Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

jatslo · Apr 3, 2005

Well, I found the following two distinct shapes: Hexagon, and Triangle. This sounds like geometry, so a related question might be rephrased like the following: Can a Triangle be four-folded into a hexagon? The answer, if my memory is serving me well, is a resounding YES. "(kăl´sīt) , very widely distributed mineral, commonly white or colorless, but appearing in a great variety of colors owing to impurities. Chemically it is calcium carbonate, CaCO3, but it frequently contains manganese, iron, or magnesium in place of the calcium. It crystallizes in the hexagonal system, its crystals being characterized by highly perfect cleavage. Calcite also occurs in a number of massive forms, in which it may be coarsely to finely granular (as in marble), compact (as in limestone), powdery (as in chalk), or fibrous. One crystalline form, called dogtooth spar because of its dogtooth appearance, exhibits faces of perfect scalene triangles. Another form, satin spar, is finely fibrous and has a satin luster. Iceland spar is clear, transparent calcite. Other important forms of the mineral are limestone, marble, chalk, marl, stalactite and stalagmite formations, travertine, and Oriental alabaster. Millions of tons of calcite, in the form of limestone and marble, are mined annually. Besides its use as a building stone, it is the raw material for quicklime and cement, and is used extensively as a flux in smelting and as a soil conditioner." http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=7947

jatslo · Apr 3, 2005

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? Do you have evidence to support this statement? 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. Why is this relevant to discrediting a hypothesis?

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 3, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> geneftw- 'scuse me for buttin' in, here, but I've kinda been wishing somebody would ask that question. 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? 1. It fascinates me. 2. (And more importantly) 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.) 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. (Hang on. I'm gettin' there ) Higher technologies are possible. In fact, they exist, but are being hidden from us. Check it out: http://www.disclosureproject.org/ 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 a</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

jatslo · Apr 3, 2005

Sadly for you, we have the pictures on the sides of the temples which show these huge stone masses were put on sledges and moved by teams of workers. That's how they were moved. They were also able to put huge masses on large barges and float them down the river to their final building sites. Again, prosaic. And if they could move statues and obelisks weighing 450-600 tons, then for sure, they could have moved stones weighing Merely 80-100 tons. That is one of many solutions that are discussed in the scientific community; however, I know of a single person that achieved these same feats all by himself. Your approach simply makes wild claims and refuses then to engage upon the facts. I've seen the quarries in Aswan where the granite is taken from. I've seen the methods they used & altho labor intensive, and time consuming, they did indeed work. Your facts are arguable, making them none facts, and more like theoretical, and hypothetical opinions. Your basic problem is that you have NO realistic idea of what is going on and then make silly claims based upon your total lack of knowledge about Egypt, as you show, time & again. A first year archeology student knows more about Egypt than do you, and most of the rest of the sciences, very likely. Sounds to me, that you have a bad case of tunnel vision, and that you are incapable of entertaining any alternative reality outside of your own beliefs. And then you make a very wrong and misleading comment that I'm regurgitating what I read. NO! I have been in Egypt. I have seen these things for Myself, and the methods are quite credible and realistic ways of doing things. Clearly the education system has failed you. But that does not make the Egyptians anything more than very good at building and in the organization of labor. Which, t

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 3, 2005

JonClarke-Your post on page 2. How about doing some image analysis? Don't just state what you think - show it to be the case. (I believe this is the referred post for the below response.) geneftw - 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? geneftw, Do you need to do a spectral analysis to determine that a canary is yellow? In order to prove that a canary is yellow, then "yes" you do. Yellow light has a frequency around 600nm. This is how we have defined "Yellow Light" so that everyone can understand what the term means. In order to prove that a canary is yellow, you must be able to do so within an established framework of referrence. (ie: So everyone can know what you are talking about and what your opinion is based on.) The established framework for discussing "colors", in this case, concerns the reflected light measured from your canary. In order to quantify the light being reflected, it has been measured in wavelengths. In this way, everyone knows that a wavelength of 600nm resides in the visible spectrum and humans traditionally see this light as "yellow." "Yellow" can be replicated for visual referrence at any time using a wavelength of 600nm. In order to prove to someone that a "canary is yellow", you would definitely be served by measuring the reflected light and showing it to reside within the wavelength of 600nm. Otherwise, you are just giving an unsubstantiated opinion based on possible flawed observation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

bobw · Apr 3, 2005

Since the Hoagland supporters blew off my question about why Hoagland rotated his images 20 degrees clockwise I thought I'd do an experiment. I made a simple test pattern and rotated it then magnified it in a Hoaglandesque manner. I see braids, rows of low buildings and 4 blue craters (probably full of water). Oh man, it's even got hexagons. They must have been embedded in the test pattern by aliens! My question was why anybody serious about their data would rotate it if they didn't need to? My opinion of it is ROTFLMAO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Apr 3, 2005

Yellow light has a frequency around 600nm Where does Ultra-yellow, and Infra-Yellow fall within the scheme of things, with respect to 600nm? Your statements are not definitively accurate.

