Iapetus: Debunked

Here is another thing that didn't show up in the hi-res images of Iapetus that I picked up. Hoagland claimed that there was a massive tower at the bottom of the moon, in my photos the tower is not present.


[Above] Hoagland's evidence of the towers existance.



High-Res image, where did the tower go?

It turns out that Hoagland turned up the contrast/brightness in order to make a blip on the image pop out. The "blip" got even larger during the JPEG compression. The "blip" when I zoomed in was just a rouge pixel (a star?) on the high-res images. When you increase the contrast like Hoagland did you can see that the pixel is much more exagerated. The pixel wasn't even close the the surface, it hovered above it around 10KM based on the scale.

You can also see in Hoagland's image stars in the background, In the the high-res images there is no stars due to the contrast being lower. Hoagland manipulated the images.

[edit on 8/27/2005 by GoldEagle]

Originally posted by GoldEagle
You may also notice that the "wall" mountain range dosen't extend around the whole moon as claimed. At the bottom of the image you can see where it ends.

Hoagland never claimed that the wall went all the way around. He either said it was 1/3 or 2/3 around... don't remember which and it'd take a bit of time to find it.

Most of the craters still look like they have either 5 or 6 sides to me. I don't see how "mountain ranges" nearby (which I don't see) could do it.

And I agree about the tower... I wasn't impressed with claims of it being a "tower" either. Hoagland does tend to grasp at straws fairly often and unnecessarily bring up details that aren't convincing and thus don't help his case.

By the way, your image that shows no "tower" also has that appearance of flat sides to the moon. As if it is a 10-sided moon (dodecagon right?).

How about a link to these hi-res images??? And how about a little more information on the creation of 3D rendering of a moon we have such little info on??

It seems a bit hypocritical for you guys you knock this website for things you're doing too. How do I know these images you guys are coming up with aren't just as 'fixed' ??

I'm not saying I believe it's a Death Star (for all I know it's just some freak of nature moon), but if you're going to debunk do it right. Another unanswered questions about this unusual moon:

There are images of this moon with part of it being over exposed from the light reflecting off the planet. On this moon there are obvious flat sides and angles, but normally it should be a smooth curve.

The moon isn't a smooth curve, it's lumpy.

Here is the hi-res image link, strait from NASA's website:
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
Beware however, if you have a 56k modem, it's quite large.

I am not manipulating the photos in 3D. As I said I used a flat "PLANE" object and projected the hi-res image on it. This makes for better images and is easier for me to zoom in and show details. Never, ever, say that I am manipulating the images! If I did, I would be just as bad as Hoagland, that's what I'm tring to avoid.

asawa you are contributing very well to this thread. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Street Scholar
I'm not saying I believe it's a Death Star (for all I know it's just some freak of nature moon), but if you're going to debunk do it right.

Sure, you don't believe that it's a Death Star. I find it hard to believe that you are against the idea that it is artifical after that little rant. If I'm not debunking right, lets see you try. If your so good at it you could have answered your question yourself.

I can't wait to see the 3D rendering of those photos! I think I saw the super-res image. Looks great on 1280x1024 =).

Any new software needed for the 3D?

Here is a first generation render of "death star laser" crater as Hoagland calls it. It's first generation because the moon has no curvature. It's just a terrain map to give you a sense of depth and make it easy to distiguish surface features. I used NASA's steriograpic information to make a hieghtfield map to render the terrain. This is as detailed as I can make it at the moment without my computer exploding. The map is to scale.



Now you can see the cliff formations around the polygonal craters I'm talking about.

Originally posted by GoldEagle

Originally posted by Street Scholar
I'm not saying I believe it's a Death Star (for all I know it's just some freak of nature moon), but if you're going to debunk do it right.

Sure, you don't believe that it's a Death Star. I find it hard to believe that you are against the idea that it is artifical after that little rant. If I'm not debunking right, lets see you try. If your so good at it you could have answered your question yourself.

*washes all the soot away from the flame*

Woah woah woah...little rant?? I know you've put some time typing up your theories, but why the hostility?? Sorry if I came off strong, I only think this guy brings up some strange features of the moon. I even told you what I know about it as of right now, it looks like a freak of nature moon! Calm down so we can be reasonable.

I was only asking for a little more information on the things posted. How does a "3D terrain render" improve the perspective of an image? I understand it's supposed to add depth, but it's still a modification and can be incorrect. Since one of your criticisms Hoagland is the use of images for misdirection, I only felt it was fair to point out the duality of it (and how it doesn't always help in debunking). If you say he needs to point out where his material is from, I'm going to ask the same of you.

If this entire thread is devoted to debunking the "seedship" idea, then all you have to do is say you think the guy's nuts (you can't disprove opinion). Or we could talk about the unique formations of this moon and speculate, leaving us with a just as unconclusive of a theory. So you wanted what I think, here it is:

Evidence 1 (internal environment) vs Solution 1 (gas emmissions) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (even though I think Hoagland's idea on this is silly)

Evidence 2 (surface structures) vs Solution 2 (Blocky JPEG) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (we should find the hi-res images of these features)

Evidence 3 (hexagonal craters) vs Solution 3 (cliff system) -- theory vs theory -- unconclusive (how does that explain all 6 flat sides for each crater? maybe more res problems? )

Evidence 4 (tower) vs Solution 4 (blocky JPEG) -- Debunked, very well done here, Hoagland is quite misleading.

Evidence 3 revisited, new images posted -- The only "cliff system" I see is the ridge of the crater. I still think they're strangely shapped.

So we've discovered there's no tower, now I'm curious about some it's other features. This is one of the ones I'm more curious about that you still didn't really explain:



The gravity of any moon should be enough to "squash" the surface into a sphere on a larger scale. Even if it was "lumpy" (as you put it) it would still look round from a distance.

Look, we still can't explain why OUR moon stays in sync with the earth like it does; I don't think we're going to get further from speculation on this one. That being said, I enjoy the speculation, but let's not take ourselves too seriously.

Sorry for writing a long reply that says the same thing Whompa1 said earlier.

Sorry if I came on a bit harsh, just that it really irritates me when people come out of the blue and start calling the shots like that, that's what I thought you were doing.

It being a freak of nature would be nice to say but it wouldn't settle to well for the Hoagland fans out there. If we called Cydonia a freak of nature, we would go no where with them. I made the maps for elevational purposes only. Just to show you the mountains and cliff I'm refering to, not as a piece of evidence.

Iapetus presumably has the mass to crunch itself into a sphere, but that's if it was mostly rock. I still stand by the idea the Iapetus is a captured comet. Due to it's bizzare orbital inclination and orbit, I doubt that it formed within the planetary nebulea of Saturn. Comets consist of "ices" which is less dense. This may lighten the moon up to the point that it dosen't have enough mass to form a sphere. This also explains it's slow rotational period and material ejected onto the surface. That's why it's lumpy.


[edit on 8/28/2005 by GoldEagle]