Alien Moon Shine
Citing evidence from Saturn mission photographs, self-styled astronomer Richard C. Hoaland proposes the radical theory that Saturn's moon Iapetus "is actually a 900-mile-wide, manufactured, ancient world-sized spaceship created under 1/40th terrestrial gravity according to a fractally apparent, 'tetrahedral' pattern!"
Without getting wrapped up in the potential tallness of this tale, take a look at some of the evidence that Hoagland seems to think confirms this hypothesis. A brief summary of the narrative with links to images taken from his six-part "Moon With A View" website goes like this:
Cassini, an unmanned Saturn-bound spacecraft validates images from the 1980's NASA Voyager mission that shows Iapetus' yin-yang, light-dark pattern to be the result of its asymmetrical spheroid shape. This is a geologic and gravitational anomaly. Based on its location, size, and density, it should be a perfectly shaped sphere, like our moon. But it isn't...
Several strange geological features were discovered on Iapetus, the first being a sixty-thousand-foot-high, sixty-thousand-foot-wide, four million-foot-long "wall"...spanning an entire planetary hemisphere...located in the precise plane of its equator!" also uncovered were rectangular, geometric, multi-storied, box-like buildings, shown here, as well as a "tower-like structure rising more than a mile above the surrounding terrain," not to mention evidence suggesting that Iapetus may be a perfectly constructed geodesic moon.
The remainder of the article continues to elaborate on the highly complex ways in which images of Iapetus have been taken and subsequently put together and studied by Hoagland and others to make this extraordinary claim. He also elucidates, in excruciating detail, several potential astro-physical and technological theories, linking Einstein, the discovery of DNA, and the origin of life on Earth to this controversial moon-craft.
Whether or not Saturn's Iapetus is telling evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, the images and possibilities that transpire from them are truly fascinating. Several scientists have debunked much of what Hoagland reports (which should come as no surprise). Dissenters can be read here and here, although it should be noted that the majority of this literature focuses on discrediting Hoagland's claims regarding conspicuous activity on Mars and not about the claims referring to the artificiality of Iapetus. An abundance of other alien-esque, conspiratorial information can be unearthed at Hoagland's website, Enterprise Mission.
Tweet- 3-18-09
- Matt Toussaint's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Link should be working now.
the truth
Pretty interesting!
2012 Conference
Hoagland is speaking at a 2012 conference in DC on the 28th:
http://www.peecmd.com/conference/index.htm
Could be interesting. And full of spy-agents...
The links aren't working for
Links working now
Hoagland!?!?!?!?
Cool
I have to say I am extremely skeptical, but this is fascinating nonetheless. It could at least make a very good sci-fi adventure.
I can't even imagine the implications if he is right. That blows my mind.
www.tri-freedom.com
NASA =
Ach, just the usual
I succeeded in opening one or two of the links.
The basic science seems to be relatively sound, at least compared to what usually is presented on sites like this one. That's about the most positive I found. The following 'conclusions' made from the basic science look like the standard crank science stuff, which while it's good SF reading and fascinating conspiracy-buff food, is far from being what it claims to be.
I also found the site very glossy and with no clear distinction between the alluring artistic pictures and the actual photo evidence from NASA.
And maybe most significant in conspiracy context: I've always wondered, why organisations like CIA, NASA and all the others, which keep everything under seven seals, let such 'controversial' material slip through their fingers out to the public. The most reasonable explanation is, that there isn't anything controversial about it, it contains only the secrets people later make up.
I don't mean to say, that I believe there aren't any secrets hidden away. It's just that ARE hidden.
And finally; there's a strong element of commercialism about the site. Few forums ask for monthly payment for participating on the forum. This one does.
I agree with the
awesome
I spent an hour I totally don't have enthralled by Hoagland's thesis, the images, and parallels to some of the best science fiction ever written.
I doubt Arthur C Clarke downloaded any alien narratives, but he and George Lucas may well be finely attuned to the cosmic consciousness. Maybe it's OUR destiny to build a space ark to disseminate human spores into space. In fact, there's a song referencing this idea that I wrote called "Born in a Pod" Give it a spin.
I have no reason to think this Saturnian moon isn't a big Death Star, so mostly I just love that some people have the time and energy to develop these theories. Cool if true, cool if just a story.
Hoagland's theory was shown in four crop pictures from 2008
I have never met Richard Hoagland, but some people have told me that they do not like him. Who cares?
What I find much more interesting is that Hoagland's hyper-dimensional theory was shown in four different crop pictures from the summer of 2008, whether in England or Germany:
www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/time2007s.html
Is everyone out there asleep? Or watching TV? If anyone who reads this is still able to think clearly, then please examine the detailed evidence in an objective fashion, being neither too skeptical nor too beleiving, and help to report on what it means?
