Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"30 years not patient enough? "</font><br /><br />You've been waiting for Cassini to image Iapetus since before it existed? You're amazing. Why don't you just extend that back a bit and say you've been patiently waiting for Cassini (the spacecraft) to image the moon since Cassini (the astronomer) discovered it in 1671. Now *that's* patient. At that point you would have been waiting for over 330 years for this simple request.<br /><br />Let's all petition NASA to bump up the Iapetus close pass!! Patience like this should be rewarded.<br /><br />That's enough sarcasm for now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[5stone10]

Follow the money - Deep Throat once stated.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Where would you rather divert resources?</font><br /><br />Its not going to Hoagland - unless you count UFOFile made-for-TV drivel.<br /><br />So what's the lesson there ?

 

[centsworth_II]

I wish that NASA could send probes to take high resolution photos of every Hoagland "finding". In the case of the "artificial construct" on Iapetus, I predict the result would be similar to what happened with the famous "Face on Mars" . The more resolution in the images, the less artificial it would look. <br /><br />Its not that I'm against finding evidence of ETs in the solar system. My God, how exciting that would be! I am against charlatans, or weak-minded individuals who have succumed to their fantasies, trying to play on my wishes that such a discovery would occur. To ponder and speculate -- and investigate -- is one thing. To claim NASA is purposely hiding evidence of ETs that you know exists, is a shameful fraud. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">maxtheknife - Calli, I like you, but you're ignoring the mandate. </font><br /><br />No. She is justifying the mandate. The monumental effort of space exploration and discovery is not half-hazard. Resources are extremely limited. By requiring solid evidence before such resources are spent, we ensure that there will be future missions which may yield untold discoveries and mysteries. As of yet, no evidence presented for the artificial nature of the features of Iapetus has even passed the cursory muster of well informed posters on this board. Yet, some would expect us to divert a mission which involves the dedicated work of hundreds, if not thousands, of people on the basis of amatuerish interpretations of a few, fuzzy, photographs when such "evidence" can't even pass light scrutiny on a public forum?<br /><br />Every piece of RCH evidence has been met with either factual corrections to error, professional interpretation of raw data and the uncovering of spurious information and assumptions based on faulty math and reasoning. All of which, cast a shadow of severe doubt on the legitimacy of his ideas in this regard. At worst, all have clearly shown that the ideas presented in regards to Iapetus have no grounding in true "science." They are pure conjecture in an attempt to convince supporters that his cause is righteous. The "persecution" complex is being played to the masses in an effort to paint the picture of an oppressed genius.<br /><br />Yet, I see very few, if any, responses from RCH supporters to these factual posts uncovering the faults of "Iapetus Artificiality." All I have seen are response posts proclaming conspiracy, a lack of "open-mindedness" and referrences to ideas concerning aliens and humanity that are purely based on conjecture with a heavy dose of pure misinformation. If there is any conspiracy here, it is the conspiracy of RCH and his supporters, fighting with any spurious argument necessary in order to promote <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[zenonmars]

