Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[maxtheknife]

Naj, I wish you would 'make sense'. Please disprove the mathmatical redundancy at Cydonia. Intelligence is the most likely explanation.<br /><br />Maybe commonly accepted facts are really commonly accepted theories and those theories are wrong.<br /><br />What's the difference between the church's motive and modern science's? I see none. Dogma abounds.<br /><br />Tal, if indeed the structures off of Japan are terra formed, they look rather impressive to me. Who formed them? They haven't concluded anything.<br /><br />There isn't a single construction company on this Earth that has said it can duplicate the the Great Pyramid at Giza. Am I to believe that a couple of levers and man power did the trick? More likely the Egyptians rolled into town and took credit for the monuments. Given all the available data, that is the most likely scenario.<br /><br />Care to address Abydos? http://www.enterprisemission.com/opentomb.html<br />Please spare me the theory of how a helicopter was formed by pieces of the cartouche falling off....one can clearly see that it's in great shape except for the little piece broken off in front of the helicopter.<br /><br />Put it all into context. <br /><br />Again, round hole, square peg. What will it take to get NASA to put down it's hammer and try the round peg?

 

[maxtheknife]

Refute the data, Sily. Don't cry about it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />If we're the "Woo Woos", does that make you the "Boo Hoos"? lolol <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

Really?<br /><br />http://robertschoch.net/articles/yonaguni_structure.html<br /><br />The site investigators have proved nothing? Now they're wrong because their conclusions don't support your arguement?<br /><br />Who formed them? <br /><br />Mother Earth. Schoch states rather clearly there are nearby natural features (on land) that mimic what are seen underwater. <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]

Telfrow, he says...."However, by no means do I feel that this is an absolutely closed case"

 

[maxtheknife]

And still....no one refutes the e/pi redundant message. <br /><br />Be nice claywoman. Those are my tax dollars up there too <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Care to address Abydos?</font><br /><br />Palimpsest. <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>

 

[claywoman]

Maxtheknife,<br /><br />I am being nice...the rest can attest to this...you don't want to see me angry...Now please take your Hoagie attitude and go play in SETI...I'm asking nicely

 

[Leovinus]

Actually, I was thinking that it belonged in M&L since we're analyzing pictures from an ongoing mission.<br /><br />People thought Galileo was crazy too and they put him under house arrest and made him retract his findings.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is discussing ETs and that's what SETI is for. I'll think about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Max:<br /><br />When will Plait address e/pi and Cydonia? <br /><br />He has.<br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html<br /><br />There are also numerous discussions on his Bulletin Board.<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>

 

[alpha_taur1]

"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 />Richard (or Richard's son), you are the one making the bizarre interpretation that this is somehow artificial. The burden of proof lies with you. I'm just giving an explanation which is consistent with the erosion patterns found. Features of smaller scale are found on Earth. An example of such tableland topography can be found in Atherton in North Queensland. Another example can be found at Capetown, South Africa. I don't have to defend the position that I hold on this, because it is the logical default position. <br /><br />You, however, have decided to explain it away using aliens. Now please provide evidence to support this claim. I believe that you are the one grasping at straws. <br /><br />Now Telfrow has provided the link that refutes his abysmal mathematics, and others have explained how a sampling of Hoaglands data shows that it has no basis. <br /><br />Hoagland has been peddling his nonsense since the 1980s, and by now, he is an expert at converting the gullible. He has made a great deal of money from pseudoscience, and created a great deal of ignorance in society. Respectable scientists have again and again debunked his nonsense. He keeps resurfacing and regurgitating his ridiculous claims, adding more and more bizarre claims. Does he drop those claims which have been disproven? No. Any reputable scientist would abandon ideas which have been disproven. To do otherwise would be to lose their reputation.<br /><br />Hoagland doesn't have to abandon any ideas. There are two reasons for this. Firstly he is not a scientist. Secondly, he has no reputation to lose. <br /><br />Quite frankly, I don't see the need for tact when dealing with a charletan such as Hoagland.

 

[tap_sa]

The Easter is getting really boring because I actually just read this thread through. Only artificial construct I could spot are the seven Hoagland-fan-quarks. Your astroturfing is getting transparent.

