Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

[telfrow]

Pressure ridge, Europa. <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>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">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.” </font><br /><br />But this thread is about <b><i>artifical constructs</i></b>. So, technically, a discussion on natural possibilities is taking this thread off-topic. Sorry telfrow, that's how this thread was titled.<br /><br />So I will offer discussion points, about the artificial constructs that form the ridge around the equator of Iapetus. Since it is extremely improbable that any of my discussion points are correct, we can eliminate the artificiality first.<br /><br />The "belt" is formed by a collapsed space elevator.<br /><br />The "belt" is remnant of an ancient particle accelerator instrument.<br /><br />The "belt" is a remnant of an alien Ferris wheel ride of sorts, to be used by tourists to watch the Saturnian vistas.<br /><br />The "belt" is a circular-shaped "linear" accelerator track, used to fire blocks of flavored Iapetian ices to alien cargo vessels orbiting Saturn.<br /><br />The "belt" is a Hadrian Wall, constructed to keep the Scottish barbarian tribes who lived in North Iapetus from invading the civilized Roman Iapetians living in the south.<br /><br />The "belt" was formed by a millenium long snowball fight between the North Iapetian High Schoolers and the South Iapetian High Schoolers.<br /><br />The "belt" was constructed by space alien perfectionists in order to tighten the equatorial region to minimize the fat waistline which had begun to display a pronounced equatorial bulge.<br /><br />The "belt" was constructed to create a perfect volcanic foothill region in order to moderate the climate and bring in the prevailing westerly rains, to grow the best grapes possible for the Saturnian wine industry.<br /><br />Sorry telfrow, hee hee, I couldn't resist, I know I can be really stupid. We now can go back to <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, in the context of possible artificial ruins....29 years. Ok?<br /><br />No evidence? Where's the evidence to support a culture who doesn't have the wheel being able to assemble 100 ton blocks in a meaningful way?<br /><br />With regards to Telfrow's request about sticking to the topic. It's easy to dismiss the anomalies seen on Iapetus, by themselves, out of context. I contend that you are disassociating the overwhelming body of evidence.<br /><br />To say there is no evidence is ignorant. Period. To say there is no meaningful geometry at the potential sites Hoagland points out throughout the solar systems is false. I will give you debatable, though.<br /><br />If you were in NASA's shoes, wouldn't it be prudent to ask maybe an ARTIST about the face? How about an archeologist about Cydonia? Plait and Greenberg are niether. Niether of these guys even try to reproduce RCH's findings. They rely on assumption and random statistics in a feeble attempt to dismiss the facts that RCH lays out.<br /><br />Last I checked there is no existing field for Extra Terrestrial Archology. In light of Carlotto's paper, Mcdaniel's report, etc....WHY NOT?<br /><br />BTW, Carlotto is peer reviewed (applied optics, late 80's) and showed conclusively that the Face is NOT a trick of light and shadow. In fact it is the least fractal object in the area, second only to the mighty D&M.<br /><br />Acknowledge your theories for what they are. Theories. Nothing more. You force Hoagland to do so, why don't you hold yourselves to the same standard?<br /><br />Bravo, Gene!

 

[JonClarke]

Zen <br /><br />Lewis papers are:<br /><br />1. Lewis, J. S. 1971. "Satellites of the Outer Planets: thermal models." Science v 172 #3988, pp 1127-28. This paper briefly proposes a thermal model "for the large satellites of the outer planets strongly indicate that their interiors are maintained about the ice-ammonia eutectic.." This is physics speak for liquid. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Callisto is used as an example but the model could be applied to all the larger out planet icy moons. I copied this paper today. Some other references:<br /><br />2. Lewis, J. F. 1971. "Satellites of the Outer<br />Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature." Icarus v 15 (pages unknown)<br /><br />3. Consolmagno G. J. and Lewis, J. S. 1976 "Preliminary Thermal History Models of Icy Satellites." In Burns, J. A. (ed.) Planetary Satellites. IAU.<br /><br />I don't have these to hand but can probably get them from the university if people really need to prove they exist.<br /><br />There are quite a few other preference in the 70's to the possibility of oceans on the Gallilean satellites, which i can look up if need be.<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>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">With regards to Telfrow's request about sticking to the topic. It's easy to dismiss the anomalies seen on Iapetus, by themselves, out of context. I contend that you are disassociating the overwhelming body of evidence.</font><br /><br />Contend all you like, Max. <br /><br />You’re just flat wrong. <br /><br />I’m not “dismissing” anything at this point. I’m only trying to focus the discussion on the topic of the thread: Iapetus. If you want to continue to discuss the “context” (all other topics), then you should, as has been suggested many times, <i><b>open another thread</b></i>. I’d be happy to join in the discussions.<br /><br />You’ve asked us, repeatedly, to refute the evidence (If you like, I can go back and copy all the requests.). We’ve tried to start discussions based on the evidence again and again and again. Those attempts have been side-tracked, derailed, and hijacked (by both sides, to be fair). I’ve simply tried to get the discussion back on track. <br /><br />Like it or not, the only way to refute the evidence that Iapteus is artificial is to discuss possible natural explanations. If those natural explanations fail, we’re left with a true “anomaly.”<br /><br />If you don’t want to participate, don’t. I really didn’t think you (or some of the other posters) would make any attempt to contribute. The parameters of this focused discussion take away your only ammunition (i.e., the link to Hoagland’s articles). However, if you do <i><b>truly</b></i> think for yourself (as you have contended), formulate your own opinions and do your own research, then please, join in. Let’s discuss it.<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>

 

[telfrow]

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Acknowledge your theories for what they are. Theories. Nothing more. You force Hoagland to do so, why don't you hold yourselves to the same standard? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />We do, Maxtheknife. We do. There's no double standard from us. I don't think Hoagland feels th same way. Perhaps you are mature enough to realize that "ruins on Iapetus" is merely a hypothesis, but I don't think Hoagland is. Be that as it may, you have your theories about Iapetus and I have mine. I am not going to put my money on yours. I disagree that the evidence says what you think it is. You may dismiss that as "ignoring the evidence", but I'm not ignoring you. I have looked, I have carefully weighed the evidence, and my money is still on natural processes. I don't have a problem with you having a different opinion about it.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No evidence? Where's the evidence to support a culture who doesn't have the wheel being able to assemble 100 ton blocks in a meaningful way?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's it. I warned everybody to stay on-topic. I warned everybody not to discuss Egyptology. I deleted off-topic posts that were about Egyptology. I said I'd lock the thread if anybody digressed again. I think that's pretty fair warning. <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Telfrow.... Offer up an explanation for this....