Moon with a View:
Or, What Did Arthur Know … and When Did He Know it?
By Richard C. Hoagland
© 2005 The Enterprise Mission
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them … into the impossible."
-- Clarke’s Second Law
It should be obvious by now that we’ve stumbled onto something WAY more interesting in the Saturn system than just “organic smog” … or even “liquid methane oceans.” For what could possibly explain the existence of extremely ancient (judging from the abundance of real craters scattered in between …) ruins – and on such a distant, frozen object ... a tiny satellite of Saturn with only 1/40th the gravity of Earth–
But an extremely advanced, ancient, extraterrestrial civilization!
Surely, because of this almost non-existent surface gravity, combined with surface temperatures which turn water into a mineral with the strength of steel, no innate biosphere could ever have developed here, no evolution into living – let alone intelligent – organisms, could ever have occurred. No breathable air ever gently enveloped the surface of this moon, or blew as gusts of wind down these amazing streets … or, washed the vast, surviving structures that still tower majestically above them with a morning rain ….
So, how can there be actual buildings on the surface of Iapetus!? How can any of this be real?!
What if the air, which had to exist (to support the countless living beings who must have built and occupied these thousands of square miles of obviously designed architecture -- who … for some amazing reason … also built “the Wall” -- was not on the outside of Iapetus … but on the inside?
* * *
Before everyone starts giggling, let’s look at the mounting evidence.
The dark, enigmatic “stain” covering fully two-thirds of Iapetus, not only has a very “geometric” aspect (it’s a precise ellipse) … it begins and ends in two matching “ring-shaped” features (below).
In traditional planetology, these circular “impact basins” are attributed to explosive asteroid or cometary collisions (sometimes the resulting excavation later partially refilling with upwelling internal lava, producing “ring basins” around the central impact uplift). Such features have been photographed over the years on a variety of solar system objects, and come in a variety of sizes -- all attributed to these celestial objects – even ones only a few miles across -- striking at hypersonic velocities, releasing their devastating kinetic energy on impact.
The problem with this random, external explanation for Iapetus is that both ring-features are the same size … both lie on the Iapetus’ equator … and both are located (the shortest distance) ~120 degrees apart (see map, below) -- precisely one third of the satellite’s circumference from each other … one “tetrahedral” angle!
(I can hear some of you now saying -- like President Reagan did to President Carter years ago -- “There you go again ….”)
But their tetrahedral “positioning” is a measurable fact -- and another striking argument for deliberate design. As the odds of two similar-sized objects randomly striking such a satellite twice, on the equator, and precisely 120 degrees apart -- thus producing two “coincidental” matching “ring basins” -- are infinitesimal.
These extraordinary odds are compounded, of course, by the fact that the mysterious “dark ellipse” across the leading hemisphere stretches 240 degrees the other way around the “planet” -- which is, of course, two “tetrahedral angles” …. The ellipse now begins and ends neatly at the two “rings” (see map - above) – indicating that they are somehow “involved” with its creation.
This all argues persuasively for an internal source for both the dark ellipse … and the rings themselves.
However, that this geometry is not some new form of internal geological control -- modulated by the planetary Hyperdimensional Physics we’ve found operating on other planets – also seems clear; neither “ring” lies anywhere near the infamous 19.5-degree “upwelling latitude” controlled by internal “tetrahedral” forces we see operating on other planets and their satellites. Yet, the placement of both “ring features,” 120 degrees apart, is obviously conveying the same “tetrahedral message” left behind in other artificial ruins we’ve explored across the solar system ….
Finally, it can be no accident that the Great Wall neatly bisects this ellipse … and, straight as an arrow, runs for 240 degrees … connecting both strange “rings!”
On the side of the moon facing away from Saturn (below), after crossing the dark elliptical expanse as a faint light line (right) … the Wall turns into a series of brilliant (snow-covered?), mysterious 12-mile high “mountains” (at least, that’s what NASA’s calling them for now …) – strung out in a precise line passing directly through (and above) the ring-shaped feature on that end of the ellipse.
Conclusion: this remarkable string of increasingly improbable “coincidences” is not coincidence. It is strongly arguing design. And a “tetrahedral” design at that ….
* * *
Additional evidence supporting this (admittedly) extraordinary hypothesis comes from examination of other regions of the surface of Iapetus.
Here (below) is another remarkable comparison.
The image on the left is an additional wide-angle shot from the Cassini fly-by of December 31st. The image in the right reveals the remarkable distribution of same-size “craters” newly imaged on Iapetus – “coincidentally” arrayed at roughly equal distances from each other, and … all on the same “latitude” … parallel to the Great Equatorial Wall!
Needless to say, the idea that an array of same-size comets or asteroids somehow randomly “chose” to all fall (over billions of years) on exactly the same line, separated by almost equal distances (!) – and … exactly parallel to the Iapetus’ equator -- is just silly.