 

[maxtheknife]

Sorry, the burden of proof is on NASA. <br /><br />By Plaits arguements, one could also contend that Giza and Teotihuacan are natural too.<br /><br />Sigh......wouldn't a worldwide coalition to discover the truth about these questions be better than what's goin' on? Think of the possibilities.<br /><br />What are you all so grumpy about? Enjoy life <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[alpha_taur1]

"By Plaits arguements, one could also contend that Giza and Teotihuacan are natural too."<br /><br />No. There is intelligent life on Earth. That is beyond dispute. <br /><br />The truth about these questions has been established.

 

[odysseus145]

It is an accepted fact that there are no artificial structures on Mars (other than ones we sent)<br /><br />You and the other Hoagies dispute this claim.<br /><br />Ergo, the burden of proof is on YOU. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[geneftw]

It was once a commonly accepted fact that Earth is flat, etc.

 

[geneftw]

Louis Pastuer's theory that there are living things that can't be seen with the naked eye was once considered garbage. Should he have been ignored?

 

[geneftw]

CalliArcale,<br />You repremanded me because you (incorrectly) thought I was being rude. What about all those other posts that are blantantly and intentionally VERY rude!!??

 

[geneftw]

Ya know what, Telfrow? I'm with you on that. The over exposed image is NOT the best evidence. However, it is accepted that Iapetus is not round, but it should be because of it's own gravity. The out-of-roundness seems to manifest in the form of regular facets, as in that guys "tinker toys"' etc.

 

[geneftw]

Telfrow and I have been discussing some of the evidence in a very civil way. And look what he's done to me:<br />" 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."<br /><br /> "Ya know what, Telfrow? I'm with you on that. The over exposed image is NOT the best evidence. However, it is accepted that Iapetus is not round, but it should be because of it's own gravity. The out-of-roundness seems to manifest in the form of regular facets, as in that guys "tinker toys"' etc. "<br /><br />He has caused me to view a piece of evidence as having less credence than I previously gave it credit for (though he has not diminished in the least my belief that there is a STRONG possibility that Iapetus may be artificial).<br /><br />But where does rudeness and name-calling get you? Nowhere. It just makes you look like an obnoxious jerk who hasn't the ability to cite or refute evidence. <br />

 

[najab]

><i>It was once a commonly accepted fact that Earth is flat...</i><p>The 'Flat Earth' myth strikes again. It was a well known fact, in ancient times, that the Earth was not flat. Before the invention of sailing ships the Earth <b>was</b> flat - if you never venture more than a days walk away from home, then the curvature of the Earth is inconsequential. But by the classical period, with the extensive trade between Egypt and Europe, this was no longer the case. Pythagoras, Ptolemy and Aristotle all knew (and proved) that the Earth was curved and/or spherical.<br /><p>Belief in the flat earth was actually a <b>religious</b> one - the early Chrisitan chuch adopted the position that the Earth was flat, fortunately this died out by the middle ages.</p></p>

 

[alpha_taur1]

Geneftw et al,<br /><br />Look we could debate this until the cows come home, but there are now enough Hoagie clones now for you to form a mutual admiration society and discuss all these wonderful well-thought out concepts among yourself. Frankly, most people have heard it all before.<br /><br />I think most would prefer if you would just do that and form a society of the great ingrown imponderables- preferably elsewhere. Cydonia is a good place to start. Perhaps you could hitch a ride there.

 

[lifebeyond]

You can show strait lines and flat surfaces on Iapetus in almost *all* of the images that have been posted. They are not as obvious in some, but if you look closely they are there. <br /><br />Remember, this is a very old object that has been eroded over time and the higher points obviously have taken a beating over such a long time period. However, the fact that there are flat surfaces all across Iapetus show that something very anomalous is going on with this object.<br /><br />Regardless as to whether or not you believe Iapetus is artificial or if you think that some natural process (which would be very significant in itself) has created these anomalies then I don't know why that NASA taking additional images (visible and radar) would be such a bad thing.<br /><br />NASA should seek to get as much information, images, and scans of every anomaly found. If we don't focus on the anomalies then how are we ever going to find anything truly significant in our solar system?<br /><br />Of course not EVERY anomaly on the moon, Mars, or elsewhere in the solar system will be artificial. Many will turn out to be natural phenomenon. But for goodness sakes, we can't just pass by anomalies without taking a VERY detailed look (repeatedly if we need to) and of course releasing ALL the data!<br /><br />NASA is supposed to be a search for life and unknown things in our universe. The current administration that IGNORES anomalies like Iapetus make NASA look pathetic.<br /><br />