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 3, 2005

Jatslo - Where does Ultra-yellow, and Infra-Yellow fall within the scheme of things, with respect to 600nm? Your statements are not definitively accurate. ....? Ultra-Yellow? Infra-Yellow? Are you describing colors that reside in the visible electromagnetic spectrum? If not, where do these wavelengths reside in the electromagnetc spectrum and how are they related to a discussion of visible light? 1) Define "Ultra-Yellow"and "Infra-Yellow"please. 2) Please explain why you say that my statements are "not definitively accurate." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

zenonmars · Apr 3, 2005

Stevehw33, You said to Max, "Your basic problem is that you have NO realistic idea of what is going on and then make silly claims based upon your total lack of knowledge about Egypt, as you show, time & again. A first year archeology student knows more about Egypt than do you, and most of the rest of the sciences, very likely." Geez, that is a mean thing to say, but I guess you call em like you see em. You then further say, "I have been in Egypt. I have seen these things for Myself, and the methods are quite credible and realistic ways of doing things. Clearly the education system has failed you. But that does not make the Egyptians anything more than very good at building and in the organization of labor. Which, they very clearly were." Clearly. Roughly 6 million TONS of stone sitting atop 14 square acres, would require a bit of organization! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> And I am sure you know more about such things than a construction engineer like Robert Bauvall, his work with that other "charlatan" Graham Hancock nothwithstanding. So it is with true humility, (knowing that I am idiot lay man who usually defers to experts like yourself) that I ask for your help in explaining this: http://www.coralcastle.com/home.asp My education also failed ME, because I see millions of 'slaves' laying so many blocks with such precision, some in excess of 200 tons, when simple 2 ton blocks would have worked just fine, as the Romans proved, IS ONE THING, but a scrawny Latvian doing this by himself in the dead of night IS ANOTHER THING. Thanks in advance. Sorry to Calli for responding to a post as off-topic as this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 3, 2005

Fair enough, but let's all try to make that the last post about Egyptology in this thread, okay? If folks want to discuss Egyptology (which is an intensely fascinating subject), I recommend starting a thread in Free Space. I may have to start deleting off-topic posts in order to keep this discussion civil, and I'd rather not do that. I will if I have to, though. EDIT: same goes for posts about Mars, by the way. <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>

JonClarke · Apr 3, 2005

Gene Your our recent post was most enlightening. It appears your main reason for believing in the artificiality of Iapetus is your a world picture of "so called" oil shortages, hidden higher technologies, and extraterrestrial folks coming here and not in the actual data from Iapetus. In this case I suspect there is nothing that can be extracted from those data which will change your mind. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

maxtheknife · Apr 3, 2005

/* offtopic post on Egyptology deleted */

najab · Apr 3, 2005

/* offtopic post on Egyptology deleted */

najab · Apr 3, 2005

>Has anyone offered a plausible explanation yet for this?Plausible to most scientifically minded, thinking people capable of rational, non-delusional thought? Yes, several. Plausible to you? I guess not.

spacechump · Apr 3, 2005

"Bring scientific fairness and ethics back to the space program. " Then I suggest you never speak for the space program. That ought to do it. "So please don't trivialise this stuff or try to disassociate all the other evidence from Iapetus. It's all connected, it's just a messy lookin' puzzle right now." Taking every unknown out there, on earth or otherwise, and mashing it into a horrible, jumbled mess of a "theory" isn't progress. It's a slap in the face to every person out there that is or has gotten us to where we are now. You just add ignorance and confusion to a generation that's already too stupid to not know the order of the planets and believes crystals heal. "Has anyone offered a plausible explanation yet for this? " Yeah, deposited ring materal from a large impact. Much easier to do with its small size and lack of atmosphere.

telfrow · Apr 3, 2005

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. Gene: Thanks for attempting to provide an explanation to a question that Max has been dodging for God knows how many pages of posts. But let me make sure I have this straight. In Hoagland's version of math, you're stating 360 can be represented by .36, 3.6, 36, 3600, 36,000, etc., and 19.5 can be represented by 0.195, 1.95, 195, 1950, 19,500, etc.? (I assume the same thing goes for 33.) I appreciate the explanation, but I find it highly disturbing any one can accept the premise critical values can "represented" by other numbers; critical values can be "rounded"; that you can multiply radii by inclination and produce a diameter in miles; or multiply radii by the number of faces on a C60 Fullerne and come up with degrees. With all due respect, Gene, that's not math - it's not even good numerology. <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>

telfrow · Apr 3, 2005

Max to Steve: You've not contributed one original thought so far. Let us know when you get one. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who appreciates the irony in that statement. <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 · Apr 4, 2005

Do you feel that a civilization more advanced than we are now will not develope the technology that we now have in it's infant stage any further?

geneftw · Apr 4, 2005

You have misinterpreted my answer, and you know you have. I can't find the question, now (Was it edited out?), but it was something to the effect of "Why do you look for artificiality everywhere?"...Not, "Why do you believe Iapetus is artificial?". Why are you finding the need to start twisting wurds? Are you going to start using mispelled werds as evidense that an argyumint is week? I hope not. I've held you in higher esteam then that.

geneftw · Apr 4, 2005

No, it's not math (in the way you mean), it's a message. (That's the premise, anyway.)

geos · Apr 4, 2005

I brought up all of your concerns about "messing up" the mission to Mr. Hoagland: me: It's going to take some fancy flyin' Celestial Mechanics version of : Oscar Night Super Bowl Space Olympics RCH:Geo, Actually not. Navigating the (severely communciations crippled) Galileo spacecraft through the much greater gravity field of Jupiter, the high radiation of its far flung magnetospheric environment, plus the constantly MOVING and conflicting gravity wells of its FOUR major planet-sized moons ... all without making a fatal mistake and KILLING the spacecraft ... was MUCH tougher. And JPL pulled THAT one off ... without a hitch. Again, whoever says this is hard to calculate -- getting Cassini out to Iapetus again, using Titan -- or, particularly difficult to pull off (with fuel enough onboard for TEN YEARS!), is "snowing" you ... probably, because they DON'T WANT TO GO BACK!! They're afraid of what they'll REALLY find out! RCH

geneftw · Apr 4, 2005

There are some polygons that clearly are not regular. There are also polygons that very well may be. It is difficult to know where to draw lines from to accurately depict a shape. )It's also to accurately put that line where you intend.) There are many right angles, squares, & such. It has the appearance of artificiality. Artificiality can't be proven from these images, nor can natural processes. But, I think it looks a lot more artificial than it does natural.

geos · Apr 4, 2005

/* offtopic post on Egyptology and current politics deleted */

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 4, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I brought up all of your concerns about "messing up" the mission to Mr. Hoagland: me: It's going to take some fancy flyin' Celestial Mechanics version of : Oscar Night Super Bowl Space Olympics RCH:Geo, Actually not. Navigating the (severely communciations crippled) Galileo spacecraft through the much greater gravity field of Jupiter, the high radiation of its far flung magnetospheric environment, plus the constantly MOVING and conflicting gravity wells of its FOUR major planet-sized moons ... all without making a fatal mistake and KILLING the spacecraft ... was MUCH tougher. And JPL pulled THAT one off ... without a hitch. Again, whoever says this is hard to calculate -- getting Cassini out to Iapetus again, using Titan -- or, particularly difficult to pull off (with fuel enough onboard for TEN YEARS!), is "snowing" you ... probably, because they DON'T WANT TO GO BACK!! They're afraid of what they'll REALLY find out! RCH <hr /></blockquote> Ask him to describe, in detail, the exact steps needed to get "out to Iapetus again." Please have him list, exactly, how this is to be accomplished and how this will effect the craft's ability to fulfill it's original mission profile. There are many posters on the board familiar with the navigational intricacies. Please, tell him to spare no technical details in his response. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Apr 4, 2005

stevewh33 - No one could possibly take that spew seriously. I don't. However, I am curious as to what "Ultra-Yellow" and "Infra-Yellow" are. Somehow, for some reason, I don't think I'm going to get an answer to those questions. I wonder why? I'd offer "interpretations" but... I'd rather see what Jatslo's definitions are. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

jatslo

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

bobw

Guest

jatslo

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

spacechump

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geos

Guest

geneftw

Guest

geos

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page