Re: Red Collie
Tetrahedrals and Hoagland, etc.
I went to just one link from Hoagland as supplied by Toussaint, and two of 'detractors':
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/
Oh! man! The amount of time to really explore!
Positing and critiquing both can be almost infinite.
My short-hand 'sussing up' of Hoagland brings to mind that phrase, again: reading between the lines.
Hoagland, no doubt, is a brilliant intellectual who can bring forth volumes of data from memory alone apparently havling both listened to him with the various hosts on 'coasttocoastam.com' and having viewed several of his videos (a while ago, before DVDs!).
I found it a little frustrating in attempting to query him as to some flaws found in the matter from which he educed his seemingly ever-evolving 'thesis'. I don't have any problem with 'evolving' a thesis.
Then, scanning the two critical sites re: Hoagland.
The first one from UWA kind of peters out in depending almost entirely on extraneous sources, namely referrent to quoted stuff here:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/moundillustrations.html
Like I said: it can take a lot of personal time to unfold the accordian of information. I WANT PERSONAL OPNIONS with PERSONAL research maybe just referenced. But to send me off elsewhere . . . not a strong critique.
The voluminiousnes of Hoagland's hypothesis can do the same thing, however, his thesis is his own using accessible matter. And, yeah, not a real 'free' blog site at all. This guy is making his living doing this for the most part.
And every interview with him on 'coast' can be viewed as an 'advert', but he does fire the imagination and the interests of people to do some research. Alternative to the patent and very 'black and white' kind of materialistic 'science' that NASA obligatorilly must do. NASA is a public functionary that has fallen into dependancy on funneling funds FROM the public but via maskable military 'discressionary' pools. This should be stopped. Or what? transmute the military into a branch of pure scientific research for peaceful purposes with 'defense' as a subsidiary concern? Follow the money.
We only have to ask that the project of research be frankly funded by deducing the total amounts of money NASA uses FROM ANY or VIA any channel still originating from public funds.
Hoagland's thesis seems ever to point back to some mystic cabal of people with 'higher' knowledge or some undivulgable 'secret' that would send the people into some form of 'shock'.
So I'm rather inclined to the tack others say re this: good fiction 'thesis'. Yet, still, not disproven, either.
So: thesis.
As to the 'bad astronomy' site:
talk about 'proprietary' interests! This site is doesn't seem worth even talking about. It is a 'competitor' and the 'bad astronomer' is also a frequent guest on 'coast'. You can go up there and buy a tee-shirt! By all means! Not serious.
There are many other resources of critiques, I've found on Hoagland, but they are just as speculative.
As for the amazing array of images that Hoagland has martialed to underpin his point/points: (and that is very impresive to me, knowing what it takes to produce that kind of array):
The issues of hydrodynamics and gas-dynamics as a sub-set of that kind of math has in the literature much to explain these oddities of of apparently relatively straight lines in fluids or resultants of contrasting momentums or forces.
We ARE looking at a new kind of 'lab', since we don't have anything close to a 'lab' that can look at fluid-dynamics and acqueous-gaseous perturbations under our personal control . . . that we know of (unless you think Trever James Constable is playing with weather using a Reich device sometimes . . .and others . . .???)
We are just observing and all we have to have any probative analytical conclusion therefrom is to wait and see if any projection can fit future OTHER observations in our own or other planets. We can simulate in a promiximal way only 'clues' by doing fluid and gas analyses on ships relatively far away from the surface of our dear earth. Yet we are not thereby in a 'pure' lab. The impinging influences of ship momentum and earth and sun and moon forces or tidal effects and so on: the best computer or the best genius in the world cannot filter such out to such an extent as to make any 'clue' generalizable with perfect 'certainty'.
Do a little experiment of your own: make a cup of coffee in a glass cup. Add half-and-half and don't stir the combo. Just walk into your den, set the cup down and then film the slow-motion realities that can be observed therein! No computer on earth can model this what we see there. And the planets and all they contain are many google-plexes more complex than that!
I'll read Hoagland much more intrigued (and maybe exasperated too!) than the two 'critique' sites proferred.
Maybe I'm jiss being intertained! The maybe bigger question is: is his just a more complex form of 'creationism'? I'm not finding that. His seems to point to a growing cosmic community of thinkers and makers who may, ultimately, be as confused as to 'cause' as everyone or anyone else.
Or do we: as we watch the coffee cup, or just film it: affect the way the bi-fluid melds?
Who knows? On a saturday night: I don't even care.
I like Hoagland. He may be the modern day Houdini in terms of entertainment. The biggest mystery is: why does coast-to-coast reduce his input to snippits while boring us to hell with talk about EVPs, Vampires and Alex Jones conspiracies instead?
What about Rupert Sheldrake? What about the Bose Family and the extraordinary work still going on in labs in India . .. what about . . .but, I digress.
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go