real moon or deathstar?

[Akira 0]

Could easily been formed by the Big-Ass-Impact as denoir said or as Avon said, previously passing through the ring plane or possibly be the product of Saturns gravity acting on the young moon.

[Balschoiw 0]

Does the moon rotate, has it rotated earlier ?

Rotation plus mass set´s up gravity and gravity attracts material. If the line is on the equatorial line it could be that the gravity was most concentrated there and therefore collected dust and material from outer space if atmosphere is missing.

Or am I totally wrong on that ?

[iNeo 0]

LOL. Crackpot scoring table: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Quote[/b] ]40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Hmm whom does this remind me of...

[theavonlady 2]

LOL. Crackpot scoring table: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Quote[/b] ]40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Hmm whom does this remind me of...

Mike Godwin.

[Tovarish 0]

*chuckle*

Quote[/b] ]All of which confirms what the two giant “rings†– carefully positioned 240 degrees apart at opposite ends of the mysterious dark ellipse -- were obviously trying to communicate--

That Iapetus is not one of the normal “moons†of Saturn -- but is actually a 900-mile-wide, manufactured, ancient world-sized spaceship ... created under 1/40th terrestrial gravity according to a fractally apparent, “tetrahedral†pattern!

...Nothing else makes sense.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

looks to me like the remains of a blackhead! these things never realy heal!

[nSe7eN 0]

Amazing pictures!

The discovery of an alien civilization will totally change the way we look for other things that denies it, like religion, religion is the only stupid thing that last so long!

[philcommando 0]

Avon, i wanna believe you but it doesnt matter what i believe, for what matters is what u believe with sights like these which does makes one wonders and challenges our intellectual facualty to perceive the unexplainable.

I am no geologist, scientist or anything. Heck! the only science i know is Xmen . But just a thot based on common sense ( please dont take me seriously):-

1. Falling previous ring debris theory and Prometheus:-

As Balschoiw had plausibly explained that gravity is strongest at the equator, therefore as Kegetys had theorized, debris would fall back onto the surface abeit over milleniums thru an open orbit as the moon does rotate on its own axis, piling the debris up along the equator. I cant find any fault on this theory, only that how could those debris stay up for so long without falling off or breaking up other parts of the wall upon impact. ( perhaps due to its 1/40th earth's gravity?)

2. Big ass impact:-

I have yet to see even a simple demostration of punching a hole on the ground and then soil raised up forming a long ridgeline neatly for even 1 mm high and 1 cm long. I may not be intelligent and I know hoagland may be a crank to some, but lol! - the big ass impact is even more absurb than hoagland's  theory

3. Alien theory :-....errr..no comment from me.

One more thing that puzzles:-

Why sharp edges for a planet? Please dont tell me that Mother Nature used Wrp tool to create moon Iapetus!  

[walker 0]

Hi all

Iapetus the moon mentioned is one frrreeeky looking satelite.

Wiki is the place to read about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapetus_%28moon%29

Quote[/b] ]In Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), astronaut Dave Bowman finds an enigmatic alien monolith waiting for him on Iapetus. A vast black circle has been painted on the moon's surface, with the monolith occupying a smaller white circle at the centre. Remarkably, when the Voyager space probes arrived at Iapetus eighteen years later, they did indeed photograph an enormous, roughly circular black region with a whiter region within it. Clarke reports that Carl Sagan, who was on the Voyager imaging team, sent him a photo, with the note 'Thinking of you...'

Like I said real ffrrreeeky

All in all is not our universe a real wild ride to match even the most wierd meanderings of our imagination.

I think we live in the coolest universe.

Kind Regards Walker

[Postduifje 0]

I think we live in the coolest universe.

nah, I've seen cooler ones.

edit: btw, it's getting even cooler as we speak: linky

[denoir 0]

LOL. Crackpot scoring table: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Quote[/b] ]40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Hmm whom does this remind me of...

Mike Godwin.

Hmm, yes.

Quote[/b] ]

 3.  What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?

Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate.

Anyway,

Quote[/b] ]Why sharp edges for a planet? Please dont tell me that Mother Nature used Wrp tool to create moon Iapetus!

There are of course no sharp edges - it's just a shitty photo. It's funny how ready people are to believe anything.

Quote[/b] ]I may not be intelligent

[breaker44 0]

The "belt" kinda looks like the joints between tectonic plates here on earth. Like a mountain range. Oh. Gee. A mountain range...

I don't understand all the hubbub. Just another planet we won't see the surface of in our lifetime. Unless we had another space race, that is...

-BreakerOut

[sanctuary 19]

The reactions of the OFP community are so predictable ...

Here you have a 3D model and there are always people telling

"not enough polygons, we can see edges instead of smooth rounding !"

"bad collage between the 2 hemisphere of your model , we can see the mark of the bad collage on all the sphere !"

People are never happy...

More seriously,

that is a very interesting moon , just when you thought those rocks floating in space were all the same, some having more rounds rocks on their surface than other.

