if richard hoagland were a moon he'd be covered with craters.
i have never been one of the hoagland hecklers, but i've really been disappointed since that CYDONIA CITY fiasco two years back. when the subject of his credibility came up, i would mumble something about "stay tuned" and try not to defend him anymore, and just let richard worry about richard. WELL.....
i am more than half convinced he is correct about iapetus.
first, let me say it is a lot of work to read a 3-part, somewhat technical article, so my conclusions are tentative here. that said, what i have absorbed so far has me VERY excited. flabbergasted might be a better word.
what is so terrible about a 900 mile wide artificial satellite in our solar system anyway? IF it's genuine it's been there since the dawn of human history and nothing bad has happened because it.
i think this thing deserves a lor of debate and discussion. A LOT. keep in mind however that giving richard H. a beatdown is not "debate and discussion"......some of you seem to compulsively attack his motives and mental health without giving his latest truth claims a half-decent read.
so far, FOR ME, the most impressive evidence is the radar signal deflection. the radar behaved exactly as it would if this thing were artificial [NOT a sphere]. also, the fact that the notoriously data-shy JPL is still refusing to release the radar data sets is not helping quash the growing murmurs that this thing is an ET artifact.
IS IT just a big dumb moon, with an obsessed human named richard hoagland adopting it as the latest prop in his delusional fantasies? that 12 mile high "wall" is telling me it isn't.
Sorry for being gone for so long, was kicked off the Internet here for a time. I even missed Hoaglands return to Coast to Coast (full show since, no Internet, no radio).
Anyways, believe it or not, I don't completely disagree with every of Hoagland's theories. When I see some of the pictures, I too, am completely facinated with them, and do ask the question, are they artificial, was some sort of life involved? The problem is, when I look at something, like the wall on Iapetus, or the 'face' on Mars, I go, wow! I wonder how that happened? That could actually be something interesting! Problem with Hoagland though, he immediately goes with the alien must have made it as he draws line on pictures to somehow prove that they are artificial. While in some cases, he does have a point...
Could be what Hoagland thinks it is, a fossil of an ancient life form on Mars. Which NASA grounded to dust with the rover.
However, the face on Mars...new pictures appear that the mountain is acutally just that, a mountain! Yet he STILL insist, aliens made it.
And when he goes off on some sort of conspiracy, it is difficult to agree with him. He also seems to think, everytime someone discovers something (water on Mars, life on Mars, etc.) he believes HE should have the credit for discovering it first or something. Too much ego for me. I mean, I like his enthusiasm, but not he does go overboard WAY too many times for me to take seriously.