Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

[geneftw]

"Does my estimation of your motivations and the consequences of same seem plausible to you given the content of the post which I quoted?"<br /><br />Not quite. Your first paragraph is OK, but your second one is not. If I believe there is a good possibility that something is artificial, I would want it proven if it is indeed artificial. If it turns out that it is not, then I would like it to be known that the issue is at least being taken seriously. I sincerely believe that there is such a possibility of artificiality on Iaprtus (and certainly on Mars).<br /><br />I absolutely would not want to see evidence of artificiality made up out of the blue. That would discredit real evidence.<br /><br />I have an "If" prediction: If mainstream science starts publicly taking a more serious look, you can expect to see BS evidence coming from everywhere. It's called "disinformation." <br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">geneftw - If I believe there is a good possibility that something is artificial, I would want it proven if it is indeed artificial. If it turns out that it is not, then I would like it to be known that the issue is at least being taken seriously. I sincerely believe that there is such a possibility of artificiality on Iaprtus (and certainly on Mars). <br /><br />I absolutely would not want to see evidence of artificiality made up out of the blue. That would discredit real evidence. <br /><br />I have an "If" prediction: If mainstream science starts publicly taking a more serious look, you can expect to see BS evidence coming from everywhere. It's called "disinformation." </font><br /><br />I don't know anyone who would not take evidence of artificial constructions seriously. However, there is "evidence" and there is evidence. So far, the ridge appears to be the most unusual feature on Iapetus. However, just because it is unusual, does not mean that it is artificial.<br /><br />My prediction concerning an "IF" : If something unusual is discovered in space, there are usually alot of BS hypothesis that seem to be coming from every group with an agenda to promote concerning ETI. However, that doesn't make any of them true. "Volume" does not equate to "Validity."<br /><br />An unusual rock <b>could</b> be just an unusal rock. However, after ETI proponents get through putting a "spin" on it, it's turned into some unassailable golden calf that can't be criticized or scrutinized. To successfully do so would be to send the entire house of cards built upon the "unusual rock" tumbling into the waste basket.<br /><br />Understand, I am very interested in the possibilities of life on other worlds. I am even interested in discussing the possibilities for ET life in our solar system. I will go so far to say that I am also interested, but not convinced, in others ideas concerning ETI. So, to for your information, I don't take such subject matter light <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[geneftw]

I forgot to post the image above. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[petepan]

maybe Jatslo could give us the L*a*b*D65/10degrees readings for those Ultra yellow and Infra Yellow.<br /><br />Better still Jatslo, send us a link to a picture that has those colours and i can scan them for you.... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I have access to a spectrophotometer.....

 

[geneftw]

I also notice a remarkable degree of symetry in this section of...of...well, in this section.

 

[geneftw]

I looked for it. I couldn't find it. I've asked for help on that. In the mean time, I have a question: Looking closely at the magnified portions, doesn't it look like both of those "stars" are below the horizon in a night-time landscape? <br />I've mentioned in another thread about the faceted appearance in this image--that there are straight lines well lit, and that beyond those, there is terrain in the dark before you get to the horizon. (I don't remember my exact wording, but that's what I was describing.

 

[JonClarke]

Jatslo<br /><br />Mathematical folding of triangles into hexagons is utterly irrelevant to the crystallography of calcite. Calcite is an rhombohederal mineral, a divsion of the hexagonal system. Calcite shows great diversity in morphology, over 300 forms being known. However, all are variants of scaleneohera, hexagonal prisms, and rhombohedra. It does not form square pyramids, it does not show tetrahedral symmetry. Nor is a square pyramid tetrahedral. <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 />You are changing your story. First you said that Hoagland predicted that water would be found on Mars. Now that I have shown that this erroneous you now say that its distribution was predicted by his tidal theory. However, water distribution is much better predicted by simple thermal balance of the martian surface, without recourse to exploding planets for which no otrher evidence exists.<br /><br />Hoagland did not write the McDaniel's report, so it does not count as a publication by him. Even if he did contribute to it, it was not peer reviewed. However we digress. if you want to discuss Mars, start another thread.<br /><br />Back on Iapetus, yes, you do have to draw lines on stuff that stands out like a sore thumb. Because it does not. You have argued that the regularity of features is evidence of artificiality. You have shown that the pentegons are not regular, I have shown that the octagon is not regular. You have to do better than this, so do aan alysis and I will check.<br /><br />So far the the only basis you have for artificiality is the authority of RCH and because it fits in with your grand unified conspiracy theories about oil, hidden technology, and visiting aliens. This is not an evidence-based argument. <br /><br />Jon<br /><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]