 

[lifebeyond]

We are not Hoagland trogs. We are individuals facinated with space exploration that DARE to demand that ANOMALOUS features are studied and focused on by our space administration!<br /><br />NASA tends to run away from anything that looks anomalous. We simply demand that our space administration do it's job!<br /><br />We have a perfectly good space craft flying around Saturn that could take many more images of this AMAZINGLY anomalous object called Iapetus. It can do so WITHOUT sacrificing it's overall mission! Many people have suggested that having this space craft alter it's course would "throw away" the entire mission, but that is not the case! This craft is orbiting Saturn and all it would take is a few slight adjustments for it to take several more images of Iapetus!<br /><br />By the way, we are not sprewing nonsense by any means, and are dealing with REALITIES. There are specific features of Iapetus that are truly anomalous, and we are pointing them out because the mainstream is too terrified to look at them.<br /><br />If we speak boldly and loudly about such matters it is only because the current space administration's head is so far deep the sand (scared from looking at anything anomalous) that for them to hear us we MUST SPEAK LOUDLY!<br /><br />Iapetus deserved to be re-imaged with both visual and radar data, and of course all data already taken must be released. This is a FACT.<br /><br />Why are you so scared of anyone demanding a VERY anomalous object (whether you feel it could be artificial or not) being re-imaged when doing so would have minimal effect on the rest of the mission?<br /><br />Why are you so opposed to people demanding NASA release the radar data of Iapetus? NASA quickly and fairly promptly released the radar data gathered from other moons of Saturn, so why can't they do the same with the radar information from Iapetus?<br /><br />They can, but you just don't want them too!<br /><br />It seems like mother Brookings still has quite a few people on her ve

 

[lifebeyond]

This thread must NOT be moved to another category.<br /><br />This thread is all about the study of an object around Saturn that is very anomalous. We are not dealing with looking for "signals" from somewhere else in the universe. The truth is that we are looking at a moon of Saturn (natural or artificial) that is very anomalous. Just because all of you have very few answers or anything to offer to support your claims that our theory is "whacko" does not mean that this thread should be moved elsewhere.<br /><br />I think a few people on this board are getting nervous about the theories that Richard has presented. If so, it is time they gather together their scientific clout and present valid alternatives! I'll listen to them! I'll read such posts! <br /><br />If you have valid alternatives please post them, and stop the slandering of Richard C. Hoagland. <br /><br />No one here can dispute that Iapetus is very, very anomalous. When that is the case *all* theories should be examined and looked at. Why don't some of you present alternative theories if you don't consider Richard's as valid?<br /><br />I will tell you why... because you find it easier to call for this thread being moved then to scientifically and rationally offer other explanations. <br /><br />This thread MUST STAY RIGHT HERE.<br /><br />

 

[lifebeyond]

NajaB,<br /><br />The theory that this moon is a hollow artificial construction is a theory that must be considered. Is it the only possible theory? Of course not! But it is just as valid as any other at this time, and in my opinion the fact such an anomalous object is not being INTENSELY studied by NASA makes me wonder about their true motives.<br /><br />Like you stated, there are many anomalous features about this moon. In my opinion, it is the most significant discovery this probe has made yet. Richard has proposed a theory, and others should propose theories as well.<br /><br />Iapetus could possibly artificial. Just the fact we have discovered an object that could *possibly* be artificial should be making many, many people very excitied. <br /><br />If there is a 10% or 2% chance it is artificial people should be jumping up and down!<br /><br />But it seems people want to dismiss every anomaly without even making it a priority to obtain additional data, images, and scans.<br /><br />For goodness sakes, NASA is still holding radar data that has not yet been released. It's time for NASA to come fourth with the data and make Iapetus a PRIORITY target for imaging and radar scans (which could be done with a minimal impact to the rest of the mission)!<br /><br />