Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

[telfrow]

Could you provide the image number of the photo please? I'd like to compare what's seen here with the raw image. <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>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Don't you want to know what this is?</font><br /><br />The following is my interpretation that the object on the horizon is a background Star:

 

[geneftw]

(Choosing this particular post to reply to is pretty much arbitrary.)<br />Jon: Aside from the geometry that I contend of the craters, how 'bout the overall shape of the moon.<br />Telfrow: Here's that same shape as in that overexposed image.<br />

 

[geneftw]

There have been other times that a number like 195 pops up, and Richard explains that 195 REPRESENTS 19.5 (etc.). It is obvious that 60x60=3600. It would not seem likely that such an oversight ("360") would occur. Perhaps he should have stated 3600 represents 360 rather than leaving up to those not familiar with his line of thinking to assume such.

 

[geos]

The primary mission objectives, funded by large amounts of taxpayer money, will NOT be damaged because NO ONE has ANY theories about Titan ANYWAY !! How does a small detour to Iapetus cause any harm to the mission. I would ask ALL of you about Titan but since it is part of "anomalous science" you are going to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno. Nothing has changed in the solar system for billions and billions of years. A scientist wrote that and I have no curiosity anyways"

 

[geos]

I think ancient peoples were extremely stupid. With all the abundance of an uncrowded earth they chose lives of pointless suffering.

 

[geneftw]

"Because this mission is about a hell of a lot more than Iapetus. Should the primary mission objectives, funded by large amounts of taxpayer money, be scrapped because Richard Hoagland has a vague hunch, a hunch which may not even be testable with Cassini's instrumentation? Of course not. That would be *really* irresponsible. The mission has been very carefully planned to learn all kinds of things. There are many passes by Titan, not only because it's a primary mission object itself but also because it is far bigger than any other Saturnian moon and thus uniquely suited to shifting Cassini's orbit. Iapetus is not in a very convenient orbit for flybys by a probe that is meant to study more than just Iapetus. No, I think it would be a hideous waste to totally scrap the current mission plan and make a new one just because of a hunch. It's much more efficient to be a little patient." <br /><br />"If we want to get REALLY close to Iapetus -- before September, 2007 -- what is required is a CHANGE in the close fly-bys of Titan ... which will then adjust ALL future trajectory projections. A specificially targeted change in the current Titan fly-bys will propogate forward ... affecting ALL future trajectories ... including, possibilities for closely approaching Iapetus in the next few months!<br /><br />However, for those critics who will immediately leap on this, claiming "See! He wants to totally upset YEARS of previous mission planning ... all for his crackpot ideas ...!", the answer is that a suitable SECOND fly-by of Titan -- after the early Iapetus close-encounter -- could immediately place Cassini BACK on its ORIGINAL MISSION PLAN!!! <br /><br />The repeated use of Titan's gravity, and a small amount of on-board thruster fuel, make Cassini a VERY flexible mission ..."<br />--RCH<br /><br />

 

[geos]

The Nova piece did a Small scale reconstruction (teeny tiny)<br />A rather PROSAIC attempt - <br />Of course LATER KINGS wanted to say "I did such and such"<br />and had murals devoted to the work of Horus or Thoth<br />(insert MegaGod)

 

[geos]

Ok 3000 BC the Gods have left and YOU are a Priest Of Aknaten wouldn't it be in your best interest to make it seem YOUR KING did something ridiculously glorious (instead of these . . . others who went to Greece and gave birth to western civilization)

 

[JonClarke]

Jatslo<br /><br />If Hoagland says that calcite has a four-fold symmetry he is wrong. This could be a simple sloppy error, on the other hand he, as Max points out, makes this part of a grand theory which is inexcusable.<br /><br />Interpretations of the origin of planetary features are inductive and therefore probabilistic. However, since there is no evident need for any artificial explanation of any feature seen so far, why invoke them?<br /><br />If you want to discuss Titan, start your own thread. If not, answer this question. What makes you seek an artifical explanation for everything you see on other planets.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Gene<br /><br />Your post on page 2. How about doing some image analysis? Don't just state what you think - show it to be the case. <br /><br />While you are at it, please answer this question. Many lunar craters (such as Pythagoras) show crude polygonality. Some terrestrial craters do likewise (e.g. Meteor crater). Are these artificial or natural features?<br /><br />Please answer my previous questions (page 59 of part 1 of this discussion): Name one discovery that Hoagland has made that has been supported by independent research and name one peer reviewed paper he has published. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Max<br /><br />Re your post on page 2. Crystals come in many shapes. Most are not tetrahedral. Calcite is not tetrahedral. Neither are pyramids. Any theory that tries to link pyramids, calcite crystals and tetrahedons is nonsense.<br /><br />This is my last word on the subject. If you want to discuss crystals, start your own thread. This thread is about Iapetus.<br /><br />To that end then, do you think that the Giant's causeway and the Tesselated pavements are natural or artificial? I asked this question on page 58 of the 1st part of this thread. Please answer.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

gene<br /><br />The shapes of geoides is too much outside my comfort zone, I have to pass on that one.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Anything anamolous is explained by alien origin.This **** and bull story running for pages!!LOL.

 

[geneftw]

(I don't have page numbers. The screen scrolls down and down...)<br />My time and my sleep are very limited. I don't know image analysis and learning it is not a priorty. <br /><br />Are you referring to the thing about the ellipses vs polygon thing? If so, Why isn't looking at it enough. Do I need to do a spectral anaysis to determine that a canary's yellow?<br /><br />Lunar craters being crudely polygonal. <br />"Crudely." Slumping?<br /><br />Name one discovery...<br />Again, off topic, but:<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=186100&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/mcdaniel.html<br />

 

[JonClarke]

Gene<br /><br />Do some linear analysis and demonstrate the existance of polygonal crater outlines and measure their regularity. I have given you a methodology and you should have the tools on your computer. If you are not prepared to do the work to justify your opinions then you should not be so firm about.<br /><br />If yoyu accept that slumping is a good explanation fpr lunar and terrestrial polygonal craters, why does it not work for those of Iapetus? We have both demonstrated that whatever polgonality that exists is not regular and thus unlikely to be artificial.<br /><br />Hoagland did not discover water on Mars. Water vapour was discovered spectroscopically prior to the first orbital missions. The first orbital missions in 1971-72 showed abundant evidence for former liquid water, the presence of polar water ice caps, and probable ground ice. Hoagland had nothing to do with any of these discoveries. He did not discover the internet either. As for his tidal theory, it has not been peer reviewed, and thus fails the criteria I asked for. So you have not answered these two questions. <br /><br />Given the fact you can't specify any discoveries or peer reviewed publications, and we both know he has no relevant formal qualifications, why do you think he is right and the entire professional planetary science community is wrong?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[geneftw]

'scuse me for buttin' in, here, but I've kinda been wishing somebody would ask that question. <br /><br />I don't try to explain everything with artificiality; just that which appears to be. I would like to see lots of it out there. The more the merrier. Why?<br />1. It fascinates me.<br />2. (And more importantly) <br />Back before 1973, a man could go to work and support his family with one job. Employers could hire people and profit by doing so. An example that comes to mind is the old fashioned service stations: You pull in to get some gas and out come two or three men to fill your tank, check your oil, wash your windshield, air up your tires. The station owner profited because customers liked good service. Those attendants had jobs...maybe not very good jobs, but they could get by. (I know a nuerologist who worked his way through college with a job at a Gulf gas station.)<br /><br />Then came the so-called oil shortage. The cost of everything went up. The station owner could no longer employ those men. The price of living went up, but wages and salaries could not keep pace. Now, the wives had to seek work, as well. Both parents are working, barely making ends meet, while the kids get less attention. They receive less help with their education and poorer quality rearing. Society has deteriorated. And it's all about oil.<br /><br />(Hang on. I'm gettin' there <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> )<br /><br />Higher technologies are possible. In fact, they exist, but are being hidden from us. Check it out: http://www.disclosureproject.org/<br />There are extraterresial intelligent folks coming here. We have been given some of their technology. Kooky? There are some people in high places who KNOW and are ready and willing to testify before congress. I'm talkin' about high ranking military officers, flight controllers, airline pilots, law enforcement officers, etc. Many are listed on the site I

 

[geneftw]

The tidal model predicted where water would be found if it exists. Water was found there.<br /><br />Peer review? You must have overlooked my second link, above. <br /><br />Draw lines on stuff that stands out like a sore thumb?<br />Maybe tomorrow, maybe not. Depends on what else I have to do. <br /><br />EDIT: oops: I should clarify. My definition of "tomorrow" is "after I've gone to bed and gotten up, again." And I don't keep a very regular schedule.

 

[telfrow]

I've seen that in the article. I believe it's a highly enalrged crop from a larger photo. Can you provide the identification number of the original photo? I'fd like to see the area in context in the raw image. <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]

Never mind. I think I found it.<br />BTW, it's a composite of two high def photos. <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]

Jon:<br /><br />I’ve reconsidered my position concerning Hoagland’s contention the structure of Iapteus is indicative of the crystalline structure of the material used to create it. He may be on to something.<br /><br />Look at this….<br /><br />http://webmineral.com/specimens/picshow.php?id=1276<br /><br />No doubt about it! Conclusive proof!<br /><br />Iapetus is made of ice!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><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>How does a small detour to Iapetus cause any harm to the mission.</i><p>Explain to me how this "small detour to Iapetus" will be accomplished without totally destroying the current mission plan. Demonstrate that you have even the slightest hint of a clue about what you are proposing.</p>

 

[najab]

In Part 5 of the article, RCH states:<blockquote>Obviously, if current materials science has developed a technology capable of constructing a single space structure, raised against Earth’s gravity … and over 60,000 miles in length (a 22,300 mile-high cable, stretching from Earth to geosynchronous orbit, plus the additional length for the required counterweight …), that same technology could someday easily create other "large space structures."</blockquote>Obviously, RCH has never heard that an argument based on a false premise is less than useless. Current materials science <b>has not</b> developed any such technology! It is <i>theorized</i> that carbon nano-tubules filament would have the necessary strength, however nobody has yet managed to make one more than a few metres long, and those attempts have yielded fibers which are <b>much</b> weaker than theoretical maximum (scarcely stronger than Kevlar).

 

[najab]

Later, on the same page, he states:<blockquote>In other words: the biggest impediment to taking our Iapetus proposal seriously – the scale of a thousand-mile-diameter “moon” – pales into insignificance (with even slightly more space expertise), compared to current plans aimed at creating a literal, “60,000 mile-high skyhook to geosynchronous orbit” … and in less than 20 years!!</blockquote>To which I ask, which is the harder task: weaving a 200 mile long rope, or building a 100 storey skyscraper. The Space Elevator might be long, but it is a <b>very</b> simple, exceedingly easy to automate task in comparison to building a 1000 mile diameter 'buckyball'.

 

[jatslo]

"Iapetus Artificial Construct", if true, is a monumental achievement. Something of this magnitude would not be confined to Iapetus. This is probably why Hoagland is factoring in the pyramids in Egypt.<br /><br />Okay, my point. Why then would Titan not be involved with the scheme of things? For example, what would happen to Titan, or how would Titan be transformed, if it Titan were moved closer to Earth's orbit. Wouldn't the Sun transmute the liquid methane's into gasses, in which the gasses will decompose leaving a oxygen rich atmosphere? I am not implying that Oxygen is required to sustain a alien life form.<br /><br />In light of all the evidence that supports "Iapetus Artificial Construct", wouldn't it make more since to get some really good detailed mapping of Titan first?<br /><br />I agree with NASA's current scheduling, and any deviation from the contrary, would be irresponsible.