Jatslo<br /><br />Images showing a polygonal aspect to Pythagoras have been given by others in part one of this thread. The square outline of Meteor crater, is clearly evident in this image http://www.solarviews.com/raw/earth/meteor.jpg .<br /><br />The statement about RCH's research is simple, he is being used as an authority in this exchange, I am trying to establish the nature of his authority. Therefore it is a legitimate question, as authority is demonstrated by performance - actual documented, communicated independently verified discoveries, hence peer review publication.<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 />I may have misunderstood your case, but my understanding that you think that Iapetus is artifical. since you are a great fan of RCH, it seems reasonable that you accept his ideas that an eroded mesa on Mars are actually giant face, etc. If this is not the case, by apologies. If it is the case, then it is a fair enough question.<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 />We progress. We both recognise that there are possible irregular polygons. We both recognise that polygonal outlines to terrestrial and lunar craters are are most likely due to post formational modification by slumping.<br /><br />So there are three issues. The first is why you accept that polygonality can arise from natural processes on the earth and moon, but on Iapetus it is evidence that is artificial. You have yet to asnwer this question, I have asked it before.<br /><br />The second is that you say that there are polygons that may very well be regular. Well, show us polygonal features which are regular to within 1% that is to less than 1 mm in a feature 10 cm across. Do the work, don't just apeal to RCH or to GUCS (grand unified conspiracy theories).<br /><br />The third is that you state that artificiality can't be proven from these images, nor can natural processes. Technically correct, but science does not work like that, it works from induction. You base your claim of artificiality on the abudance of regular features, polygons and right angle insections. So far all the measured polygons are irregular and the right angle intersections are the result of intersecting lineras the population of which does considerable variation. Conversely this fracture pattern, the crude nature of the polgons is entirely consistent with a surface shaped by impact cratering. The simplest, most probable answer on the evidence presented so far is that is what we are seeing, an impact cratered surface. <br /><br />Jon<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]

And while they are at it I hope RCH says how much dV all these orbital changes will cost and where it will come from! Hyperdimensional energy won't count.....<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]

I think the pattern of this exchange is very clear. The supporters of RCH not focussed on meaningful scientific evidence that Iapetus is artificial. However, we have seen a lot of stuff about palaeotechnic human civilisations, faces on Mars, disequilibrium in the atmospheres of Venus and Titan, ancient Egypt, tetrahedral square pyramids that are models of rhombohedral calcite crystals, RCH's stupendous discoveries, grand unified conspiracy theories involving aliens, hidden technology, the oil price.... <br /><br />This looks like patent attempts to change the subject by confusing the issue, despite repeated firm and courteous requests my many (including the long-suffering Calli) that people start new threads if they wish to discuss these matters. <br /><br />So guys, stick to the point. What evidence have you got that Iapetus is artificial?<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>

 

[thechemist]

<font color="yellow">the packet - I am curious as to what "Ultra-Yellow" and "Infra-Yellow" are.</font><br /><br />Clearly, ultra-yellow is <font color="green"> green </font> while infra-yellow is <font color="orange"> orange </font><br /><br />That means that <font color="yellow">yellow</font>is actually ultra-orange and infra-green at the same time !! <br />See how easy it was ? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Thank you, TheChemist. I propose green could become "eka-yellow", if we fold the light spectrum into a Mendeleevian-style table. Yes, a periodic table of the colors - the Hoagalites will love it! <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This looks like patent attempts to change the subject by confusing the issue, despite repeated firm and courteous requests my many (including the long-suffering Calli) that people start new threads if they wish to discuss these matters.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I suspect you are correct, JonClarke.<br /><br />Folks, I've just deleted a number of posts which primarily (and in most cases exclusively) discussed Egyptology. And that was AFTER my warning to stay on topic, which was itself a repeat of a warning in the very first post in this "Part Two" of the thread.<br /><br />This is my last warning.<br /><br /><b>Stay ontopic, or this thread will be locked.</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[emho]

"Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two"<br /><br />I still fail to see how both sides of this 'argument' can be so heated, based off fuzzy, crummy pictures.<br /><br />"Wow these pictures sure are pretty, Iapetus sure is strange, but in order to make any statements and judgements about landforms, we'll have to wait for better data."<br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Simple, Emho. One of the mandates for the exploration of space was to search for life. Not limited to any sort of preconcieved notion thereof, i.e., extant, extinct, intelligent, microbial. To ignore possible ruins on the Moon, Mars, Iapetus, etc. is simply irresponsible. You all should be fired up and pissed off that NASA killed the dream with one simple and erroneous statement. "It's just a trick of light and shadow."<br /><br />NASA is supposed to be unbiased and fair as are all of us.<br /><br />I could care less at this point who believes what. The proof is in the DOING not debating. You all have theories for naturality. We've got evidence and theories to the contrary.<br /><br />I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on us. However the burden of responsibilty and fairness rests squarely on NASA's shoulders to test all theories as they apply to the mandate of searching for life.<br /><br />It is my contention that it isn't 'Hoaglandites' that are infiltrating your board, but the truth. Disassociating the evidence or trivialising it will not make it go away.<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fact<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