Hi Jon Clarke,<br />Even though I answered this back in part 1,<br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=175609&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=44&vc=1 (...2nd to last post on page 44...),<br />and even though I think you probably know my answer, I will "name one peer reviewed paper he has published". I think you know that "relevant", "formal", and "qualifications" is quite subjective. And I am sure you will retort that the Science Journal I quote below is not "relevant" or "formal" or "peer-reviewed". And I am quite sure that you do not care to read the bio information I posted at the link above. But perhaps the many "readers" of these threads (those who seldom or never post) might just do that, and in this spirit of fairness to you and all, I submit:<br /><br />Hoagland proposed that a planet-wide ocean still exists under the tens-of-miles-thick sulphur-tinged ice now completely covering Europa. Further that, in that extremely ancient ocean...Life may have once originated ...and currently might still exist ... "At the time, Hoagland's theory encountered overwhelming opposition from almost everyone at NASA, official and/or scientist ... except for two significant exceptions: inventor of the communications satellite, famed science and science fiction writer ("2001: A Space Odyssey"), Arthur C. Clark; and, Dr. Robert Jastrow -- one of the founders of NASA, and former Director of its Goddard Institute for Space Studies." <br />Clark further stated,<br />"The fascinating idea that there might be life on Europa, beneath ice-covered oceans kept liquid by the same Jovian tidal forces that heat Io, was first proposed by Richard C. Hoagland in the magazine Star & Sky ( The Europa Enigma,' January, 1980). This quite brilliant concept h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Oh God, here we go...the Squyres thing.<br /><br />Zen, this was covered, and covered extensively before the SDC "crash." I started the thread.<br /><br />A friendly piece of advice: if you don't know the whole story, I'd investigate it before you post that article. (See my posts in Part One and Part Two of this thread regarding Hoagland/Bara's treatment of Greenberg and Squyres.) <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Zen<br /><br />Words "relevant", "formal", and "qualifications" are not that subjective. "Relevant" means related to the subject at hand. A person may have a good publication record in history, for example, but this does not mean he or she can neccessarily comment on physics. "Formal" is a bit more nedbulous, not if I submit a paper to Journal of Geomorphology for review that is formal whereas everything I write here is very informal. "Qualifications" can be formal or informal, in the sense a person can have done the hard yards and actually studied a subject and been awarded relevant degrees or certificates from an acredited centre (not a degree mill or an up country college) or they can be informal, where someone has done the hard work and built up expertise in a field the hard way. Many amateur astronomers are highly skilled individuals who make major contributions in science but have no formal qualifications.<br /><br />I have every admiration and respect for A C Clarke, but on the matter of Hoagland's "discovery" of oceans on Europa he is quite wrong. John Lewis published papers in 1971 and 1976 on the possibility of an ocean on Europa. These papers have been widely cited and were written 4 and 9 years before Hoagland's article in a popular science magazine. Hoagland's claims to be the first to raise the possibility of life on Europa is similarly shakey. The idea was aorund for several years before Hoagland popularised it.<br /><br />I would echo Telfrow's advice and add to this - don't just parrot Hoagland, do your own independent research.<br /><br />Added in edit: Although supporters of the artificiality of iapetus seem to be basing their arguments on Hoagland's authority and discussion of actual knowledge of the subject is relevant, this discussion of Hoagland's "qualifications" is proving to be something of a diversion. Let's discuss Hoagland's utter lack of relevant expertise in a dedicated thread (why don't you start one) and stick to the point, which i <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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Now Jon, before you quote Phil Plaitt or Steve Squyres, please read this article by Visual Media Resources, Inc: </font><br /><br />Visual Media Resources? "Befor you quote Phil Plaitt or Steve Squyres.."? How about direct quotes from direct sources? How about direct quotes from people with authority? How about factual information regarding RCH's claims?<br /><br />His article was not the first to claim the possibility of water/life on Europa. The medal that he was presented has no relationship to the <b>real</b> Angstrom Medal given by Upssala. Any connection to the Angsrom Medal only awarded by the University has been denied by the Foundation. The Foundation's award has since been retracted as an "obvious error." He was <b>with</b> Eric Burgess when he met with Carl Sagan. Sagan himself said that, I quote, "Eric Burgess and Richard Hoagland did no more than suggest to me that a message be put aboard Pioneer 10 and 11. Frank Drake and I, with an assist from Linda Sagan [Carl's wife at the time, who prepared the artwork], did the design, and I was responsible for getting it through the NASA and White House approval process. . . . [Hoagland] did not contribute one bit of data towards the message design." - C.Sagan. Eric Burgess claims primary responsibility for conceiving the idea of a "message" and presenting that to Sagan.<br /><br />However, all of this would be moot if RCH presented scientifically valid information that Iapetus contains artificial constructs. However, that is not currently the case. Nobody is completely denying the possibililty. However, everyone is skeptical that anything which has been presented can be claimed to be good science.<br /><br />I don't want to get sidetracked on RCH's "qualifications." Let's stick to the primary subject at hand. Where is the factual evidence to account for this theory of artificiality. Belying that, where is the reasoning, based in good science, that there is even <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[telfrow]

BTW, if you'd like to start another thread concerning the Squyres plagarism charge, I'd be glad to participate. I still have all the documentation from the last one somewhere on one of my drives.<br /><br />If you'd like to see an example of what Hoagland, et. al., are capable of "in defense of their position," (which had no basis in fact, by the way) see:<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/orwell.htm <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>

 

[zenonmars]

