Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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 25, 2005

Good, Therm....I notice that not once does the "Bad Astronomer" post any of these images of the Face on Mars....why do you suppose that is? Oh, I know....He isn't familiar with the intricacies of RCH's theories. http://www.keithlaney.com/The_Face_on_Mars/The_Face_on_Mars.htm Specifically, check out E17. I also notice that Richard never ridicules anyone. Why do you? Is that a part of the scientific process? Seems more like playground antics to me. One octagonal crater constitutes an anomaly and deserves attention, let alone several. Reconsider your position. Dispute the data. You're losing this arguement.

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

Re: The Face on Mars <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 25, 2005

http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pareidolia/ http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/wtcface.htm <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>

odysseus145 · Mar 25, 2005

Plait isn't rediculing Hoagland. He's discediting him with something Hoagland can't seem to grasp; facts. Isn't it odd that in three days, five people have registered for what appears to be the sole purpose of peddling Hoaglands garbage? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zenonmars · Mar 25, 2005

"Spectra and images were taken by all remote-sensing instruments and by RADAR to characterize the history and composition of the satellite. Raw images from the Iapetus flyby are available at: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw ." from: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig-event-details.cfm?newsID=527 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

maxtheknife · Mar 25, 2005

What facts????? He omits half of them. And not ONCE does he include recent images of the Face. Nor does he acknowledge the anomalies that relate....redundantly....to the face. That's what I call Bad Astronomy and Science.

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

Isn't it odd that in three days, five people have registered for what appears to be the sole purpose of peddling Hoaglands garbage? Not really. There will be more. They did this the last time Hoagland's name was mentioned in a thread ("Sqyures/Hoagland History"). Since Gene has already acknowledged he knows who Max is and Max knows who he is, it's safe to assume their presence - and arguements - are coordinated. <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 25, 2005

Thanks for the repaired link, but I found it last night. <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 25, 2005

The same can be said of you guys....coordinated garbage. Dispute the facts.....don't riducule. It serves no purpose.

hagar99 · Mar 25, 2005

Greetings to all. I'm new to the Space.com discussion pages, although I've received the daily emails for several years. I find the Iapetus subject to be absolutely facinating! I've been a subscriber to Astronomy Magazine for two decades, and to The Planetary Society for about 12 years. In that time, I don't think I've seen anything as strange in our "backyard" as this moon of Saturn! I should point out that I've followed the work of Mr. Hoacland since the early 90's, and am impressed with his conviction, and knowledge of space science. I've detected that many people in this forum have reduced themselves to name calling, which isn't scientific, or of much value. Instead, I suggest that you check out the paper that Mr. Hoagland has written at http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm In fact, the Bad Astronomer himself, at his website http://www.badastronomy.com/, has asked people people to check it out for themselves and decide: "I want people to read his stuff. I also want them to read mine, to see exactly why Hoagland is wrong. Only when people have all the information can they make an informed decision." I agree. And the more information we can gather, the better our decision making will be. In regards to the radar data from Iapetus, NASA has it. They just won't release it. Iapetus radar scan: http://www.saturntoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14297 STATUS REPORT Date Released: Friday, October 22, 2004 Source: Jet Propulsion Laboratory http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ Science activity included movies of Saturn's rings by ISS, solar wind measurements by the Magnetospheric and Plasma Science (MAPS) instruments, a

5stone10 · Mar 25, 2005

that Iapetus couldn't possibly be artificial (or a modified moon?), but with no evidence given as to why...? Because the reverse is what should be asked. The more incredible argument [if you want to call it that] is that Iapetus is artificial. The burden of proof lies with proving that this is so. The evidence supporting this argument is laughable. In fact, its not even laughable - its moved beyond that to the point of being as credible as a common television infomercial ... ... ie., Hoagland as Carlton Sheets !!!

5stone10 · Mar 25, 2005

Carlton Sheets is the guy that tries to sell those 'No Money Down' tapes ... ... you know - it doesn't matter if you are dumb as a doornail, you can make millions in real estate with no money down !!!

