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-was it a spaceship??

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Maybe that's what an alien spacecraft would look like if it had been abandoned in orbit about Saturn for a few hundred or thousand years.


And made of rock



However, if Iapetus is an old death star, maybe that explains why Hoagland recently found C3P0's head on the Moon.

Wonder where he'll discover Princess Leia?




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel

Iapetus is strange to be sure, but the explanation might be a bit simpler... or stranger. Sure he may be right, but usually a simpler explanation wins out. Simple laws of probability.


Ok, so why don't you hazard a guess? Hoagy has said what he thinks it could be. Does he say it IS a spaceship?

I've an open mind. We don't even know what's above our cosy atmosphere! Dude, there are more things out there than you've ever dreamed of!! (Horatio?)

Just keep in mind that the universe is about 20 billion years old. Our Solar System is only approx 5 billion. And we just got to walk upright!! So what am I getting at? There probably are technologically advanced civilizations billions of years ahead of us!

So what's the big deal in moving a moon like Iapetus? Or even constructing one that size and moving it? We sure would be able to do that ourselves in a couple of million years!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan


Originally posted by Astyanax
Maybe that's what an alien spacecraft would look like if it had been abandoned in orbit...

And made of rock

Indeed.

If I were building a 'generation starship' that had to travel for centuries across vast tracts of interstellar space, I would probably need some sort of protection against collisions with cosmic rays, dust particles, ice crystals, micrometeoric objects, etc. What better protection than to bury my starship (or at least the inhabited parts of it) under a big pile of rock? I might even build it inside an asteroid or planetary moon, cut the moon out of orbit and go a-roving. Why does this seem so far-fetched to you?

Anyway, I did say it wasn't very likely.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
We don't know all the intricate working of our own planet much less a distant moon. Could the equitorial ridge be the result of an influence of compression that we don't understand? Sure. If we looked at Saturn today without the benefit of modern optics would we conclude that the rings must be artificial? Until we understand the complex dynamics and geophysics of all the bodies in the solar system making conclusions based on visual reference alone is without solid grounds.

BTW They thought and perhaps still wonder whay Phobos acts as though it were hollow possessing very little weight.

[edit on 10/20/06 by Cruizer]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
Wild conclusion you ask? How about beings escaping mars in their deathstar-type spaceship while they waited out a cataclysm, then populated earth later?


Well i remember reading that entire article and i don't recall him saying this.... Even if that be case why is this so strange? We know that ancient cultures seem to have one thing in common ( so many claim descent from the heavens) we know that there is life and structures on Mars and the Moon and we know that the Solar system is a violent place with evidence of at least one or two planets blowing up... I could type pages on each of those issues but what would be the point if you don't know anything about them? Why should the boundaries of your knowledge be the boundaries of your imagination?


Iapetus is strange to be sure, but the explanation might be a bit simpler... or stranger.


Agreed.


The problem is he tends to craft a story around his finds, instead of just presenting the evidence.


As long as he separates the two from each other and makes clear what he considered speculation and fact we can judge it separately. Whoever can not read and make such distinctions when they are presented should find something suitable boring and devoid of life for consumption.


People might actually listen to the guy more if he wasn't trying to fit his finds into his preconceived notion of events.


I have read so much of what his said over the years and this was not what i found him to be doing. If his conclusions are not based on enough evidence for you then say so but don't hate the man because you object to the findings. Does it really matter if a person had any 'credible' evidence ( or anything) if they turn out to be right? Fact is we only need 'proof', 'evidence' and other such things to try convince others but they certainly do not prevent reality from being reality.


Sure he may be right, but usually a simpler explanation wins out. Simple laws of probability.


I find that ignorant people on the whole are completely in love with this logic and types of argument; " if i don't understand how it's possible it's 'complex' and since it's complex it's 'unlikely".

I just do not have much sympathy with such mentally processes.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
You're not calling me ignorant, are you?

I think Cruizer put it in to perspective a bit better than I. We don't understand the workings of the solar system all that well. Much of what we think we know is just intelligent speculation, bound to change or be refined as time passes.

I actually consider that Hoagy's outlandish theories may be right, but I wish he wouldn't bring his theories into it as much, because it turns off a great deal of people who would potentially be more interested in the subject and add some research and knowledge of their own.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I find that ignorant people on the whole are completely in love with this logic and types of argument; " if i don't understand how it's possible it's 'complex' and since it's complex it's 'unlikely".

I just do not have much sympathy with such mentally processes.

Stellar


Well said Stellar!!

Ok. So Hoagy is considered a sham, making money out of his 'outlandish' hypotheses. But the point is that even if 5% of what he's saying is true, then it's the smoking gun. That means there IS something out there which our science and logic cannot comprehend.

But for most of us, if it doesn't seem logical, it cannot be true! If it's beyond what we've learnt in school, then it's all hogwash!

I personally feel we should try and break free from the confines of orthodox views and philosophy and graduate to some 'out of box' thinking.


[edit on 21-10-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
You're not calling me ignorant, are you?


Well i don't recall but i normally make it clear when i do....


I think Cruizer put it in to perspective a bit better than I. We don't understand the workings of the solar system all that well. Much of what we think we know is just intelligent speculation, bound to change or be refined as time passes.


It would be great if he admitted to such modest understand on some other topics as well but i guess this can be called progress.
I would say much of what we know is stupid and completely vapid speculation by people who should have went in directions where being a psychophant is actually productive and valued by the community...


I actually consider that Hoagy's outlandish theories may be right, but I wish he wouldn't bring his theories into it as much, because it turns off a great deal of people


Honestly the type of people who get turned off so easily are basically admitting to their own ignorance as i have looked at most of his claims and there are ALWAYS a evidence trail that can be found if he does not provide links as is his habit. I don't have much hope for people who get turned off THE MESSENGER because they do not have information enough to understand the message. If one can not prove what a person says to be wrong when they state it as opinion what exactly is the problem?


who would potentially be more interested in the subject and add some research and knowledge of their own.


And i have found that those who investigate investigate along the lines of what they already know and that even information presented with the best sourcing on the planet will have no impact if they have no experience with or knowledge on topic. The biggest barrier to a person discovering new things is their own ignorance and not how well or how badly new material is being presented.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
yes....Iapetus is the death star

ok it bares some resemblance with a spaceship in a movie? so what does it mean its a space ship? no, if we see something that looks like a tree on mars it doesnt mean its a tree

its just a moon...until we land something on it or until it blows up another planet i still believe its a moon




posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I post something about Iapetus: i find it's intriguing to say the least



This image shows the dark, leading hemisphere of the mysterious moon Iapetus. The dark area is the Cassini region, named for Giovanni Cassini, who discovered the moon in 1672. The diameter of Iapetus is 1,436 kilometers (892 miles).

Cassini noted that he was able to see the moon on one side of its orbit around Saturn, but not on the other side. From this, he correctly deduced that one hemisphere must be dark while the other is much brighter.


www.nasa.gov...
www.nasa.gov...
Notice NASA defining "mysterious" something



N00022350.jpg was taken on October 16, 2004 and received on Earth October 17, 2004. The camera was pointing toward IAPETUS at approximately 1,143,028 kilometers away, and the image was taken using the CL1 and CL2 filters. This image has not been validated or calibrated. A validated/calibrated image will be archived with the NASA Planetary Data System in 2005.

saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...





The following description pertains one of the photos used to create the animation:


N00007426.jpg was taken on July 20, 2004 and received on Earth July 21, 2004. The camera was pointing toward IAPETUS at approximately 3,263,523 kilometers away, and the image was taken using the CL1 and CL2 filters. This image has not been validated or calibrated. A validated/calibrated image will be archived with the NASA Planetary Data System in 2005.

Source:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...



this sequence has been made from:

saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...




[edit on 13/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Yeah, I don't know why Hoagland's research gets a bad rap, to these old members coming out of the woodwork lately -- any links to some of that? I found some that Iapetus research to be pretty interesting, he theorizes to the point that the moon could be artificial.

Which, reminds me of that book, The Sirius Mystery, where the author thinks the moons, Pheobe and Dione, could be artificial moons supporting some aquatic ET race, the Nommo.