Hi, Jon...thanks for your response. My Hoagland bio post in the 1st Iapetus segment did not garner even ONE response. <br />You said, "Many amateur astronomers are highly skilled individuals who make major contributions in science but have no formal qualifications." And how true this is. Just as many have also been scorned and ridiculed at their observations. Remember the Hale-Bopp "companion" flap? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />You said, further, "John Lewis published papers in 1971 and 1976 on the possibility of an ocean on Europa. These papers have been widely cited and were written 4 and 9 years before Hoagland's article in a popular science magazine" I am apt to believe you, but since you were so insistent on my info, might you, too, wish to supply our members here the name and date of this peer-reviewed document? If not, that's fine.<br />And then you said, "this discussion of Hoagland's "qualifications" is proving to be something of a diversion" Well, thank GOD for common ground! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> We certainly agree on that point. I was wondering why you insisted on having Richard's peer-reviewed resume. Why you insisted on this, close to a dozen times! "Diversion" or "distraction", whatever the word, it has become dejour in this "demon-haunted" thread! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />And if NASA provides us new images of Iapetus, as they did on January 1st, and "amatures" or others make observations about the bizarre annomalies seen therein, and postulate ANY reasoned theories about the origin of said strangeness, then it is our job as "space enthusiasts" to be enthused, I suppose. And we SHOULD "stick to the point" which is NOT "whether there is any evidence for artificiality in images of Iapetus", but in fact, is there enough ENTHUSIASM to INVESTIGATE this newest data and gather up even more data to confirm or deny the new hypothesis. Anybody see the RADAR taken of Iapetus on January 1st? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">"Diversion" or "distraction", whatever the word, it has become dejour in this "demon-haunted" thread!</font><br /><br />As I stated earlier in response to someone else, I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in that statement. <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]

<font color="yellow">The idea that Europa and other ice-covered bodies in our solar system might possess an ocean of liquid water under a crust of ice may have first been proposed by John S. Lewis in his paper Satellites of the Outer Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature (which appeared in Icarus, vol.15, 1971).</font><br /><br />http://people.msoe.edu/~tritt/sf/europa.life.html <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]

http://icarus.cornell.edu/<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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Zen writes, "And if NASA provides us new images of Iapetus, as they did on January 1st, and "amatures" or others make observations about the bizarre annomalies seen therein, and postulate ANY reasoned theories about the origin of said strangeness, then it is our job as "space enthusiasts" to be enthused, I suppose. And we SHOULD "stick to the point" which is NOT "whether there is any evidence for artificiality in images of Iapetus", but in fact, is there enough ENTHUSIASM to INVESTIGATE this newest data and gather up even more data to confirm or deny the new hypothesis. Anybody see the RADAR taken of Iapetus on January 1st? "<br /><br />That has got to be the most articulate and well thought out paragraph yet written in this entire convoluted thread. Thank you, Zen.<br /><br />Theknife sings "People hearing without listening, people writing songs, that voices never share. And no one dare....disturb the sound of silence."<br /><br />"we don't know a millionth of a percent about anything" -Thomas Edison<br /><br />Since when is speculation about anomalous data fraud or a lie?<br /><br />Are you all clickin' on this link?<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science<br /><br />Steve, what do you think this is? Jatslo offered a reasonable thought. What's yours? <br /><br />I think it may be artificial. I've cited many other anomalous features around our solar system that lend credence to my theory.<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

I was taught when I was growing up to ALWAYS question authority.<br /><br />BTW Steve, if you're gonna quote me, quote me. Don't paraphrase and put words in my mouth. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Thanx.

 

[telfrow]

I decided to add this, just in case you didn't investigate the link:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Peer review is an essential aspect of publication in Icarus. The fundamental role of the reviewer is to provide advice to the Editor or Assistant Editors on the virtues, or lack thereof, of a manuscript submitted for publication. Typically it is the reviewers who will have the most direct and expert knowledge of the field addressed by the manuscript, so that the reviewer's advice is critical to the Editor's decision, not only in evaluating whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication but also in helping to make the manuscript as useful as possible to Icarus readers. <br />Matters that you might wish to address in your review of the manuscript include its scientific correctness and its originality, coverage of the relevant literature, its pertinence and significance to studies of our solar system or related investigations, as well as its conciseness. On all these issues, general impressions of the paper as well as specific advice to the author(s) will be helpful. On the question of the paper's brevity, suggestions as to particular sections that might be reduced or even eliminated would be most useful. Details on these and other useful aspects of your review are provided below.</font><br /><br /><br /><br />http://icarus.cornell.edu/information/reviewers.html <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Lost, did you read my little sermon? Resources don't have to be scarce.<br /><br />I'm not flailing....Steve flailed....I definitely haven't flailed,,, yet. Believe me, you will all know when I start to flail. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Don't worry, Calli....I've been practicing my patience over the years,,,,can't ya tell? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Counter productive insofar as generating enthusiasm for discovery, exploration, growth, etc.<br /><br />I already commented on your notion of speculation and lies. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[zenonmars]

Thank-you, a_lost_packet, for your comments.<br /><br />You said, "However, all of this would be moot if RCH presented scientifically valid information that Iapetus contains artificial constructs. However, that is not currently the case. Nobody is completely denying the possibililty." <br />Really?! Are you READING these posts? And if that is the case, if there is even a MINISCULE chance of artificiality, then wouldn't it behoove us to re-image this wonderful moon? To analyze the radar pings that JPL said it took on January 1st?<br /><br />You said, "I don't want to get sidetracked on RCH's "qualifications." Let's stick to the primary subject at hand. Where is the factual evidence to account for this theory of artificiality. Belying that, where is the reasoning, based in good science, that there is even a good likelihood that any of Iapetus' features are artificial?" <br />The only "factual evidense" any of us have are the 12/31/05 images that NASA gave us. Beyond that, the only other "evidence" available to us is the radar NASA took and has not released yet. Everything else is just "reasoned" speculation. Observing these images and concluding "natural" is no more "based in good science" than conclusions of "artificiality". They are simply prejudiced observations.<br /><br />And you finally concluded, "I am not browbeating you. I am trying desperately to communicate to you that RCH's ideas about the artificiality of features on Iapetus are not based on factual information nor are they even based on astute conjecture...Instead of posting RCH's "qualifications" why don't you post a response to any one of several, good, posts which shed doubt on RCH's ideas? (I realize your post was in response to an inquiry concerning RCH's "qualifications." However, as that can be hotly debated in a thread all it's own, perhaps sticking to analyzing his ideas would be more in order in this thread.)<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Brow beat me all you wish!! Life does <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Thought problem:<br /><br />Seriously...<br /><br /><begin thought problem /><br /><br />I postulate that Iapetus is completely formed of cheese. <br /><br />In doing so, I furnish pictures that have lines and circles drawn on them that look like the pattern of a surface of a particularly large piece of swiss cheese. I then furnish equations which are extreme estimates of actual measuremets. These equations roughly match the dimensions of popular cheese wheels if they are multiplied by a few orders of magnitude.<br /><br />I then surmise that our solar system contained a herd of ancient, spacefaring mammals. Who, in turn, produced the milk which curdled in the heat of the sun. Later, the massive blob migrated to it's present orbit and condensed under it's own gravity to form Iapetus.<br /><br />I then proudly proclaim that Iapetus is made of cheese and NASA is refusing to investigate further because they do not wish to feed the hungry people of the world. I also claim I am a persecuted researcher who is only attempting to spread the truth about NASA and their selfish behavior towards this culinary boon from space. <br /><br />Since I have my own website with a following of like-minded individuals, I link this page and give referrences so that it all fits nicely with my overall theme of "Space is Filled With Cheese! Dark Matter=Cheese! Blackholes=Cheese! Dark Energy=Cheese Gas!"<br /><br /><end thought problem /><br /><br />There isn't much difference between the thought problem above and RCH's claims regarding Iapetus. Given the time and motivation, I could produce the same evidence that RCH has produced except my conclusion would be... cheese.<br /><br />Find the areas in RCH's theory in which the explanation of "Cheese" doesn't fit, and you may start seeing the truth behind the theory. I kid you not. Try it and see what you think.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">ZenOnMars - Really?! Are you READING these posts? And if that is the case, if there is even a MINISCULE ch</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was taught when I was growing up to ALWAYS question authority. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />An excellent thing to do. And surely you know that goes both ways? That is, you can also be questioned.<br /><br />You present Hoagland as a sort of authority. Can we not question him? Where is his evidence?<br /><br />BTW, when I asked you to patient for Cassini to make a pass close enough to Iapetus for the resulting radar data to even be useful to your effort to test whether it is artificial, you said something rather surprising. You said that you'd already waited 30 years. You've been expecting Iapetus to be artificial for thirty years? Wow. It's rare that I see someone make such an enormous assumption about an extraterrestrial body with less evidence than that. After all, thirty years ago, there weren't *any* images of Iapetus as anything other than a point in an Earth-based telescope's view.<br /><br />And you call NASA biased?<br /><br />I doubt that's what you meant. Perhaps you meant it <i>felt</i> like thirty years. If so, I can sympathize. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The trick, I find is to distract oneself with other things. The MERs provide a wonderful distraction. Or perhaps you meant you've been waiting that long to study Iapetus at all; presumably your interest was awakened from the book "2001" (in which fictional aliens used Iapetus to house a piece of advanced technology) or from reading about the Saturn system elsewhere and learning about its curious coloration. (The coloration had been deduced long ago.)<br /><br />But I think I need to explain myself better. Obviously you misunderstood what I meant when you needed to be patient. You feel thirty years is excessive; well don't worry, I'm not asking you to wait that long. I'm only asking you to wait until 2007. Two years. Surely you can manage that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[geneftw]

