Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[geneftw]

The purpose of that image is to show that the object shown-whatever you want to call it (a face, a mountain, etc.)- is not made of the same materials as the surrounding landscape. You knew where to find the image. Did you read about the image, or just look at the pictures?

 

[alpha_taur1]

".......not made of the same materials as the surrounding landscape."<br /><br />I realise that it isn't made of the same material as the surrounding landscape. Current thinking is that Cydonia Mensa, and a number of other features represent all that's left of younger isolated outliers which once overlaid the older polygonal landscape of Southern Acidalia Planitia, which I understand is early Amazonian in age. <br />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">It is stated in Part 2 that Iapetus and Dione were photographed with the same technique. Iapetus shows straight lines; Dione doesn't. </font><br /><br />Same techniques, different conditions. Again, Iapetus has a a surface wth a marked difference in albedo (.6 to .04). <br /><br />My contention is that the possible artifacting seen at Iapetus is a product of the high reflectivity of the surface. And that artifacting only applies to the photo I posted earlier ( the cornerstone of Hoagland's artifical planet hypothesis). Again, if you check the entire gallery of photos taken at that distance and angle, you can see the progression of flare, blooming and artifacting I'm suggesting.<br /><br />I am not contending artifacting occurs at any other time - only on the photos noted. The straight lines Hoagland sees in other photos have other explanations.<br /><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>

 

[najab]

><i>...is not made of the same materials as the surrounding landscape...</i><p>Well, duh! Of <b>course</b> it's not made of the same material, if it was it would have eroded as well! That's basic, elementry-school geography.</p>

 

[maxtheknife]

HUH? Alpha, unless you can refute the data and fact that there are other features nearby the face that significantly relate to it, your arguement holds no water.<br /><br />The most logical explanation is artificial. To say otherwise is grasping at straws. Why haven't we been there to settle this ridiculous arguement?<br /><br />Where's the radar data??? Thanx for emailing, Telfrow. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Thanx for emailing, Telfrow. </font><br /><br />Just curious - had any of you e-mailed before you started asking where the data was? <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]

Gene:<br /><br />The sequence I'm discussing starts here:<br /><br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-list.cfm?StartRow=465&cacheQ=1&browseLatest=0&storedQ=944932<br /><br />Look at the first "under exposed" images and run through the sequence. You can clearly see as the angle increased, the imagining system struggled to handle the influx of reflected light. <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's an example of blur, blooming, etc. from that sequence. <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>

 

[geneftw]

(Your civil response is appreciated.)<br />The faceted appearance shows up in other images, as well--images without the light that could cause artifacting. There were many images for me to choose from to post; I chose the one below because it shows the facets along the horizon AND away from the horizon, as well. Look near the bottom of the moon near the horizon where light meets dark. You can see straight lines separating light from dark.<br /><br />When viewing different images of Iapetus, the faceting is much more apparent in some than in others, but you can always see straight lines. I admit that sometimes you really have to want to see straight lines in some of those images, and that they COULD be attributed to natural geography. But scroll down here: http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon2.htm and look at the man-made structures (the building in the background, the ones in the warehouse-looking place, the one being held by a man). They, too, look round and it's hard to see straight lines on their outline, but they are there and can be seen if you look hard enough. If you look at some from the right angle, the straight lines can clearly be seen.<br /><br />Here's the Iapetus image I was talking about:<br />

 

[telfrow]

We'll have to wait until the photos are approved to discuss each other's posts. It's the weekend. It sometimes takes a while. <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>

 

[geneftw]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that artifacting is a possibility. But I feel there is enough evidence of geometric form to add weight to the possibility that it is not artifacting (or at least not JUST artifacting) causing that appearance.

 

[silylene old]

*yawn*<br /><br />I am still waiting for reason and logic to emerge in this thread.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I suggest the moderators move this to the "SETI - Search for Life" forums, where this thread could join hundreds of others of its ilk. <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>

 

[najab]

What I have a problem with is the logic train:<p><li>Iapetus in orbit around Saturn. (Agreed)<li>It is non-spherical. (Agreed)<li>Its orbit is the second most inclined of the Saturnian moons. (Agreed)<li>It has surface features which are not typical of the other moons of Saturn. (Agreed).<li>Therefore it is not a moon, but instead it is a hollow space station, built by an advanced race of extra-terrestrials. (WTF, mate?)</li></li></li></li></li></p>

 

[mcbethcg]

"It has surface features which are not typical of the other moons of Saturn. (Agreed).<br />Therefore it is not a moon, but instead it is a hollow space station, built by an advanced race of extra-terrestrials. (WTF, mate?)"<br /><br />Thats a little unfair, I think. <br /><br />You boiled down a straight wall running many miles to " surface features which are not typical of the other moons of Saturn"<br /><br />A person viewing the Machu Pichu or the Pyramids on Earth could say the same thing. After all, even cities are merely "surface features which are not typical of the" solar system.<br /><br />Personally- I agree that it is nothing to be excited about. But you ought to have talked about the nature of the particular surface feature, and not have seemingly lumped all unusual surface features together.<br />

 

[najab]

Okay, I'll separate it out.<li>Iapetus in orbit around Saturn. (Agreed)<li>It is non-spherical. (Agreed)<li>Its orbit is the second most inclined of the Saturnian moons. (Agreed)<li>It has surface features which are not typical of the other moons of Saturn. (Agreed).<li>It has one feature in particular - a ridge bisecting the Northern and Southern hemispheres - which, to the best of our knowledge, is unique in the Solar System. (Agreed)<li>Therefore it is not a moon, but instead it is a hollow space station, built by an advanced race of extra-terrestrials. (I still say: WTF, mate?)<p><i>*Edit*</i> Where I fall off the logic train is in the conclusion that Iapetus is <b>hollow</b>(!!!) If the argument was that the equatorial ridge is too long and too straight to be natural, I would say that it has <i>slight</i> merit, it certainly requires a very unusual natural process to produce it. But it's the logical jump required to get from "unusual ridge" to "hollow space station" which takes this 'theory' from the realm of speculative science, deeply into woo-woo land.</p></li></li></li></li></li></li>

 

[telfrow]

Gene:<br /><br />Here's an example blooming from one of the rovers. Note how the "glare" bleeds into the surrounding pixels and the result. Different imaging system, but the same principle. I offer it only as a reference to one the effects we're discussing.<br /><br />http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/431/2M164620111EFFA8B3P2936M2M1.JPG<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]

Another example from the rovers that demonstrates what happens when motion and blooming are combined (bottom six rows):<br /><br />http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p428.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>

 

[telfrow]

There's also a great illustration here (right side, half way down the page).<br /><br />http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/cassini_iapetus_1209.html<br /><br />The first image is a short exposure to detail the leading edge of Iapetus...the second is a long exposure, designed to bring out the detail on the "night side," which grossly overexposes the leading edge. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Steve, "pretty much"? Yeah, pretty much covers it. Only it's what he pretty much DOESN'T cover that disturbes me.<br />Refute the data....Over exposing? Don't you mean over magnifying? There's a big difference. They are NASA's pics Hoagland is magnifying. The camera doesn't lie....all we can do is interpret what we see when we do magnify the image. When we do, we can clearly see that anomalies exist.<br /><br />I notice not one meaningful insight or contribution is made in your post. Only personal attacks. Not nice<br /><br />In the context of ruins at Cydonia, the Moon and on Earth (above & below water), the most likely explanation for the anomalous data coming from Iapetus is artificiality.<br /><br />To ignore these facts is irresponsible. I think the image of that dead horse would be more appropriate if it had a trough of water next to it. RCH would be the guy behind the horse who tried to lead the horse to the water. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />The same way NASA/JPL stalled producing images of the Face, they stall now with the radar data. <br /><br />With such important questions on the table and my tax dollars supporting the means to obtain the answers, I think it's my duty to stand up here and speak my mind.<br /><br />No more attacks....refute the data, please <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />I would like to touch on a much earlier post in this thread that stated something about a sphere being the strongest and best shape to construct something like this. You're right. However, unless it would be a 1000 mile diameter balloon, one must first construct a frame around which one could then attach a 'skin'. Perhaps Iapetus once had this skin.....what do you suppose that haze is hovering above Iapetus' surface? Interesting..... scroll down to the pic just below the "platonic solids" chart......Very interesting. http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon2.htm<br /><br />The bes

 

[maxtheknife]

Naj, read my first post....out of context it's difficult to fathom. Put it into context. Think about the Planet V scenario.... www.metaresearch.org.<br /><br />Refute the redundant geometry that is also present at megalithic sites here on Earth.

