Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

[geneftw]

My "Flat Earth" example may be in error, but the point stands that there were many "commonly accepted facts" that were wrong, and there are, no doubt, still "commonly accepted facts" that may be wrong.

 

[lifebeyond]

I agree with you maxtheknife.<br /><br />The fact they overall oppose the re-imaging of Iapetus (even though they admit it is very anomalous) just shows that they are biased against the idea of anything in our solar system possibly being anything other than totally natural.<br /><br />Iapetus could possibly be natural, but it is so bizzare that it warrents further study. NASA should make it a priority for additional images and radar scans. If we ignore all the oddities of this moon and "move on" so to speak (terrified of what might be found) without taking additional images then we might miss out on a VERY significant discovery of the first artificial object in our solar system.<br /><br />Or if it is not artificial, the most ANOMALOUS object in our solar system!<br /><br />As someone interested and not scared to look at anomalous objects, I want higher resolution images of it's geometric surface features, I want radar scans that could give us a map of it's highly geometric shape, and of course I want any other data that can be gathered.<br /><br />This whole issue should be very simple!<br /><br />Very Anomalous Object = Many more Images/Scans<br /><br />However, due to those that duck and cover from the sight of an anomaly...<br /><br />Very Anomalous Object = Lets Look At Something Else<br /><br />With just a few miminal alternations to Cassini's orbit we could get high resolution visual and of course additional (they have not even released the data they already have) radar data of Iapetus.<br /><br />If NASA is not really NEVER A STRAIT ANSWER or NEVER A SINGLE ANOMALY then why don't they take additional looks at Iapetus!<br /><br />I urge everyone to email, write, fax, and call NASA and make it known that they need to make Iapetus a new priority in this mission!

 

[claywoman]

I'm sort of sorry for sounding snotty, but I really think your hypothesis is so full of holes it would sink in a Titan bog. We have lived through a whole thread dealing with "Matrian snakes", where one gentleman saw snakes in almost every picture of Mars, we had someone else trying to convince us there were houses(?) on Mars with tunnels going underground and other such nonesense.<br /><br />I doubt if you will convince anyone here that Iapetus is artificial, but the ridge around her is glorious. Unfortunately, unless you are writing a Sci-Fi story or book, I really doubt if you can honestly believe it happened...

 

[geneftw]

As is so common, here, you make a post stating that you feel the Artificial Iapetus theory is nonsense, yet you are unable to cite evidence and explain why you think it's nonsense.<br />Unsubstantiated opinions are useless. <br /><br />EDIT: "May History and Science Open your mind to its greatness... "

 

[lifebeyond]

Please explain in a scientific way why you think Mr. Hoagland's theory is nonsense. Can you give us specific reasons? Can you present an alternative theory?<br /><br />Also, this is a totally different subject than what some person thought he saw (snakes you said) all over the surface of Mars. Please stop comparing the REAL anomalies of Iapetus to snakes all over the surface of Mars. That individual has nothing to do with Richard Hoagland or this theory. Please stop trying to falsely connect the two together.<br /><br />Again, why do you think this theory is nonsense?<br /><br />Iapetus has an amazing ridge.<br />Iapetus has unique geometry on it's surface.<br />Iapetus has an amazing overall geometry in it's shape.<br />Iapetus is in a very unique orbit.<br /><br />And there is even more evidence if you read all the parts of Richard Hoagland's article that can be found on his website at http://www.enterprisemission.com<br /><br />Now, once you READ his articles, will you please give us scientific reasons why you feel his theory is nonsense? <br /><br />If you have a theory we sure want to hear it! We welcome discussion on Iapetus! We want to hear any sound and thoughtful alternative theory you can present!

 

[lifebeyond]

By the way, why don't you check out Coast to Coast AM Tuesday night on March 29th. Richard C. Hoagland will be giving an update about Iapetus, and we will all have a chance to hear what he has to say about this matter!<br /><br />Click the following link for more information about Tuesday night's show:<br /><br />http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/03/29.html<br /><br />I'm very interested in reading the the next part of the Iapetus article that has not yet been released!

 

[mcbethcg]

I generally try to avoid coming to a concluision about an idea based on authorship. I know that I ought to look at an idea based on its merits.<br /><br />But Hoagland... he has a vast history of coming to wild conclusions based on sketchy data, while ignoring contrary data.<br /><br />He really ought to start using a pen name or something. He has negative credibility with me. Less credibility than a complete stranger discussing the same subjects.

 

[lifebeyond]

So you are going to ignore hard data (strait from NASA) indicating Iapetus is amazingly engimatic simply because someone that is controversial to the mainsteam has presented it to you?<br /><br />In my opinion, ignoring data just because of who it comes from, is the most unscientific thing *anyone* could do. <br /><br />Read his articles, look at the data, and of course look at the images STRAIT FROM NASA. <br /><br />After doing that then report back with an opinion.<br /><br />But until then blatantly dismissing his theory about Iapetus without looking at what he presented only makes you appear to have a bias against those things which don't neatly fit into what the mainstream accepts as acceptable to study.<br /><br />If you are being honest about studying something on it's merits then please be true to yourself. Study this on the merit's of his research presented in the articles on his website.<br /><br />Anyone who claims to judge theories on their merits but refuses to look at one because of who it comes from seems very hypocritical to me.

 

[geneftw]

To echo your thoughts, let's assume that no thought of artificiality beyond Earth has EVER even crossed our minds. Let's also assume that we are intensely interested in anomolies for the sake of understanding what makes the solar system tick. Is Iapetus not worth a very close look, complete with radar data?!<br /><br />Given the above scenario, the question still remains:<br />Should we turn Cassini around, or just wait another two years for it to come around again, hoping it survives the two years. After all, who knows what other wonders may lie ahed?!

 

[mcbethcg]

I doubt it is possible to turn it around.

 

[lifebeyond]

The good thing is that we don't need to turn Cassini around. All that would need to be done is slightly adjust it's orbit so that it can have additional opportunities to re-image and re-scan Iapetus.<br /><br />The entire mission would not be threatened, the mission would still get to image the rest of the Saturn system over and over again, and nothing would have to be "turned around."<br /><br />However, if the mission did need to be turned around completely (which you are correct, I doubt the craft could completely stop and go backwards) it would be worth it. But like I already stated, that does NOT need to happen.<br /><br />

 

[alpha_taur1]

"I think a few people on this board are getting nervous about the theories that Richard has presented."<br /><br />Nervous? No. That's not quite the right expression. Bored, fed-up, exasperated, and probably bemused, in that it is incredible how anyone could have the audacity to write such obvious garbage. All of those words would work.<br /><br />Many people have debunked Hoagland. Scientifically he is a dead duck. The reason that nobody would even bother to debate him, is that anyone who can think straight (strait?) would realise that it's nonsense. I would no more debate Hoagland than I would debate Big Bird from Sesame Street. One look at his website is enough. He has found evidence of HS on Mars! . Er it's actually H2S, Richard. Go back to school.<br /><br />As a cult figure, well perhaps you'd be the best judge of that. Maybe you have a certain attraction to him.

 

[geneftw]

I'm not a big fan of vague posts, but I'm tired, have a busy day tomorrow, and need to go to bed. So, I'm posting a vague post:<br />RCH has a very good record of his wild theories being substantiated, or at least taken seriously by mainstream science months or years later whether or not he is mentioned in relation to these theories.<br />One glaring example that comes to mind, now, is his Mars Tidal Model. Maybe I'll post references about this, tomorrow; maybe not....Nah. This thread is about Iapetus; not Mars, not RCH. As tempting as it is for all of us on both sides to go off on these tangents, it's probably best to stick to the topic: EVIDENCE of an artificial Iapetus.<br /> <br />

 

[hagar99]

"I think a few people on this board are getting nervous about the theories that Richard has presented." <br /><br />I tend to agree, and I'm basing that on all the posts I've read so far. There seems to be a lot of people that feel it slipping, and rightly so, in my humble opinion. <br /><br />There still hasn't been any theories presented, with any facts or evidence, that Iapetus is a natural occuring moon in our neighbourhood. I keep reading that it's all garbage, that everything that Hoagland presents is nonsense, and yet, after a few days already, there hasn't been one reply that can present any evidence to the contrary. <br /><br />Why else would they want the thread moved? <br /><br />I'd like to see us get back to the origin of this thread, and hear all theories that people have. If Iapetus is not artificial, then what is it? Make your case. List your reasons. Present some evidense. Get your friends at NASA to help you out, and demand that they release the radar imagery.<br /><br />I think everyone here, that's truly interested in this subject of Iapetus, should contact NASA, and let 'em know that they've kept the radar images long enough, and the rest of us would like to see them.<br /><br />Is there something wrong with getting as much information as we can? And as soon as we can? If this is upsetting to some people, I'd really like to know what you're so terrified of?<br /><br />Whatever the truth is about Iapetus, we'd all like to know what it is! Whether it's artificial, or natural, or something that we might not have even imagined! No matter what the answer is, one way or the other, it will truly be facinating.<br /><br />The people who are really interested in finding out will continue to ask questions, and demand answers. To me, that's the scientific way. Not just trotting out the NASA party-line, "Everything's ok, go back to sleep."<br /><br />Those that aren't, will continue to make their personal attacks, and continue to ignore any evidence that's uncovered, if does

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">geneftw - RCH has a very good record of his wild theories being substantiated, or at least taken seriously by mainstream science months or years later whether or not he is mentioned in relation to these theories. One glaring example that comes to mind, now, is his Mars Tidal Model.</font><br /><br />Hoagland's "Mars Tidal Model" requires, amongst other oddities, that two planets in the solar system spontaneously exploded. Courtesy of Flandern no less. I wouldn't cite this as a glaring example that he should be taken seriously by mainstream science just yet.<br /><br />Of course, Hoag's exploding planets (Flandern) are necessary to explain the cratering on Iapetus which figures in with his rewriting of cratering history due to .. exploding planets. Boom boom, out go the lights.<br /><br />..<br /><br />Lord, why did I post on this thread? <br /><br />Unclean! Have to wash! Wash now! <br /><scrubs hands furiously and pops a broad-spectrum antibio /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Hagar99 - There still hasn't been any theories presented, with any facts or evidence, that Iapetus is a natural occuring moon in our neighbourhood. </font><br /><br />Iapetus is interesting. That about sums it up as far as "controversy" is concerned. So, you want someone to prove a negative? You want proof that Iapetus is not an artificial moon? :/<br /><br />Prove that it is artificial. Just because it has features that have not been fully explained does not make something "artificial." I've glanced over the thread and have seen lots of posts refuting Hoagy's claim of crater anomoly, albedo etc..<br /><br />In one post, just one mind you, prove Iapetus is artificial without requiring making unsubstantiated assumptions. Make it easy. Do it A+B+C=Artificial. If it is so obvious, it should be quite easy and could be done in five paragraphs or less. At least, for the requirments of a simple discussion that is. Just leave out anything that qualifies as an unsubstantiated assumption in your post.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Hagar99 said: <font color="yellow">There still hasn't been any theories presented, with any facts or evidence, that Iapetus is a natural occuring moon in our neighbourhood. I keep reading that it's all garbage, that everything that Hoagland presents is nonsense, and yet, after a few days already, there hasn't been one reply that can present any evidence to the contrary.</font><br /><br />lifebeyond said:<font color="yellow"> Now, once you READ his articles, will you please give us scientific reasons why you feel his theory is nonsense?</font><br /><br />I have attempted to present my reasoning for why I believe Mr. Hoagland's assertions may be incorrect and have included information, details and my own speculation. Gene and I have been discussing this at great length. I started with the photo that is the cornerstone of Hoagland's argument and we were working toward the issue of straight lines on the surface. In spite of the fact this thread is now flooded with Hoagland supporters, only Gene has made any attempt to communicate and discuss the issues. Max has offered only deflection and misdirection. (What about Abydos? What about Cydonia? What about Megaliths? What about the radar data? What about the cover up?) The twenty some odd posts written overnight ignore the information and our discussions. Personally, I reached the end of my rope. Why bother? <br /><br />So, before I proceed any further with my attempts to discuss the issue, I'd like the Hoagland supporters to provide some information.<br /><br />Iapetus has a radius of approximately 1460 km, a density of 1.1 (about the same as water ice and similar to Rhea) and a mass of 1.59e21 kg. <br /><br />Please provide the density and mass of a 1460km, artificially constructed hollow sphere. I can't find it in the article.<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>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">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. </font><br /><br /><b>Actually this thread should be moved</b><br /><br />Yes, it is about Iapetus, a very interesting and unusual moon.<br /><br />However, it does not belong in <b>"Space <i><font color="yellow">Science</font>/i> and Astronomy</i></b>" for the following reasons:<br /><br />1) There is <b>nothing whatsoever scientific about the claims of Hoagland</b>. His claims are loopy, and RGH has zero credibility in the scientific community.<br /><br />2) The thread title <b>"Artifical Construct" lays the claim that Iapetus was built by some alien lifeform. </b>Threads about aliens and "Artifical Contructs" belong in the "SETI - Search for Life" forum.<br /><br />3) This "Artificial Construct" Iapetus thread (228 replies) is <b>destroying the scientific culutre of this forum</b> with its non-science, its wacky claims, and the influx of new RGH-advocate members who do not contribute anything scientifically.<br /><br />4) The <b>"Artificial Construct" Iapetus thread is pushing the serious scientists off of this forum</b>. Perhaps you may have noticed how few postings there have been in other threads? Perhaps you have noticed how the serious scientists and engineers are starting to avoid the forums because, frankly, these forums are becoming a laughingstock embarrassment? It is point#4 that concerns me the most, as this affects the viability of these forums as a place for scientific debate.<br /><br />Moderators, I ask you to please move <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>

 

[hagar99]

Hey Telfrow. I apologize for lumping you in with everyone else. That was wrong of me.<br /><br />You indeed have posted well, and Gene too, and that's appreciated by everyone. Don't quit now, continue with your thoughts, and keep this discussion alive.<br /><br />As far as being a Hoagland supporter, no one here has to be a supporter of anyone, to appreciate the enigma of Iapetus, and express their views of what the possible origins could be. <br /><br />If anyone is interested in hearing more about what Mr. Hoagland has to present on Iapetus, tune in to Coast To Coast this Tuesday night, during the first hour.<br /><br />What I'm saying is, I don't have difficulty with the artificial model that's been discussed. It fits the information at hand, as limited as it is. When more information is forthcoming, then perhaps the views will change, on both sides.<br /><br /><br />If Iapetus is a naturally occuring satellite, then I have absolutely no problem with that either. I'd just like to find out how it got to be the way it is! How did this happen?!! We won't find that out until Iapetus is given a high-priority. If we wait until 2007, there's the risk of something happining to Cassini before it's able to complete it's re-imaging of this moon.<br /><br />To me, the mountain ranges might be the most intriguing feature of all. What made them that way? How do they remain standing? What kind of strength must they have to retain their structure for so long?<br /><br />And why the straight edges in the photographs? Ghosting and blooming don't produce straight lines, and neither does camera shake. <br /><br />It's difficult to percieve of a moon in our solar system forming, and producing these straight edges. If Iapetus was in collision with other rocky bodies during is formation, you'd expect it to have a shape like it's brothers and sisters, round. How does it retain it's strange shape?<br /><br />Unless it was formed somewhere else, and was somehow captured into an orbit around Saturn (and the

 

[najab]

><i>The good thing is that we don't need to turn Cassini around. All that would need to be done is slightly adjust it's orbit so that it can have additional opportunities to re-image and re-scan Iapetus.</i><p>Could you please show me the calculations that lead to your statement that Cassini can re-image Iapetus any earlier than currently planned. Or is this just another baseless claim?</p>