It is an interesting idea about those South African spheres. They resemble Iapetus and are 2+ billion years old (!).... Hoagland brings these up in his research on Iapetus, which is a good EM article, dense and well-written.

cydonianimperative.blogspot.com...
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 13-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Check out what NASA has to say..


The camera was pointing toward IAPETUS at approximately 1,143,028 kilometers away.


So NASA isn't sure? Pointing TOWARD Iapetus? Well, I daresay it may not be Iapetus at all! They don't say that it IS a pic of Iapetus. Why didn't they specify unequivocally and unambiguously that it IS Iapetus?

One of those gigantic ships orbiting Saturn?

Oh well, I love reading between the lines, what?


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Earth's moon has iron rich rock that may be broken and set about the perimeter with a magnetic field to work as a shield. I am certain other bodies have the same characteristics.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by I am Sam
Earth's moon has iron rich rock that may be broken and set about the perimeter with a magnetic field to work as a shield. I am certain other bodies have the same characteristics.


And hey, if the Moon is part of Earth or made from the same globular cluster, then how come that the Moon's makeup is different than Earth's?


Two senior Russian scientists, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, suggested that the earth's moon was partially hollow.One of their arguments was that the chance of the earth capturing the moon by accident is extremely tiny, and the chances of this resulting in a circular orbit such as the moon now has are even tinier.

Another argument was that the moon's (theoretical) density is much less that the earth's (3.3 as opposed to 5.5 g/cm³). They also pointed out that moon craters, even those 100 miles or more across, are only a mile or two deep whereas the largest ought to be 24-30 miles deep. They argued that the consistently shallow depth of craters (most of which are assumed to be due to impacts) was the result of the moon having a 20-mile layer of metallic armour plating beneath the 2.5-mile-thick outer layer of rock.

Another argument was that when lunar modules and spent rocket stages were made to crash into the moon, it rang like a bell (or a huge hollow sphere) for up to four hours; moreover, the shock waves started small, then built up to a peak, before dying away. This was completely unexpected.
ourworld.compuserve.com...


So was our Moon an artificial construct? Your guess is as good as mine!

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Ooops!! Duplicate post! Now how in the name of Iapetus did this happen??


[edit on 17-11-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Iapetus Fly-by
...some interesting stuff



This flyby was nearly 100 times closer to Iapetus than Cassini's 2004 flyby, bringing the spacecraft to about 1,640 kilometers (1,000 miles) from the surface. The moon's irregular walnut shape, the mountain ridge that lies almost directly on the equator and Iapetus' brightness contrast are among the key mysteries scientists are trying to solve.


www.youtube.com...

Backstage Pass to Iapetus


Go backstage as scientists watch in real-time as the closest-ever pictures of Saturn's mysterious moon Iapetus are beamed back by NASA's Cassini spacecraft.

Source
View this video


[edit on 17/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I've seen the stills, but not the vid you posted. Great find Michele!


Now in the vid, after the half way mark, did you notice a tower-like structure in one of the craters? Here it is. I've embossed the object in the second pic and is clearly visible! I think there's a shadow towards the right too, where it ought to be.

What the heck's that?



Embossed....



Cheers!



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


mike, I love your enthusiasm. Maybe I'm a bit dense, but the picture could be anything. It does seem to show something that is unlike anything else in the photo, but that doesn't to me, mean that it is tower-like, as in being a construct of some sort.

But you sure do have a knack for spotting the odd.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
But you sure do have a knack for spotting the odd.


Thanks NGC! I haven't a clue what that is, but it IS suspicious as it literally stands out like a sore thumb!

It can either be a video glitch or a geological feature. The latter seems improbable as there are no other similar geographical features around. So it can't be part of a rocky outcrop. If it's a glitch, then how come it stays in the same place during the entire video sequence?

Here's something similar on Phobos, a moon of Mars...


Courtesy: aliensurgeon

And another one on Eros…


Courtesy: Rense

Enlarged…



And to think that some contend that most of the moons are artificial constructs!

Cheers!



[edit on 18-11-2007 by mikesingh]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sensfan
 


The first pics of Iapetus were taken in 1980. Star Wars episode 4 came out in 1977.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join