 

[telfrow]

Max:<br /><br />I adressed at least one of those sites - Japan - earlier (3/24) and provided links that clearly demonstrated Drs. Schoch and Kimura had concluded the structure was a natural one that may have been modified - not built - by human hands at some point. <br /><br />The <i> site investigators </i> have rejected the idea. Why do you keep reinserting it into the discussion?<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>Put it into context. Think about the Planet V scenario...</i><p>And that's the 'danger' with a lot of these meta-scientific theories: since they largely feed off of each other, they build up a large composite body of knowledge with no internal self-inconsistencies. Put next to each other, they make sense. Someone such as yourself will read one, think "That makes no sense", read another and say "Hmm...that ties back into what I read before", and so on. By the time you've read a number of them they all "make sense".<p>The problem is that while they are internally consistent, they often conflict with commonly accepted facts. Hence the inevitable statements from believers, such as yourself, that 'mainstream science' "just doesn't understand", "refuses to accept" or "is trying to suppress" the real truth.<p>The comparison is always made to Gallileo and his trial before the Inquisition. But this is, to my mind at least, a false and misleading comparison. The Inquisition <b>was not</b> interested in finding the truth, it was only interested in enforcing the Church's position. Also, Gallileo's theories weren't based on drawing lines between random points on on pictures and claiming astounding geometric ratios between them, nor did he look at hugely blown up images and attempt to make out patterns in the noise. No, Gallileo made patient observations, detailed calculations and developed a theory which explained his observations. You might say "that's exactly what Enterprise Mission" is all about, but here's the subtle difference: Gallileo devised a theory to explain his observations (science), RCH tries to find observations to support his theories (pseudo-science) (Case in point, how comes he only circles the 3 craters that look like they are not round, but ignores the dozens of others which are?).<p>Unlike the Inquisition, the scientific community is <b>always</b> interested in new ideas, and is willing - true, relucantly sometimes, but willing none the less, to accept n</p></p></p></p>

 

[claywoman]

And you guys call me a kook? I joined SDC within the last year to learn about astronomy and to look at the pretty pictures...lol!!!<br /><br />This thread is opening my eyes!!! The light has dawned!!! I thank you Hoagies from the bottom of my heart!!! Oh, I don't know where I've been the past several years!!! I now know that the National Enquirer, and Star and yes, of course, The World Weekly are viable papers with stupendous sources!!!!<br /><br />I remember a time when I scoffed at the 'man on mars' pictures, little did I know that when I was approaching my senior years, someone would point the way to reality!! So thank you hoagies, now please....go back to the rock you crawled out from under and let us get back to REAL astronomy?

 

[telfrow]

For reference, Hoagland's description reads: "Close examination reveals a definite “grid” crisscrossing this region … apparently composed of several angled layers of overlying structural “rebar” -- but on an incomparably massive scale …."<br /><br />Here a few views of the same area, taken from different angles:<br /><br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS07/N00026308.jpg<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS07/N00026310.jpg<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS07/N00026216.jpg<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS07/N00026212.jpg<br /><br />In 308 and 310 notice that the second side of the "V" (running from 1:00 to 7:00) is not as evident as it is in the photo you posted. Full frame 308 or 310 and take a close look at the area. <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]

Claywoman, threads like this bring all the "Woo Woo's" and conspiracy theorists to this forum. I see many new members have signed up.<br /><br />I hope the mods move this thread to the "SETI" forum, where it belongs, and where they will find others who share their beliefs. <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>