5stone10 · Mar 25, 2005

I should point out that I've followed the work of Mr. Hoacland since the early 90's, and am impressed with his conviction, and knowledge of space science. I've detected that many people in this forum have reduced themselves to name calling... Here's proof - this sounds like an infomercial - Hoagland is really Carlton Sheets !!

maxtheknife · Mar 25, 2005

One of the most egregious statements ever made by Sagan was..."extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The problem with this statement is that extraordinary is a relative term and can never be fully satisfied. The statement sets the stage for what we are all experiencing right now. Extraordinary claims should stand up to the same scrutiny and debate as any other claim. Any new theory must be supported by all the data...not half of it like the Bad Astronomer likes to do. He doesn't even have the guts to mention the other anomalies surrounding the face.....http://www.keithlaney.com/BullittsIRviews/marsinfraredimaging.htm It would be more extraordinary to come up with a natural explanation for Cydonia, Iapetus, sunken megaliths, etc.....

5stone10 · Mar 25, 2005

B.S. - extraordinary isn't at all relative. Anyone claiming that a non-Earth bound object is artificial - when we've yet to discover anything non-Earth bound to be artificial - had better come up with something extraordinary. Sagan was simply expanding on Occam's razor which dates to the 14th century. So for going on 8 centuries, scientific method generally calls for methodological reductionism - that is, that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', else the simpler explanation is most likely true. In this case, the simpler explanation is there is nothing artificial on or about Iapetus and that natural formations are being misinterpreted.

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

Maxtheknife, et. al., Fine. I'll try and make my position clear. And I'll be civil. We'll see if you do the same. I've read Hoagland's "Moon With A View" (all five parts) article three times now (once more again last night). In fact, over time, I've read everything on his site one or more times. Additionally, my personal library is stocked with an eclectic collection of hundreds of books that range from history (my passion) to photography, Egyptology, geology, space science, Asimov, Sagan and Hancock. A bit of everything. That's the way I am. I read, I study, I consider. And I make up my own mind. I will not contest the fact Iapteus is an incredibly interesting object. The pictures speak for themselves. There are obviously forces at work here we have not seen before and do not currently understand. It needs further study. And study it we will - in September of 2007. Because we do not understand how Iapetus was formed does not mean the "answer" is that it was built by "aliens." And that is where my "disconnect" - and ultimate rejection of Hoagland, (et. al.) - begins. Because some hexagonal cratering has been identified on Iapetus, Hoagland leaps to the conclusion it is evidence of a hollow Dyson sphere created by aliens. Hexagonal cratering has also been identified on the Earth, Moon and Mars (among others). Unless Hoagland is contending the Earth, Moon and Mars are also Dyson spheres, that's a huge leap in logic. Hoagland's other argument concerning the hexagonal structure of Iapetus rests on the attached photo, which he contends clearly demonstrates straight lines in the admittedly over-exposed area. There a few things about that photo that should be pointed out. First, it was an 180 second exposure. Second, it was taken with a 1024 x 1024 CCD sensor array. Third, it was taken with the f10.5 narrow field lens. Fourth, the area in question is highly reflective, with an albedo of .6 and is contrasted with an a <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>

Saiph · Mar 25, 2005

Gene, Plait's entire point is that there are large glaring flaws in hoaglands ideas. If those are not addressed, then the details are insignificant. I also don't expect Plait to have an intimate knowledge of Hoaglands ideas, for several reasons. First, Plait is a very busy man, doing professional astronomy at a highly revered astronomy department. He doesn't have time to memorize everything. Secondly, much of Hoaglands work is full of logical flaws, jumps, and fallacies, so "understanding" his work isn't that easy. Third, hoagland, like many like him, tend to shift the topic around, refusing to be nailed down. If someone makes a point about one topic, he shifts to another one, usually more obscure. If Plait were to make an arguement that hexagonal craters are known to occur naturally (there are several large ones on earth!) Hoagland is likely to shift to another topic. And Plait does have enough knowledge on the subject matter, that of physics, geology, planetary dynamics, and astronomy. If he can point out inconsistencies in hoaglands arguements, the arguements are weakened. Hoaglands arguements are so weakened by the variety of questions that they raise (and are unanswered) and by the number of alternative explainations he ignores (a big warning flag in my book) that I don't really buy any of it. As for your problem with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" that's really just the idea that anything that doesn't fit the current understanding requires proof. If I say water stays in my bucket (that has no holes) you probably wouldn't argue with that. That's understood. Now, if I say it dissappears over time, I need to show you that. Of course that's not to unusual of a claim, and so the evidence need not be incredibly detailed. I can just show you a series of pictures. The reason: Evaporation. Now, if I said it boils away (by just sitting there)...that's when I need to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nazcalito · Mar 25, 2005

that article only covers three of the points in Hoagland's credentials, and fairly minor ones at that.

maxtheknife · Mar 25, 2005

The only nonsense being spewed is from all of you "Hoagland haters". Sadly, most of it is only half nonsense because you continue to omit substantial facts from your arguements. That's not meant to be arguementative...it's a simple fact. One more time....not once does the Bad Astronomer post the most recent images of the face. Not once does he post any of the other anomalies that support AOC model (artificiality of Cydonia). www.enterprisemission.com, www.keithlaney.com. You call yourselves scientists? Omitting data to suit one's theory? If I had known this was ok, I would have had an A+ in all my college chemistry courses. Sigh, I guess a B will have to do...I'll get 'em next time. Telfrow, first of all, we have been civil. We ask tough questions though that demand answers. It's you skeptics that become completely irrational when faced with the questions we pose. I'm much the same way you are,. I've done much of the same reading you have. Will you agree then, that Cydonia as well as Iapetus deserves further study? If so, why hasn't NASA been more diligent in it's effort to uncover the truth @ Cydonia? What are your opinions regarding the Planet V hypothesis? www.metaresearch.org. Please spare me any VanFlandern bashing. His theories are just as valid as any. This is the part where you guys return the favor of civility. ;-)

maxtheknife · Mar 25, 2005

And just in case it hasn't been posted yet.... http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig....cfm?newsID=527 Friday, Dec 31....last paragraph.....I believe that says radar. So let's have it......please? pretty please?? Dammit, what's that magic word?

nazcalito · Mar 25, 2005

response to telfrow: “Because some hexagonal cratering has been identified on Iapetus, Hoagland leaps to the conclusion it is evidence of a hollow Dyson sphere created by aliens.” You didn’t read the article very well. A Dyson sphere is a hollow ball around a star, not just any old hollow ball. “Hexagonal cratering has also been identified on the Earth, Moon and Mars (among others). Unless Hoagland is contending the Earth, Moon and Mars are also Dyson spheres, that's a huge leap in logic.” By this argument, you could prove that there are no anomalies on Earth (like LA, for example) simply by saying that lots of naturally occurring rectilinear markings have been found on Earth and other places as well. “The ‘straight lines’ in the over-exposed areas look suspiciously like a form of aperture ghosting to me - that is, the straight lines look an awfully lot like the aperture opening one would expect at f10.5.” You take astronomical pictures at f10.5?? Your film speed must be in the thousands!! I have looked at the diagrams of the Cassini cameras, and although they are a bit tiny and hard to read, I don’t see anything like an iris-type diaphram for setting f-stop in them. Since Cassini’s pictures are by definition taken at night, there is probably no need for such a thing since, with a regular camera, you would crank the f-stop to its widest anyway to take such pictures. It would never be used. Exposure is determined by time the shutter is open. Perhaps someone more familiar with the Cassini cameras could resolve this. “Lastly, "the wall." Again, an interesting feature that needs more study. But is it artificial? Consider: the density of Iapetus is 1.1 - about the same as water ice. While I have no idea what created the "belt," and profess insufficient scientific skills to advance any sort of technical explanation, it would seem to me a couple of rational and plausible explanations would be:

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

I have to ask. Is that you Frankknee? <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 25, 2005

You guys asked, I offered. It was an honest attempt. Sorry my mental gymnasitics don't measure up to Hoagland's in your eyes. But I expected no less. As for the "marrying" of the two ice cubes, it was an analogy. <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>

5stone10 · Mar 25, 2005

You call yourselves scientists? Omitting data to suit one's theory? If I had known this was ok, I would have had an A+ in all my college chemistry courses. Exactly - wasting time on garbage gets one bad grades !

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

hagar99

Guest

5stone10

Guest

5stone10

Guest

5stone10

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

5stone10

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nazcalito

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

nazcalito

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

5stone10

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page