iapetus, if you will. Ignore the "stop-sign" shaped crators if you wish. Pretend to imagine unknown geologic explanations for the equatorial wall, if it makes you feel more prescient. But again the red flag here is NASA's behavior: why no release of Iapetus radar? Why no papers forthcoming on that obviously HOT data? Why no public excitement and immediate plans to alter Cassinni's schedule, in order to re-image Iapetus? A hoodlum in a choir robe is still a hoodlum. A scoundrel with a halo is still a scoundrel. Ain't foolin' me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

5stone10 · Mar 24, 2005

Hoagland is a nutjob !! I've seen art done by crazy people - and it can be fascinating. But I'm not interested in reading anything done by a crazy person.

najab · Mar 24, 2005

>Why no release of Iapetus radar?Do you know for a fact that there is radar data being withheld? Just because some people say that there is doesn't necessarily make it so. Besides, even if there is radar data (which I suspect there isn't), it would be of no use to determine the internal structure of Iapetus, it isn't a long wave ground penetrating radar.>Why no papers forthcoming on that obviously HOT data?Maybe because no one can figure out what it is. What would the paper say: "There's this ridge around Iapetus, we dont' know what it is. Film at 11."?> Why no public excitement and immediate plans to alter Cassinni's schedule, in order to re-image Iapetus?Well you can hardly fault NASA if the public doesn't get excited, last I checked that wasn't their job.Anyway, Cassini's orbit around Saturn is determined by Mr. Keppler, Mr. Newton and the position of Saturn's moons. There's no way to turn around and take another look, even if they found a 50 mile high flashing neon sign saying "Welcome to Iapetus" they would still have to wait on orbital mechanics in order to take another look.

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

As far as I can determine, there is no radar data from the Iapetus encounter. The chart Hoagland shows in Part Three of his treatise came from the Planetary Society. http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/cassini_iapetus_plan_1229.html Mention of radar is for the encounter is made by either ESA, JPL or NASA before, during or after the encounter. I can't find any mention of radar scans for any moon other than Titan. Here's the ESA timeline: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34956 It was apparently a posting mistake by the Planetary Society. However, Mr. Hoagland has seized on this mistake and turned into a conspiracy theory...and that's what it will remain. No matter what happens now, the missing radar data from Iapetus will become yet another cornerstone of his NASA bashing. <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 24, 2005

Why no public excitement and immediate plans to alter Cassinni's schedule, in order to re-image Iapetus? I love this part. No big deal - just change the mission. Trash years of work, planning and programming to because Mr. Hoagland sees the Death Star in a overexposed, bloomed, ghosted image. <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>

JonClarke · Mar 24, 2005

Many impact craters are crudly polygonal because of such slumping, or because of interaction with preexisting structures during crater formation. Meteor crater in Arizona has a square outline controlled by pre-exiting bedrock joints. 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>

JonClarke · Mar 24, 2005

Others have commented on this but I could not resist. "Why no papers forthcoming on that obviously HOT data?" Have you any idea how long it takes to write a paper? Just because Hoagland can but rubbish on a web site in 5 minutes or we can spout stuff in a formum in 30 seconds dooes not mean that scientific papers are produced at the same speed. The data has to be calibrated, checked, hypotheses have to be sifted, argued. The paper has to be referenced, edited, peer reviewed and then entered into the publication queue. It takes at least 6 months for most papers to come out, often longer. "Why no public excitement and immediate plans to alter Cassinni's schedule, in order to re-image Iapetus?" The public is excited, and Iapetus will be re imaged, if and when celestial mechanics permit. Isaac and Johannes do not allow departures from their strict schedules. 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>

CalliArcale · Mar 24, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Many impact craters are crudly polygonal because of such slumping, or because of interaction with preexisting structures during crater formation. Meteor crater in Arizona has a square outline controlled by pre-exiting bedrock joints. <hr /></blockquote> Which of course brings us right back to my original question about the "geometric craters" thing. Not only is he not using the right word to clearly explain what he's seeing, but it's actually a "so what?" kind of thing. He's seeing anomalies in things that are actually quite ordinary. Like the orbital inclination of Iapetus. So what? Other things have higher inclination orbits around their primary. So Iapetus is unique. So what? So's the Moon. So's everything, really. <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>