 

[centsworth_II]

Its hard to tell where the "serious" discussion ends and the satire begins in this thread. If laughter is the best medicine, jatslo's query about infrayellow and ultrayellow was a fine tonic. Truly original thinking. And geneftw's hieroglyphs and geometrical representations, overlayed on the indistinct, blurred, background of (Iapetus' surface?). Is this an attempt to satirize jonclarke's similar, linear depictions. Or is the reverse the case? Who's pulling legs and who hasn't a leg to stand on? I await further instalments with relish, not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">Its hard to tell where the "serious" discussion ends and the satire begins in this thread.</font><br /><br />I'll be glad to point out examples of both ! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />SATIRE:<br />"To ignore possible ruins on the Moon, Mars, Iapetus, etc. is simply irresponsible ... I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.<br /><br />Maxtheknife"<br /><br /><br />SERIOUS:<br />"...water distribution is much better predicted by simple thermal balance of the martian surface, without recourse to exploding planets for which no otrher evidence exists. <br /><br />JonClarke"<br />

 

[silylene old]

CentsworthII asked: <font color="yellow">Who's pulling legs and who hasn't a leg to stand on? I await further instalments with relish, not. </font><br /><br />In the "Suggestions" forum in a thread titled "Obsessive Artifical Constructs Disorder", Jatslo asked me this:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Artificial structures on extraterrestrial planetary bodies are astronomical scientific extrapolations of the minority, and simply holding hands with the majority will not guarantee that you will win a debate. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. <br /></font><br />In response to CentsworthII's request, and jatslo's challenge, I offer this hypothesis to explain the origin of the "artifical construct ridge" around the equator of Iapetus. I first proposed this idea (tongue in cheek) on a different thread when the Iapetus pictures first got posted. So, if you subsequently observe the RGH stealing this creative idea (like he took Fossils' speculations on Martian rocks which looked like crinoids and molluscs), you will know where this idea originated. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To ignore possible ruins on the Moon, Mars, Iapetus, etc. is simply irresponsible.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If it is certain those ruins exist, yes, it would be irresponsible to ignore them.<br /><br />But when there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist (no, something that doesn't look like something you're familiar with in your everyday existence doesn't count as a "possible ruin"), then what is irresponsible is diverting efforts from other searches.<br /><br />Remember, NASA's resources are finite. Cassini has many things to explore, not just Iapetus. Concentrating efforts on Iapetus means taking resources away from other things.<br /><br />You want to know what's scientifically irresponsible?<br /><br />* diverting incredibly scarce resources from broad study on the basis of one person's unsubstantiated hunch<br /><br />* rejecting the likely hypotheses for which there is evidence in favor of unlikely hypotheses for which there is little to no evidence.<br /><br />* berating people for not accepting your theory while at the same time disregarding any possibility that their theories might be valid (which is what Hoagland does; anybody with a purely natural hypothesis for these formations is branded part of the conspiracy to silence him)<br /><br />Think about it, Maxtheknife. All we know right now is that Iapetus is weird. It is far from the only weird thing in the solar system. In fact, it is far from the only weird thing orbiting Saturn. That it is weird is no reason to divert resources away from all of the other things that need studying. If NASA does what you want, that means they will not be able to study the other moons as well. Saturn only has one very large moon: Titan. The Cassini team does not have the luxury of four large moons that the Galileo team had. It is far more complicated to redirect Cassini than it was Galileo (and even with Galileo, it was nothing to undertake lightly; the alterat <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[5stone10]

Humph !!<br /><br />With a gravity of 2% of Earth - Why would anyone even need a space elevator ??!!

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">With a gravity of 2% of Earth - Why would anyone even need a space elevator ??!! </font><br /><br />The gravity well is rather steep as one approaches Saturn. *snort* <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Calli, I like you, but you're ignoring the mandate. <br /><br />Who's berating who? Come on, be fair. Have I called anyone here any names? Only Hawass, and I even apologized.<br /><br />30 years not patient enough?<br /><br />With all due respect, I don't think you're being realistic or fair to the question.<br /><br />Where would you rather divert resources? More war or discovery? The question has the power to bring us all together regardless of what you believe. The theory is testable. <br /><br />Who cares about the conspiracy? Who cares about the results? It's no wonder people believe there is conspiracy when faced with attitudes like those expressed on this board. If indeed there is one, the conspiracy will take care of itself in the DOING.<br /><br />We have the tools, we have the talent, let's go. You want more money for NASA? Start talking up the anomalies. Get people interested. Anomalies abound. Therein lies NASA's success.<br /><br />I've never seen so much counterproductivity in my life as I've seen over the past couple of weeks on this thread.<br /><br />That's enough lecturing for now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />