It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iapetus="manufactured spaceship"

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
hoagland has really dissected this story and provided quite a bit of info and the evidence is highly unusual here are a few pics that uses to prove his theory-which includes the moon being a geodesic construct with anomalous crate alignments and geodesic forms as well as anomalous structures AND an equatorial wall -its uncanny ressemblance to vaders "death star" is remarkable-the article is a must read -check it out -
www.enterprisemission.com...
************************************************************







posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Hoaglund is only trying to sell more books, the sooner you realize that the better. I agree Iapetus is an interesting place but I looked at the photos and I see no evidance to suggest it is anything but an unusal natural moon. If however we go there and find artefacts then that is a different story.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Hoaglund is only trying to sell more books, the sooner you realize that the better. I agree Iapetus is an interesting place but I looked at the photos and I see no evidance to suggest it is anything but an unusal natural moon. If however we go there and find artefacts then that is a different story.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by sardion2000]

thats funny you dont have to be a member to read his updates --
this gives a new meaning to pink floyds "dark side of the moon"--more anolalous pics from hoaglands report-
*************************************************************



"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them … into the impossible."

-- Clarke’s Second Law



… the ship had long since passed the boundary set by outermost Phoebe, moving backward in a wildly eccentric orbit eight million miles from its primary. Ahead of it now lay Iapetus, Hyperion, Titan, Rhea, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus, Mimas, Janus – and the rings themselves. All the satellites showed a maze of surface detail … Titan alone – three thousand miles in diameter, and as large as Mercury – would occupy … months …



There was more; already he was certain that Iapetus was his goal.



… One hemisphere of the satellite, which, like its companions, turned the same face always toward Saturn, was extremely dark, and showed very little surface detail. In complete contrast, the other was dominated by a brilliant white oval, about four hundred miles long and two hundred wide. At the moment, only part of this striking formation was in daylight, but the reason for Iapetus’s extraordinary variations in brilliance was now quite obvious ….

*****************************************

In 1965, when Arthur began collaborating with the brilliant film director, Stanley Kubrick, it was to bring their unique view of Mankind’s most enduring mystery – “Where do we really come from …?” – to the silver screen, in a way never seen before. They succeeded ... brilliantly.



The result was the immortal “2001: A Space Odyssey.”



Simultaneously, Arthur penned the “Saturn approach” scene we began with (above), his own independent version of the same story -- a novel – which, to some at least, has made portions of Stanley’s very enigmatic “2001” perhaps a little more accessible (at least, certain “transcendental” aspects of the film …).

In Kubrick’s extravaganza, the climax comes when David Bowman -- the lone surviving astronaut of the deep space expedition, sent by a future “NASA” in search of the Force which, “godlike,” has somehow repeatedly intervened in “the million plus year evolution of Mankind …” – finally encounters the “Monolith” … a black enigmatic “door,” in orbit around the giant planet Jupiter.



The Monolith turns out to be (among its other wonders) a “star gate” – a literal doorway (which, of course, is why Kubrick cinematically made it a door …) to other dimensions of space and time … and, ultimately, the mysterious “Progenitors” of the Human Race itself.



When Bowman eventually falls through it, he enters the Star Gate’s vast Hyperdimensional transport system, culminating in his own ambiguous meeting with “the Progenitors” (or, at least as much of them as they allow him to experience …), which results in his final “transformation” and return to Earth … the latest agent in Humanities continuing “managed evolution.”



In Arthur’s novel (removed from the pre-CGI, 1960’s limitations on film “special effects” that even Stanley Kubrick had to live with …), the Monolith is waiting much farther from the Sun … on one of Saturn’s distant moons—



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but no. Hoagland's ideas are all half baked, at best. They're barely factual, and based solely off nothing. As sardion2000 said, he's just trying to sell more books.

Though 2001 and its following books are quite splendid books. You should read them. They're just books though, not the basis for a theory on anything.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I'm sorry, but no. Hoagland's ideas are all half baked, at best. They're barely factual, and based solely off nothing. As sardion2000 said, he's just trying to sell more books.

Though 2001 and its following books are quite splendid books. You should read them. They're just books though, not the basis for a theory on anything.


so geometric symetry does nothing for you huh? the ridge along the equator,the inclined orbit and its relationship to its size? the orbital distance is even hinting at intelligent placement through its relationship to the isocohedron geometry-
part 4 of his "Moon with a View" --heres the link and the opening image and paragraph--
www.enterprisemission.com...

Ok, this is the part the critics hate the most—



Where we freely speculate about what all of this might mean ….



As noted earlier, the late cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle once remarked “I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible.” So, despite what you might have heard, speculation to sort out which data is “incredible” has to be at the heart of the true scientific method. All scientific hypotheses are really nothing more than “dressed up speculations.”



Without venturing a hypothesis, even an “outrageous one” -- attempting to knit together all the various assembled facts into some kind of a coherent storyline (the speculative part) -- “science” would simply be an exercise in making lists ….



In truth, astronomers have engaged in many, many speculations over the mysterious nature of Iapetus for literally hundreds of years: starting with the source and origin of “the Dark Side of Iapetus.” Here (below - courtesy of Tilmann Denk, from the Cassini Team) are just a few of the most recent speculations on Iapetus, offered by professional astronomers (including, some other current members of the Cassini Team …) to explain this “oldest riddle in plantology.”

WOW he gets technical but i had to add this brief segment from the end of the piece where some "incredible" assertions are pondered-----
********************************************************
If it was discovered that nothing could be accomplished technologically to prevent such a catastrophic core explosion, the only reasonable alternative would have been a mass migration of the Martian population (or, a reasonable fraction thereof …) to another planet. And one definitely well away from the inner solar system ... as the effects of the explosion would be felt even billions of miles away ….



And that would have called for either an interstellar migration to another solar system, or the terraforming of another planet … in the outer reaches of this one. Or—



The creation of a totally new “planet!”



So, was Iapetus part of all three options …?



In other words, was Iapetus a specifically designed “interstellar ark” -- created on a crash basis in the Saturn system (see below) to transport a significant population from a doomed Mars (if not from other worlds in the entire imperiled inner solar system!) … to the stars?



Is that what the “number 4” – indelibly encoded in the very orbit of Iapetus – is telling us ... across the millions of miles and the literally millions of years since that inconceivable explosion: that it all goes back to … Mars!?



Did mass interstellar migration with such a large population turn out to be impossible, in time … so Iapetus was built as the “replacement planet” in this system -- for some small percentage of the teeming populations of those soon to be destroyed inner system worlds (the Earth, the Moon, Mars …) whose peoples would literally have no place else to go …?



Was this “ark” (Noah anyone …?) then left in orbit around Saturn … because – like in the interstellar scenario above -- the Saturn system was an abundant source of raw materials for its construction, if not the vital resources needed to sustain a long-term biosphere for those who would be “saved?” Was Saturn also chosen because it was far enough from the impending cataclysm to insure survival … yet still close enough to the warm center of the solar system to allow the next phase in this extraordinary Plan to be initiated--


The increasingly fascinating enigma of Titan -- as a literal “Saturn system terraforming project?” A valiant attempt to recreate a whole new world for the rescued populations of the soon-to-be-destroyed entire inner solar system … but on an even grander scale …?


stay tuned...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hoagland has not a shred of credible evidence to back up any of his outrageous theorys. He still sees a face on Mars for Christs sake!! Its a moon. Nothing more. Nothing less. It looks unusual but its still only a moon. Do some research on Hoagland and test his "suedoscience". Heres a good place to start.
www.badastronomy.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Martians marooned on Mimas sue George Lucas for copywrite enfringements on the Death Star and Mimas's design.

More to follow...

Yeah, but just kidding. Hoagland or Hoaxland? More like the latter


RR

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Well in case anyone wants to hear from the man himself, he's appearing on C2C tonight during the 1st hour.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
part 5 and it just keeps getting better-
www.enterprisemission.com...

here are some sample pics and text from this amazing installment-
*******************************************************


Since “Moon with a View” was originally posted, reaction has been varied – to say the least!

Some, on reading, have become intrigued. Others are repelled. And some, typified by this truly wondrous comment on “Coast to Coast AM” a few nights ago – “This time Hoagland has really walked off the cliff!” – are simply, as the phrase goes, “out to lunch.”

Fundamental to many criticisms of this theory is the scale of the construction we’re proposing. These critics see the entire idea of an “artificial moon” – and one almost a thousand miles across -- as totally preposterous, mainly because of the size of such an undertaking. What they forget is that some of these (artificial world) ideas are actually quite old … and increasingly achievable – even (as you will see) within the constraints of current technology and physics!

Their most famous incarnation is, in major part, due to Princeton University’s Institute for Advanced Studies’ professor, Dr. Freeman Dyson. Almost half a century ago, Dyson published a remarkable idea in the prestigious mainstream journal, Science [Dyson, F. J. "Search for Artificial Sources of Infrared Radiation," Science, 131, 1667 (1959)] – which described something termed a “Dyson Sphere.” Dyson ended his Science paper with the following conclusion:


“I think I have shown that there are good scientific reasons for taking seriously the possibility that life and intelligence can succeed in molding this universe of ours to their own purposes [emphasis added]
In Dyson’s 1950’s calculations, he envisioned huge, artificial planets -- built from the “disassembly” of a star’s natural planetary system, and its subsequent reassembly into a vast number of smaller, precisely engineered artificial worlds. The resulting “Dyson Sphere,” in Dyson’s speculations, seemed the largest artificial structures that an advanced civilization could probably ever technologically create. And as such, he believed, they might even be observable light years away, with our “primitive” technology from Earth ….



In this classic Science paper, Dyson was suggesting that such extraordinary objects – by literally englobing an entire solar system in a swarm of artificial “worlds,” thereby trapping almost all the parent sun’s emitted light and converting it to heat -- would glow brilliantly in the infrared region of the spectrum ... thus giving themselves away even in Earth’s 20th/21st Century telescopes, as “artificially modified star systems” (below).


Dyson’s inspiration for this extraordinary idea (as was Arthur C. Clarke’s for many of his …) ultimately derived from famed science fiction writer, Olaf Stapledon – in particular, his 1937 classic, “Star Maker”:


… As the eons advanced, hundreds of thousands of worlds were constructed, all of this type, but gradually increasing in size and complexity. Many a star without natural planets came to be surrounded by concentric rings of artificial worlds. In some cases the inner rings contained scores, the outer rings thousands of globes adapted to life at some particular distance from the Sun ….



Since Dyson’s pioneering publication of his “outrageous” speculation some 50 years ago, other workers have followed up with a variety of additional scenarios. All agree that, given enough time and current technological advancement, even our own terrestrial civilization could construct the beginnings of a “baby” Dyson sphere (see schematic - below), perhaps in the next hundred or so years. The key is in those terms: “time” … and “technological development.”
*************************....
In other words -- a 900-mile-wide, C60 “fullerene?!”


Amazing as it may sound, there is actual human precedent for this idea: embodying the geometry of the material used in constructing a particular monument … in the monument’s final macro-geometric form! The most striking example of this practice (before Iapetus, that is …) was brought to my attention several years ago, by my good friend and colleague, Stan Tenen.


Stan pointed out that the Great Pyramid, located on the Egypt’s Giza Plateau, is composed primarily (except for a bit of granite “here and there” inside …) of another carbon-compound known as “calcium carbonate” (CaCO3). Most folks know it better as “limestone.” It’s also known as “calcite” -- the rock type that forms huge layers of the 70-million-year-old strata making up the Plateau, as well as much of the rest of Egypt -- extending east, all the way to Indonesia ….


Huge blocks of calcium carbonate were quarried (not far from the Plateau …), and carefully shaped into the “six million tons of limestone blocks …” that were then used to create a structure over 750 feet on a side and almost 500 feet high: the legendary Great Pyramid itself.

Stan, both to me and on the radio, noted that if you just look at the exterior geometry of the Great Pyramid (below), shaped visually by the three angles it presents from any one side -- the 76-degree angle at the apex, and the two 52-degree angles where it touches the ground at the base -- you will actually be looking at a giant replica of the same internal angles of the calcium carbonate crystal of which it is composed!!

In other words: the Great Pyramid – exactly like Iapetus in our scenario – is a demonstrable giant replica of the precise material that someone used to build it!

Looked at in a larger context, creating a moon-sized “truncated icosahedron” would simply be the ultimate means of saying “five-sided/six-sided symmetry is crucially important in the Universe ....”


* * *

Finally, a major, serendipitous aspect of this model is a completely integral explanation for Iapetus’ latest, fascinating mystery -- “the Wall.”



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Okay, let's just say all this rubbish is right. What does it all mean? Summarize it in 150 words or less.

Also, maybe you could try giving some evidence for all this from an actual scientific website. Don't know any? Well try browsing through the Space Exploration Reference Library.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Block
Its a moon. Nothing more. Nothing less. It looks unusual but its still only a moon.

But then its interesting no matter the case, no? Ignore his theories, 80% of the material about Iapetus is ridiculus. He see houses and statues everywhere where everyone else see nothing.

But in the end, it *IS* an odd moon, something quite out of the ordinary and without any known comparison.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
It seems to me that we get radical divisions on Hoagland and his theories. But the bottom line, so it seems to me, is that we will not know for sure until we get there. Further, depending on who "who" really is, we may not be told the truth anyway.


Just thoughts...

It is interesting to note that through history, many times, the men and women who were the dreamers, who were most often scoffed, chided and derided, were, in the end, the ones who were right, or more nearly so, at any rate.

Just because something seems impossible doesn't make it so...

At one time the earth was the center of the solar system, the earth was flat, and it was, speaking in physics, impossible for the humble bumble bee to fly.
At one time in American history, the fellow who was in charge of the patent office resigned, because all the inventable stuff had been invented. But, as Gomer Pyle would say, "Shazaam!"



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
heres an interesting article that seems to be hinting at the possibility of an object like iapetus existing and hints at those objects being "the" call from et that seti has been overlooking --
****************************************************
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Marcus Chown

THE search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) could be taking the wrong approach. Instead of listening for alien radio broadcasts, a better strategy may be to look for giant structures placed in orbit around nearby stars by alien civilisations.

"Artificial structures may be the best way for an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation to signal its presence to an emerging technology like ours," says Luc Arnold of the Observatory of Haute-Provence in France. And he believes that the generation of space-based telescopes now being designed will be able to spot them.

Arnold has studied the capabilities of space-based telescopes such as the European Space Agency's forthcoming Corot telescope and NASA's Kepler. These instruments will look for the telltale dimming of a star's light when a planet passes in front of it. They could also identify an artificial object the size of a planet, such as a lightweight solar sail, says Arnold. His work will be published in The Astrophysical Journal (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0503580).
full article



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
You do realise that Hoagland doesn't care if his ideas are true or not.

Its not the truth of the matter thats important, its finding new stuff to sell books, and get him speaking engagements that the real critical factor.

If all this was proved as bunk tomorrow, then by the weeks end another wacko theory would get released. that will sell the next series of books.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
You do realise that Hoagland doesn't care if his ideas are true or not.

thats a resonable accusation but the difference between my persective and that one is that i am actually acknowledging the evidence--iapetus has multiple anomalies that each relate to each other and demonstrate an undeniable intelligent design--the odds that a planets moon will be inclined from the natural plane of rotation of the other moons in conjunction with its orbit duration directly coincinding with its size and being geometrically related to its distance from saturn is beyond speculation-compound this unatural phenomena with the elemental signature of carbon and you have something "worth" note and notoriety if you happen to be the first to realise it-imo at least --the image of the ziggarat(pictured i included above the auther c clark cover) is simply amazing to me--circles and fibanucci spirals related to the golden ratio are all that exist naturally--and that ziggarat existing along side an equatorial wall 12 miles high and perfectly perpendicular to its equator with hexagonal craters and visible truncated isocohedron shape evident in its profile all found on the same body with the previously mentioned phenomena is amazing especially when these anomalies are not even up for debate in whether they exist or not

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
My favorite part of all this, wether it's true or not, is this line right here:

"Needless to say, the idea that an array of same-size comets or asteroids somehow randomly “chose” to all fall (over billions of years) on exactly the same line, separated by almost equal distances (!) – and … exactly parallel to the Iapetus’ equator -- is just silly."

As if none of the things he's proposing are silly at all!



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Personally, I'm convinced that Iapetus is artificial, the recent NASA shots on the "light" side show such brightness, something must be odd about it... Cassini approaching Titan again this month, and eight more times in the rest of its mission life until May 2008.

Thought to drop these photos of Dione in here, it was speculated in the Robert Temple book, "The Sirius Mystery" that this is another artificial moon:


That's from Voyager I's pass in 1980.... here's another shot of it from Cassini recently (2005), with totally different features:



Another one, from the Cassini mission. W/ this line from the MSNBC page from June of this year:


The finding, detailed in the June 14 issue of the journal Nature, suggests Saturn's satellites Tethys and Dione might be volcanically active after all.





Some scientists had suspected Dione might be geologically active because NASA's Pioneer 10 probe detected plasma in the Saturn system in 1979. But those findings were cast into doubt when subsequent observations in the 1980s by the Voyager spacecraft didn't find any evidence of plasma in the moon's orbit.

"It was a controversy," Burch said.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


Iapetus threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 16-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I must agree with many of the posters! The idea that Iapetus was manufactured by anything other than nature is complete bunk. People like Hoagland should know better- the human eye is trained to pick out shapes and images, and the ones posted (geodesic ones) look like they've been over exposed.

I think we should be aiming to explain the wonderful diversities of the solar system rationally, before we run to the hills screaming "They're Here!"



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Forget where the info came from: As long as the pictures are deemed genuine, and these are, then HOW do you skeptics explain that 60,000 foot high 800 mile wide ridge running around the whole thing..or at least a great part of it for sure.??

How? That CANNOT be the result of some volcanic something or other..no way.That has never been seen in all of nature and all of known creation. It HAD to be the result of some gigantic mechanical operation , the scale of which simply boggles the human perseptions because of the scales of things we are accustomed to. If we were routinely exposed to massive things we would be able to grasp massive concepts better: But when the biggest thing made by man that most people see in a lifetime is a tall building or such, you can see why we shirk away from assuming the obvious when confronted with evidence that challelnges our perceptive abilities and norms.

Try and think beyond the box for a moment: Look at the picures of Iptaeus hovering in the blackness of space and imagine a drydock of monstrous proportions floating weightless in space also: The machines involved would be huge, to be sure, but they could be fairly simple as well: Drilling and boring machines, fabrication machines that pour hardening agents into massive forms, forms that perhaps become a part of the object itself. A civilization with very advanced mechanical engineering abilities could very well produce components that could craft an entire planetoid out of elements gathered from the abundant supplies all over the solar system ( 30,000 mile log rectangles near Saturns Rings have anything to do with this? ) and used to create what we see: A huge moon type item that could be used for many purposes.

That huge ridge is more than likley something akin to a welders bead, on a scale that stretches the bounds of the human mind to handle. The fact that the ' bead ' appears in the area where the blackening is most prevalent may be more than coincidence. Perhaps the manufacturing process called for a tremendously strong side and another side very strong indeed but used for facing away from certain areas..there are so many possibilities.

But of course the mere thought of stnding at the bottom of that 12 MILE high ridge and looking up is more than most people can envision. You couod not see the top because of the clouds, at least if such a thing were on earth. You would have to pack oxygen and extreme cold weather gear just to venture to the top of it..Three times the height of Everest, and so wide at the top that you could drop the moon that now hangs over us onto it and it would be like a marble on a coffee table!! Thats big!!

There is NO WAY that any planetoid could produce lava that could accumulate to that height and that uniformity..no way. Impossible. It HAD to be formed, and thus HAD to be intentional. There is no way to explain away these features and call them ' anomalies ' and walk away smug and sure..uh uh..not on my watch!! The explanations that I have heard so far are so lame and so UNLIKELY that they cannot merit serious consideration. No one can point to a similar or exact same type thing anywhere in the known universe, and that means something!!

There are MANY facts about this object that warrant close looks and more study, but the fact alone of this huge ridge existing proves that all is not as it seems, and that when the truth is finally known, it may shock the mind of mankind more than any revelation about UFO's or anything else: When the builders of these things are discovered they may be able to transform our world in ways that we at this moment could not grasp or envision. At least I hope so.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Awesome post... I think these 'moons' are the result of 'other' lifeforms interaction.

I don't like to keep using the Temple book, "The Sirius Mystery" as a reference but it should be cited and deemed credible. He's a member of numerous, renowned astronomy societies and has translated Gilgamesh.

The relation to the South African "spheres" are important.



They look man-made, yet at the time in Earth's history when they came to rest in this rock no intelligent life existed. The globes are found in pyrophyllite, which is mined near the little town of Ottosdal in the Western Transvaal. This pyrophyllite is a quite soft secondary mineral with a count of only 3 on the Mohs' scale and was formed by sedimentation about 2.8 billion years ago. On the other hand the globes are very hard and cannot be scratched, even by steel."


(excerpt from the photo page link)

My guess, is that these could of been made by a prior civilization here or somewhere else in the galaxy. There are numerous writings comparing these to the shape of Iapetus and I do see the resemblance.

Here's a couple of threads related to this:

2.8 Billion Year-Old Spheroids
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dogon Tribe research
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 16-11-2007 by anhinga]




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join