Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

thermionic · Mar 24, 2005

Yes, but aren't you worried that they will have destroyed the evidence by then?

silylene old · Mar 24, 2005

Ignore the "stop-sign" shaped crators if you wish. First were the claims the craters were hexagonal shaped. Stop signs are octagons. Are you claiming the craters are octagonal? Wow, no wonder this gets confusing! ~ I think the craters look like a pentacontagon (50-sided figure) ~ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

geneftw · Mar 24, 2005

I'm sorry. You've misunderstood me. My "attacks" on RCH were not attacks, but rather irony. After the "Attacks", I stated, "You may assume the above GARBAGE...", indicating that I intended for my own "attacks" to be taken as garbage. The point I was trying to make is that anything said about RCH's character is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. The matter at hand is the evidence; not RCH's character. As far as antagonizing Lifebeyond, I was not. I'm on his side. I know who he is and he knows who I am. (I wanted to register as "gene", but "gene" was taken; hence "geneftw". I, too, support RCH. The reason I posted directly under his post is because I'm new here, and not used to this specific "reply" system. I simply clicked the first "reply" I came to.

alpha_taur1 · Mar 24, 2005

The point has been made that Hoagland has Scientific credentials. This may well be the case. 'Scientist' is not an honorary badge you wear, it's describes an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. Unfortunately a great deal of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant - A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience. And so are those who forge data, or suppresses data that clash with their preconceptions, or refuse to let others see their data for independent evaluation. Science is like a high peak of intellectual integrity, fairness, and rationality. The peak is slippery and smooth. It requires a tremendous effort to remain near it. Slacking of effort carries one away and into pseudoscience. Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists." By the way, that 'underwater city' in Japan is a natural rock formation. Yes, he does come across as very genuine. Most conmen do. There is a clear distinction between Science and Pseudoscience. A scientist continually seeks to look for alternative possibilities, using all evidence available. A pseudoscientist will normally defend his theories vehemently, conveniently forgetting any evidence to the contrary.

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

Agreed. The theory has been resoundingly rejected. I referenced Schoch regarding the Japanese structure because he's worked on "the fringe" and is often quoted by "the psudeo scientific community." I thought the fact he rejected the man made theory of the Japanese "pyramid" would make more of a point to our poster concerning the validity of the claim. <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>

jatslo · Mar 24, 2005

I read the site, and it sounds plausible. I guess Cassini will make a pretty good pass in 2007? Um, he really has uncovered some striking details in his perception of the Iapetus Moon, and I wouldn't be surprised, if he is right. I thought I could see large human statues, like the large statues in Egypt, around those honeycomb structures that he was referencing.

geneftw · Mar 24, 2005

Do you see them on the larger image?

CalliArcale · Mar 24, 2005

Something to add to the pile here.... If NASA were trying to cover something up, why would they keep taking pictures of Iapetus? Cassini can't be usefully rerouted; the next opportunity for a really close flyby is in 2007. But that doesn't stop it from taking long-distance photos. Far from ignoring Iapetus, the Cassini mission team is showing intense interest in it. You can see the raw data, converted into .jpg format (which, alas, is a lossy compression scheme, but it's the most likely to be useable by all Internet users) on the web right this very moment. The most recent one currently on the site was taken March 23. Iapetus is not very close to Cassini; when that picture was taken, it was over a million miles away. But it's still a pretty good picture; you can even just barely make out the ridge. Lately I've been seeing far more pictures of Iapetus in the raw image archive than anything else in the Saturn system -- including Saturn itself. <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

From Part 3 of the article: "...As previously noted, as of this writing there have been NO published results – not even abstracts -- concerning last December’s Cassini radar echoes of Iapetus! In striking contrast, NASA has presented reams of close-up images, preliminary composition measurements and estimated surface temperatures on Iapetus, a wide variety of data acquired by the cameras and spectrometers during the same December 31 encounter – much of it released within just days. It has even offered “wall to wall” raw imaging results on its Cassini website -- from not only all the Iapetus encounters so far, but of the fly-bys of ALL the other moons since it arrived at Saturn on June 30th. During the first Cassini satellite encounter – the ~1200 mile historic fly-by of the 136-mile diameter, retrograde Saturnian moon, Phoebe – the Cassini RADAR experiment “pinged” a variety of signals off tiny Phoebe, as the spacecraft flew by on June 11, 2004, during its final few-million-mile approach to Saturn, after its seven year journey out from Earth …. Official acknowledgement of preliminary results from these historic Phoebe radar scans was made almost immediately … on June 18th … within a week of the encounter. And a more detailed scientific paper on the Phoebe radar data was presented to the American Astronomical Society’s annual Division of Planetary Sciences Meeting, in November, 2004. In that paper, anticipation of the up-coming December Iapetus radar observations was specifically cited (as a means of further, crucial calibration of the entire Cassini RADAR system) …. But, after these “key observations” in December were successfully carried out, on the small matter of how Iapetus – a much more important target than Phoebe, one with far-reaching implications for the origin of the entire Saturn system (and, remember, key to “successful calibration of the entire Cassini radar system …”) -- actually reacted to th