Our universe has so much diversity that observing it can never be annoying, there is always something that will surprise you where you don't expect it.

[mattxr 9]

The "belt" kinda looks like the joints between tectonic plates here on earth. Like a mountain range. Oh. Gee. A mountain range...

I don't understand all the hubbub. Just another planet we won't see the surface of in our lifetime. Unless we had another space race, that is...

-BreakerOut

i agree, its just proberly a big mountain range.. of some sort.. and dont say it cant be because how do we know whats went on to couse the moon appear like that..

got to remeber space is expanding all the time.. as they say.. there soo much space.. how do we know what goes on in other galixys

[breaker44 0]

I thought they said space is contracting. Must be my faulty memory circuts. I wasn't saying the place couldn't exist, or that it is a faked picture, just kinda shocked at the odd fascination with that rock. Other universes? One can only hope. Let's hope that in another universe im Rich, that Ive fixed all the world problems, and that all the ladies want me. (Sigh)

Breaker Out

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I thought they said space is contracting.

No, it´s expanding. Get lost of your Star Trek memories

Cosmological models of the universe showing closed (orange), flat (green), open with deceleration (blue) and open with acceleration due to dark energy (red) universes (1)

The Friedmann equation, relating the upper graphs in coherence to each other.

Looks like something I´d definately like to have included in the OFP 2 universe Expand, expand...

Quote[/b] ]As Balschoiw had plausibly explained that gravity is strongest at the equator

I´m not feeling to comfortable if you quote me on that as my knowledge on space physics and dark energy is pretty basic and I also could be totally wrong.

I´ll ask my best friend on it. He´s kind of an expert when it comes to space matters as the little pic, done by me, shows:

Live long and prosper Ralfi !

Quote[/b] ]Why sharp edges for a planet? Please dont tell me that Mother Nature used Wrp tool to create moon Iapetus!

The picture is quite confusing, but you´ll get an idea if you darken your room, take a tennisball and a strong maglight and hold it behind it offset. As the ball is a 3D object the strong light will not picture the correct sillhoutte, but will also light part of the side surface as it is offset. Easy as that.

Test it and you get the idea.

Astrophysics for OFP forum junks.

"Next transmission 342344x23 Beteigeuze time. Make sure to tune in."

[hardrock 1]

Why sharp edges for a planet? Please dont tell me that Mother Nature used Wrp tool to create moon Iapetus!

Load the moon in o2, select all and press I for Smooth Edges. That may solve your problem.

...

However, I don't really know what to think about this moon. But I also don't need a personal explanation for it's shape and surface, I find it pretty interesting, but as many other things in life I'll probably never survive the day where they find out its cause.

[sputnik monroe 102]

It's a man made wall. The Free Masons made it.

[pogingwapo 0]

They even dragged this man into the controversy:

[philcommando 0]

Damn! Denoir, you seem more interested in putting the messenger down than casting some light on the message. How about some objectivity on the issue than subjectivity on the person behind the issue? An objective official pic without any political motiviation wouldnt lie.

As to the 'shitty photo' u claimed:-

From the horses mouth (NASA):-

Official NASA/JPL press release

… The image shows mainly the night side of Iapetus; part of the far brighter sunlit side appears at the right and is overexposed due to the long integration time of 180 seconds. Despite this long exposure time, almost no blurring due to the spacecraft’s motion is apparent [emphasis added].

If you continue on casting aspersions on the messenger, others will only be more convinced that you are the subjective kind that will stoop to ANY means to delude yourself that you are right because others do have logic and reasoning mind of their own too and may not necessary share your views. Peace!

[denoir 0]

If you continue on casting aspersions on the messenger, others will only be more convinced that you are the subjective kind that will stoop to ANY means to delude yourself that you are right because others do have logic and reasoning mind of their own too and may not necessary share your views. Peace!

I am sorry, but I have very little tolerance for pseudoscience and even less for people willing to believe anything without even using their brain even slightly.

How many millions of more likely explanations are to that picture than that the moon has been constructed by aliens? How about for instance that it is a shitty low-res picture taken from a strange angle relative to the light? What if we took a picture from another angle of the same area?

Oh dear, looks much rounder now, doesn't it? Furthermore, you have to understand that this is a very small moon and that it won't have a nice and smooth curvature as larger astronomical bodies. There's nothing strange about that. Take a look at Phobos, one of Mars' two moons:

It's exactly the same story as with the "Face on Mars". In 1976, Viking took the following picture:

Of course the predictable Richard C. Hoagland started screaming about aliens on Mars, with that picture being proof. Of course, it was just a coincidence that the picture came out that way, thanks to light and a low-resolution camera.

And some years later, another Mars spacecraft took a higher resolution picture:

Where's the face bubba?

[gandalf the white 0]

Where's the face bubba?

gone because of a lack of maintenace.... in thesame way they stopped maintaining the death star in a galaxy a long, long time ago, and now it looks like this, dúh!

[philcommando 0]

sigh....... .......denoir, denoir.....you still arent listening, arent you? sheesh..and u dare say

"I am sorry, but I have very little tolerance for pseudoscience and even less for people willing to believe anything without even using their brain even slightly"

But no worries, i am not as impatient as you and sure have high tolerance for high and mighty snobbish types

1. Did i mention or confirmed anywhere that it is of alien construct? I dont stuff values or absurdities down others throat, for they have a rational mind to know for themselves.

2. Something got in your eyes? cos this post aint nothing about the 'face on mars'.

3. Lol!...are you using those photos to back up your post's credibility? cos its definately nothing related to the topic and furthurmore, NASA has lots of close up Iapetus pics, why did you choose that small and inconceivable pic and talk about other stuff instead, now who is getting absurd:crazy: ?

I for one would love to see Hoagland proven wrong, but only on a cool, rational intellectual level. I certainly will not condone below the belt tactics, character assasinations, smears and other schoolyard bully routines to back up your assertions.

Its ok to admit we do not know something, for who amongst us is the wisest man on earth? I would rather sit back and read other's interpretation on what they see than to spend time calling others foolish for their conceptualisation.

[nSe7eN 0]

Until now there I nothing to prove the existence of those aliens or even another sort of life out there, in our galaxy, or maybe I didn’t hear about that!

But believing the existence of such lives different than believing any picture from here or there, very funny to say those were the free masons build it , caused by natural effects as it seems!

also that face in the picture you posted, some morons out there going to worship that!

[denoir 0]

3. Lol!...are you using those photos to back up your post's credibility? cos its definately nothing related to the topic and furthurmore, NASA has lots of close up Iapetus pics, why did you choose that small and inconceivable pic and talk about other stuff instead, now who is getting absurd:crazy: ?

No, I am using those photos to show that your post lacks credibility. The point of the low-rez Iapetus pic is to show you that you have to take into consideration the context the picture was taken in, its quality etc before you start making wild assumptions. The point of the Phobos pic is to show you that there are other astronomical bodies that have 'sharp' edges - and that we have pictures of them at a very good resolution. Hence your hypothesis that sharp edges mean artifical structures has been disproved.

It's the elementary scientific of disproving a hypothesis:

1. Your hypothesis: It's in the picture that the edges are sharp. It is an official picture, so it must be true.

My disproval of your hypothesis: Here is another 'official' NASA picture of the same region showing no edges. Hence your hypothesis that there being an official picture of something is proof enough, has been falsified.

2. Hoagland's and your's hypothesis: Sharp edges must mean artificial structures. (In your word's: "Why sharp edges for a planet? Please dont tell me that Mother Nature used Wrp tool to create moon Iapetus!").

My disproval of your hypothesis: I show you Phobos, a moon with sharp edges, that we have high enough resolution photos to say that natural formations are the 'edges', not artificial structures.

Quote[/b] ]I for one would love to see Hoagland proven wrong, but only on a cool, rational intellectual level. I certainly will not condone below the belt tactics, character assasinations, smears and other schoolyard bully routines to back up your assertions.

Hoagland has been proven wrong over and over and over again, since he started with his theories in 1976. At some point you have to take his track record into consideration - and realize that you are wasting your time debating something with the village idiot.

Quote[/b] ]Its ok to admit we do not know something, for who amongst us is the wisest man on earth? I would rather sit back and read other's interpretation on what they see than to spend time calling others foolish for their conceptualisation.  

That's typical New-Age bullshit. Freedom of speech doesn't give you automatic credibility in science. Not all opinions are "right". It doesn't matter if you feel that 2+2=5 - you would be wrong. The scientific method is a strict protocol for defining hypotheses and testing them against observable data in a reproducable manner. Hoagland does not follow the protocol, which means that he should not in any way be taken seriously in any scientific context. If he wants to make a religion out of it, that's fine with me. But science it is not, as he doesn't follow the rules.

The problem is not that his theories are wrong. It's perfectly alright to have wrong theories - it is the power of the scientific method. It results in a self correcting system. But you have to follow the rules, accept when you have been proven wrong and most of all to be honest about it. Hoagland uses logical fallacies and deception to shove his theories onto the type of people that read horoscopes. When he is proven wrong (over and over again) he claims that it is all a conspiracy to shut him up.

You don't need to know much about astronomy or geology to see the absurdities in his claim. If you don't want to be the one who follows the village idiot philcommando, read his text critically.

When he says "Since A then B" (for instance "Since the moon has sharp edges then clearly it is an artificial structure there) ask yourself, is it really A and does B really follow from A?

Does the moon have sharp edges? What evidence to I have of that? A picture? Could the picture been taken from a strange angle? Have I seen enough different pictures to conclude that the moon has unnaturally sharp edges?

And then of course - do sharp edges really mean that there are alien constructions there? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have any data on previously seen alien constructions that resulted in sharp edges on a moon? Are there other examples of moons with sharp edges, that we know are natrual formations? etc

Those are just the most obvious questions. But they are necessary if you don't want to appear as totally clueless to anybody with even a minimal knowledge of scientific protocol.