(Paraphrased): “Why do you accept polygonal craters as evidence of artificiality?”<br />Everywhere else that we’ve seen in the solar system, planets and moons are covered with round craters. Most of the polygonal craters are very irregular. Iapetus has an over abundance of polygonal craters, very many of which are very close to regular. What are the odds of that?<br /><br />“… 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.”<br /><br />First, you asked me to draw lines around the polygon. I did. Then you draw circles around polygons and ask me to show you that I can draw polygons around them that match the craters better than your circles. I did. NOW THIS??!!<br />1. You keep raising the bar. (Neat trick!)<br />2. We both know that finding exact places from which to draw line segments on this image can’t be done. (Neat trick!)<br />3. “…the right angle intersections are the result of intersecting lineras the population of which does considerable variation.” You’ve slyly injected your opinion as fact. (Neat trick!)<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 />I did not change my story. However, I id insert an incorrect phrase “if it exists.” Zen posted something about the Tidal Model before I came back to the computer. (Thank you, Zen. That’s a time saver!) <br />You stated there is no other evidence supporting the exploded planet theory.<br />http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp<</safety_wrapper>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I think it may be artificial. I've cited many other anomalous features around our solar system that lend credence to my theory."</font><br /><br />I think it's a HeeChee ship. Iapetus is a Gateway. It's probably a armored Three or armorless Five. The bright larger spot on the right is definetly a Fiver, dimmer on the left may be armorless Three or, if someone is feeling really lucky, even armored One. Anyway, those are definitely HeeChee ships.

 

[geos]

That's right. He only accuses NASA of screwing with the images. Data dropouts and blackened out areas are OK. It's only the stupid taxpayers business.

 

[geos]

The trolls seem to think never talking about The Saturn System - just endless droning about Nasa Office Politics in regard to people "slighted" aeons ago. Calli - "Titan has a thick atmosphere. If I had any ideas about what the heck it is I will try to make it look like RCH ruined planetary science"

 

[telfrow]

In a desperate attempt to get this thread back on topic, how about this?<br /><br />Proposed: an actual discussion of the features seen on Iapetus. <br /><br />The premise: to paraphrase jatslo, who paraphrases Sherlock Holmes in his sig line, “When we have eliminated all the natural possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable (i.e., artificiality), must be the truth.”<br /><br />Suggestions: no trolling, no flame wars, no deflection, no avoidance and no misdirection. Just an intellegent discussion of the features of Iapteus.<br /><br />Discussion points:<br /><br />Since Iapteus’ density indicates it is made of predominately water ice, the “belt” is some form of pressure ridge. (Here’s an enlarged photo of a section of the ridge from Hoagland’s site. I’ll post a close up of a pressure ridge from Europa later for reference.)<br /><br />The “belt” was formed when water ice oozed through a crack on the surface of Iapteus.<br /><br />The “belt” is a mountain range.<br /><br />The “belt” was formed by a when a ring or accretion disk collapsed and slowly impacted the icy surface.<br /><br />Given the inclination of Iapteus’ orbit, it is a captured Oort cloud object.<br /><br />The strange shape of Iapetus is the result of the coalescence of two or more ice bodies in the Oort cloud. This may also account for the ridge, as well as the appearance of apparently “straight lines” on the horizon.<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>