 

[hagar99]

Hello silylene.<br /><br />I've noticed that you would like this discussion moved to a "SETI" forum. I suggest Iapetus has nothing to do with SETI and their search for radio signals.<br /><br />This discussion is about Iapetus, a moon of Saturn. Anyone who is interested in Iapetus should be allowed to come to this thread and read what people have to say. If "serious scientists" (as opposed to any other scientist), don't want to know, then how serious can they be?<br /><br />Why do you think that traffic is slowing down at the other threads? Likely because this thread is the most interesting, discussing the most interesting topic at hand. A moon in our solar system that is very odd. <br /><br />Iapetus, Titan, Saturn, and the rest of it's moons should be discussed, freely and openly. Or is there a problem with that in this forum?

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">And why the straight edges in the photographs? Ghosting and blooming don't produce straight lines, and neither does camera shake.</font><br /><br />Gene and I were about to enter that phase of the discussion - straight edges on the surface. As I noted, ghosting, blooming and motion were explanations for the cornerstone of Hoagland's argument: the long distance shot that was obviously overexposed. I believe there are other explanations for what appear to be straight lines. But as noted, I'm truly frustrated by the lack of response to an honest effort to enter into a debate. I do not have the time (leaving on a business trip this afternoon) or the inclination to do the research and thinking required if no one is interested.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">As far as being a Hoagland supporter, no one here has to be a supporter of anyone, to appreciate the enigma of Iapetus, and express their views of what the possible origins could be.</font><br /><br />Unfortunately, that's not the way it appears. SDC has been flooded by new posters, all of whom are defending Hoagland's postions <i> and only citing Hoagland's data </i> in their arguments (re: the constant posting of the location of the article, etc.). They offer no other defense of their position. <br /><br />None. <br /><br />Case in point: <i><font color="yellow">If anyone is interested in hearing more about what Mr. Hoagland has to present on Iapetus, tune in to Coast To Coast this Tuesday night, during the first hour. </font></i>That's the second time one of the new posters have called that to our attention. <br /><br />If you (and "you" refers to all new posters who defend the theory Iapetus is, or may be, artificial) are not Hoagland defenders, then stop calling attention to his information, theories and appearances. Enter into a debate without the baggage - and like it or not Hoagland's name <i>is</i> baggage. You can't and won't change that. If you believe what he be <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>...considering that Jupiter is the giant vacuum cleaner in our solar system, and could destroy, or severly altered the path of an incoming object...</i><p>Please, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion you need to brush up on your "space science". Jupiter only serves the 'vacuum cleaner' role <b>for objects which cross its orbit</b>. It is entirely possible for objects in a heliocentric orbit to intersect Saturn's orbit, but yet not come close enough for Jupiter to have any significant effect - Jupiter is the 5th planet out from the Sun, Saturn is the 6th, and there's a lot of empty space between them.</p>

 

[najab]

><i>Iapetus is in a very unique orbit.</i><p>It's not in a unique orbit. If you wanted to talk strange orbits, you want to talk about Phoebe, which is in a retrograde orbit even more steeply inclined than Iapetus.</p>

 

[geneftw]

The over exposed image is not the cornerstone of hoagland's argument; only another piece of evidence. You caused me to see that piece as a weak one by stating that thing about ghosting and blooming. That seemed to make sense. But then along comes Hagar and says ghosting and blooming don't cause straight lines. Wull, I dunno nuthin' 'bout that fotograffy stuff, so I'm torn on that...But that ain't "the cornerstone."<br />(Remember that there are straight lines where there is normal lighting, as well.)<br />The other stuff (as well) is not RCH's information. It comes from NASA. The same data could be found elsewhere, but at EnrerpriseMission, it's all right there in one place. Of course it's accompanied by RCH's interpretation, but we're capable of agreeing or disagreeing. NASA's data is right there for you to intrepret differently, if you wish. If you need more data, search JPL and NASA for it.