zenonmars · Mar 24, 2005

NajaB wrote: "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." JPL/NASA says: ( http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig....cfm?newsID=527 ) "Iapetus was last observed by NASA's Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft in 1980 and 1981. Cassini got about ten times closer than Voyager 2. The best images taken by Voyager had a resolution of about 8km per pixel. On this pass Cassini got down to a resolution of about 1km per pixel. An important science objective of our mission is to understand the mysterious albedo dichotomy that dominates the appearance of Iapetus, with one hemisphere coal-black and one hemisphere quite bright and ice-rich. 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 ." Richard Hoagland has explained in his paper that the value of imaging Iapetus with radar is not to plum the secrets of it's INTERIOR, but to confirm or deny his model: that the icosahedral/dodecahedral SHAPE of Iapetus is showing through it's battered surface, and may yield WILD radar "pings" consistent with a structure that has large, flat surfaces which oddly deflect those "pings" not unlike the surfaces of our Stealth Bombers. As always, Richard only asks NASA to conduct the TESTS and to deliver the results quickly to US, the guys who paid for the mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sig....cfm?newsID=527 The link doesn't work. <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 24, 2005

okay, I really should take a look at this thread. I'll start with this, and then get to the top of things when I have time. 2) Phil plait doesn't get along with Hoagland, agreed. And yes, he now refuses to debate him. But it's not because he think hoagland is right, and that he can't show otherwise. an excerpt from his site: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> George is mistaken. It is not what I want. A producer from "Coast to Coast" called me and asked if I wanted to debate Hoagland on the air. We went back and forth on it for a while, because I was very hesitant. I have little desire to debate someone like Hoagland. Not because he's right, which I think I show clearly on these pages. It's because he has a lot of experience talking about his nonsense, and is very familiar with it. I, on the other hand, am not as intimately familiar with all the nitpicky details of his arguments. I have found that when debating a pseudoscientist or conspiracy theorist, they ignore huge gaping holes in their logic, and instead focus on small, niggling pieces that the debunker may not be familiar with. This way, they can distract the listener from the real problems in their theory, and make it sound like they win. I have seen this with the Moon Hoax, with Planet X, with creationists, and you-name-it. A radio debate is not a debate in the real sense, it's more of an argument, and whoever is more emotionally persuasive tends to "win". Also, no matter what happens, Hoagland will claim victory, even if I smash his claims into atom-sized pieces. I'll note that Nancy Lieder did exactly that after I trounced her in a debate on "Coast to Coast". So the producer (whom I like, I should note) went on to try to persuade me. She asked if it would help if we had rigidly defined topics for the debate, which would avoid getting bogged down in details. I thought that would be better, but I still think Hoagland would stray off-top</blockquote> <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>

Saiph · Mar 24, 2005

cold fusion: Actually, physics know's it is possible under certain circumstances. Such as muon catalyized fusion. Of course, that requires muons, and there is no known steady supply of muons, especially in the amounts required. It is not confirmed, though many labs are still looking at it (several prominent ones in japan). So it wasn't dismissed because it didn't fit "their reality". It was dismissed because it didn't give all of the 3 signature features of fusion. Especially neutron emission. You need heat, neutron emission, and gamma ray emission (not just any gamma rays either). They had the first one...and not really either of the other two. There might have been some neutron emission...but nobody else could replicate it (and different detectors on the original apparatus didn't show it either). Anything that was picked up, was easily in the range of background noise. And if japan cracks it...there's no reason why they won't let the US buy some power plants, so stop worrying. <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>