maxtheknife · Mar 24, 2005

Hello all. I would like to start off by saying that I've had the good fortune of actually meeting Richard Hoagland on two separate occasions. I type from the heart when I say he is genuine, personable, charasmatic, and honest. He is none of the things that many of you have accused him of being. If you met him you would quickly see that like a Dan Rather or Peter Jennings, he commands respect. So please, save your disparagements until you've had the honor of meeting him. I would also like to add that I do not agree with much of his theories about the conspiracy itself, but his work on the anomalies in our solar system is top notch. The Bad Astronomer loves to omit major points and data in his, imo, weak arguements. That said, I would like to say that the skeptics cannot begin to contemplate or fathom Iapetus as an artificial construct until they put it into context. Let's work backwards, shall we? Iapetus is artificial. Everything at Cydonia is artificial. There are ruins on the moon, there are ruins on Earth. Let's begin w/ Earth. Can anyone tell me who built the megalithic ruins which are sunk off the coasts of Japan, India, and Cuba? http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html For Pete's sake, mainstream scientists don't even bother to incorporate these things into any timeline of 'accepted' human history. So I guess they just don't exist, right? Maybe the Druids built them?? Let's just ram Evolution down their throats and tell 'em not to question it. Give me a break, folks. It's clearly, not just a face, but a sphinx. http://www.keithlaney.com/The_Face_on_Mars/The_Face_on_Mars.htm There is clearly organization here.....goto 'cydonia context' http://www.enterprisemission.co

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

Hmmmm,~~~just where did I put that pesky Iapetus radar data???~~~ Thank you for ignoring - and, at the same time, completely validating - my earlier post. <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 24, 2005

They have radar capability....where's the data?

maxtheknife · Mar 24, 2005

And, Touche'....you validated mine.

thermionic · Mar 24, 2005

Pesky, eh? That's quite a provocative statement and certainly attracts my attention! I think the lack of radar data can be explained by interference from the moon's Oort cloud.

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

I repeat (from my previous post): As far as I can determine, there is no radar data from the Iapetus encounter. The chart Hoagland shows in Part Three of his treatise came from the Planetary Society. http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/cassini_iapetus_plan_1229.html Mention of radar is for the encounter is made by either ESA, JPL or NASA before, during or after the encounter. I can't find any mention of radar scans for any moon other than Titan. Here's the ESA timeline: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34956 It was apparently a posting mistake by the Planetary Society. However, Mr. Hoagland has seized on this mistake and turned into a conspiracy theory...and that's what it will remain. No matter what happens now, the missing radar data from Iapetus will become yet another cornerstone of his NASA bashing. To your other point: Yes, they have the capacity. But there was no radar run planned for the Iapetus encounter. And, as Hoagland points out in his addendum to Part Three, the distance at which the encounter took place would have yeilded little useful information even if a radar run had been planned. <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 24, 2005

Maxtheknife: Let's begin w/ Earth. Can anyone tell me who built the megalithic ruins which are sunk off the coasts of Japan, India, and Cuba? Here's some info about Japan… Dr. Robert Schoch, who, along with John Anthony West, advanced one of the most controversial theories in the history of Modern Egyptology - i.e., that weathering patterns on and around the Great Sphinx indicated the structure dated to circa 10,500 BCE - has inspected the site. Since he's no stranger to "thinking outisde the scientific box," if you will, it's interesting to note he examined the Japan "pyramids." His conclusions, from An Enigmatic Ancient Underwater Structure off the Coast of Yonaguni Island, Japan (1999): "The more I compared the natural, but highly regular, weathering and erosional features observed on the modern coast of the island with the structural characteristics of the Yonaguni Monument, the more I became convinced that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes at work. Over the last few years, Professor Dr. Masaaki Kimura [the primary investigator) has perhaps softened his position somewhat regarding how much of the Yonaguni Monument is "man-made" or "artificial" and how much is "natural." Most recently Dr. Kimura has been referring to the Yonaguni Monument and related structures as being "terraformed," that is natural geological features that have been manipulated or modified by human hands. This is essentially the position that I have come to…" http://robertschoch.net/articles/yonaguni_structure.html http://www.robertschoch.net/ <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 24, 2005

I say to you skeptic....Now is your chance. This latest theory from RCH could be the nail in the coffin, either way. You of all people should champion the idea of rerouting Cassini to finally put an end to this 'nonsense'. Otherwise you'll have to put up w/ us that much longer. ;-) You all are on notice, that ain't no moon, and I want answers....now. You may want answers now, but you'll have to wait until September 10, 2007 like the rest of us. That gives Mr. Hoagland two years before photos taken from 763 miles above the surface put the "nail in the coffin." As for re-routing the probe, and leaving aside the laws of Mr. Newton and Mr. Keppler for a moment, I'd rather have it stay on its present course and investigate a true, verified mystery: Titan. <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>

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

CalliArcale

Guest

telfrow

Guest

robnissen

Guest

telfrow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

geneftw

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

najab

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

5stone10

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

thermionic

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page