lifebeyond · Mar 24, 2005

Mr. Hoagland is not at all a nutjob and is a very competent scientist. He is uncovered anomalies around the solar system and has developed theories to potentially explain them when NASA ran away screaming and then jumped into Momma Brookings ever accepting arms of ignorance. Iapetus is an anomaly that has truly stunned me. There are so many features of this object that just jump out at me! I could go on and on with the details, but what all of you need to do is LOOK AT THE DATA and read all five parts of his article and then make your comments and suggestions! http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm Oh, and about the radar! Why is it that the data collected from radar scans of other of Saturn's moons such as Phoebe can be released in as little as a week (as JPL did last year when releasing the data gathered from the radar pass last of Phoebe last June of 2004) but radar data from other objects such as Iapetus (these scans were already planned as part of the mission) are left mysteriously hanging in the void. It appears that whenever an object is truly anomalous images, radar data, or other information is withheld. I think it is time that we all demand that NASA release the radar data of Iapetus! Additionally, adjusting the mission to get additional radar and visual images of Iapetus would NOT be trashing the mission or hurting anything whatsoever! Just a few slight adjustments could be utilized to gather many new images and radar scans of this moon while of course exploring the rest of Saturn's system as well! Why is it when a spacecraft discovers something truly significant it is so horrible and damaging to re-image it, but insignificant things such as sand dunes, crators, and rocks can be imaged again, and again, and again without the same people crying out. Iapetus is a truly amazing objec

telfrow · Mar 24, 2005

...but what all of you need to do is LOOK AT THE DATA and read all five parts of his article and then make your comments and suggestions! I have. Twice. <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>

geneftw · Mar 24, 2005

Some show more clearly than others.

slayera · Mar 25, 2005

"Mr. Hoagland is not at all a nutjob and is a very competent scientist." Call me- I have alien spaceship for sale, cheap.

jatslo · Mar 25, 2005

Maybe NASA chose Saturn's Iapetus Moon, to justify the Cassini mission, but did not want to stick their neck out because of lack of evidence to the contrary. Wouldn't be cool, if it were true? I want to believe ;o) Iapetus: 09/10/2007 @ 12:34:00 : Within 590 miles!

alpha_taur1 · Mar 25, 2005

"Mr. Hoagland is not at all a nutjob and is a very competent scientist." Here's a good website that rates him very highly: http://www.crank.net/martians.html He gets a "crankiest" rating! The highest of them all. That's an excellent effort, since even Graham Hancock only get's a 'crank' rating, and he's away with the fairies in Woo Woo land.

quasar2 · Mar 25, 2005

is this the same moon w/ the magnetic anomaly? one of saturn`s moons has or had some kind of electromagnetic beam or something extending all the way to saturn or something like that. i remember this from about 20 yrs ago from voyager or maybe pioneer. does anyone remember this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

odysseus145 · Mar 25, 2005

As intetresting as Iapetus is, I don't think that artificial construct is even a remote possiblity. Maybe you should check out some earlier threads descussing Iapetus' odd features. Now, if Iapetus were a cube... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

geneftw · Mar 25, 2005

Plait said, "...It's because he has a lot of experience talking about his nonsense, and is very familiar with it. I, on the other hand, am not as intimately familiar with all the nitpicky details of his arguments...." In other words, he doesn't have enough knowlege of the subject matter to discuss it....And yet he calls it "nonsense." Does that sound like the mind of a scientist?

maxtheknife · Mar 25, 2005

Thanx, Gene....I understood your irony

I think perhaps the real question is....Iapetus was anomalous before we even concieved of flight, let alone space travel.....Why were there no contingency plans in place in case the fly by produced the results that it has? Hmmmm? Why are we out there in the first place? We began this dream with the intention of searching for life. Well, it looks like we got more than we bargained for and now you all don't want to look at the data. Shame on all of you 'scientists'. Put it all into context.....Megalithic ruins on Earth, Moon, Mars....and now.....more than likely....a moon sized artificial construct. Man, where the hell did I put that radar data? Question. When we finally do get the radar data and it is anomalous, what excuse will you divise to hammer it into your circular hole? Step aside, there's a man behind you who has the circular peg.

telfrow · Mar 25, 2005

I don't know about the radar data, but I tried something radical - I e-mailed JPL and asked them if radar was used during the encounter and when it would be made public. <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>

thermionic · Mar 25, 2005

Wait! I just recalled another fact that reinforces Mr. Hoagland's thesis: One of Mars' moons is shaped like a potato. This proves that it is of biological origin. Because no one from NASA has published about this scientific wonder, we have additional proof that NASA and the Trilateralist Gnomes of Zurich are suppressing the truth about artificial moons in our solar system. Note that only the Rusions have attempted to actually land a probe on the space potato. The Rusions are much more open-minded than our society due to the fact that they experience many more UFO encounters than us.

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

thermionic

Guest

silylene old

Guest

geneftw

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

telfrow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

geneftw

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

geneftw

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

lifebeyond

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geneftw

Guest

slayera

Guest

jatslo

Guest

alpha_taur1

Guest

quasar2

Guest

odysseus145

Guest

geneftw

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

thermionic

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page