A close-up of one of these “craters” (below) -- located on the western rim of the large impact basin in the center of the disc (above) -- reveals that the “crater” is, in fact, another major architectural form. It is part of an array of equally incredible geometric architecture ... and, other than being approximately “round” … with its uniform-width, “castle-like walls” and geometric interior, does not morphologically resemble actual impact craters imaged anywhere else in the solar system! In addition, if you look closely toward its “top” (as seen in this close-up image - below), the line of geometric patterns proceeding toward it from the right passes uninterrupted right through the “crater” floor – indicating that, in fact, the “crater” is part of a set of pre-existing structures.
If I am correct, what we are seeing as “geometrically arranged craters” on Iapetus are, in fact, structurally-defined surface collapse features – revealing key weak points in the basic sub-modules of this “artificial moon.” It stands to engineering reason that such a huge “world structure” would be assembled fractally – by building it up from multitudes of identical, smaller units – using the fundamental principal of the “tetrahedral truss.”
This, of course, was the secret of Buckminster Fuller’s famed “Geodesic Domes” (below).
The “latitudes” along which these major sub-units are arranged on Iapetus seems to be determined by the structural strength each one contributes to the integrity of the overall “spherical moon.” And the basic geometry of each major sub-unit (how they collapse …) is revealing the geometric nature of the sub-modules themselves ….
If you look again at many of the “craters,” you can see that they are, in fact, deformed hexagons (below).
This strongly indicates that, as the surface of Iapetus has been eroding (from the incessant onslaught of micrometeorites, over untold millions of years …), the larger structural geometry literally holding it together – on a variety of scales – is repeatedly revealed … exposing the fact that this fundamental structure is essentially the same geometry that defines a geodesic dome – a replicating tetrahedral pattern (below)!
The largest visible example of this intrinsically tetrahedral form is the ~240 mile-diameter basin in the center of the image (below). It too has a basic hexagonal geometry – more supporting evidence for the “two-dimensional, six-sided, sub-module assembly model” for the surface of this entire “moon.” As can be seen, smaller collapse features within it (and beside it) are also eroding according to this basic tetrahedral form ….
A close-up of the vertical, 12-mile drop -- from the rim to the floor of the major basin (below) -- reveals a series of serrated, evenly-spaced “teeth” (similar sized fragments of former structural walls ...) sticking at right angles outward into space from this eroding feature ... creating a series of parallel, ~60,000 foot cliffs. On the basin floor itself, a series of aligned, 90-degree eroded features is also clearly visible (running from lower left to upper right – below) ….
These are all redundant indications that the smaller structural sub-units are, indeed, being fractally eroded backward from the basin center … along each of the six, hundred-mile-long, hexagonal “rim walls.”
By contrast, on the northwest cliff of this ~240-mile-wide basin, the ancient blast wave has revealed a very different array of impossibly massive, engineering-looking structures (marked below).
In close-up, the strikingly geometric -- but very different nature -- of this “mega-engineering” is exposed ….
These appear to be some of the incredibly imposing, main structural elements of this small “moon” – a “keel” as it were -- apparently uncovered by whatever impact destroyed the surface here – still aligned over literally hundreds of miles north/south -- exactly 90-degrees to Iapetus’ equator (out of frame – left). Other forms (below) are eerily twisted into massive, but still “geometric,” wreckage … mute testimony to the inconceivable energies released against this almost “god-like” technology … a long, long time ago.
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--
* * *
Nothing else makes sense.
Once you realize, from these extraordinary images, even the possibility that what we’re seeing is not natural, that we aren’t dealing with a “world” at all -- but with a world-sized ship! -- the supporting evidence is everywhere ….
At low incidence lighting over other regions (for instance, near the major impact basin on the right – below) one cannot help but look again at that remarkable, rectilinear “waffle” pattern. The explosive formation of that basin to the north would have also totally destroyed any former “surface covering” here as well -- exposing massive inner structural supports.
In fact, if you look carefully along the terminator in this region (to the right – below) -- that seems to be exactly what we’re seeing!
Close examination reveals a definite “grid” crisscrossing this region … apparently composed of several angled layers of overlying structural “rebar” -- but on an incomparably massive scale ….
Because the human eye/brain combination recognizes linear patterns far better at some angles than at others, when we rotate the image 90 degrees counterclockwise (below) -- the obvious exposed and layered nature of this “moon” really stands out … as a series of long, linear features which seem to be major structural support in this region for the (now destroyed), overlying “terrain” (below) ….
A closer view ….
The unique and obviously layered nature of Iapetus -- a “shell … within a shell … within a shell” is truly revealed here (below): the “cookie cutter” geometry of this eastern “impact basin” (seen here from a different angle to the previous image) is totally unlike that of any other impact features known ... on any other planet, or satellite across the solar system!
The essentially vertical, ~12-mile cliffs (curiously similar to the “12-mile elevation” of Iapetus’ “Great Wall”), plunging down in discrete steps – as if whatever gargantuan explosion ripped thorough the surface, exposed successive shells of now heavily eroded, layered Bucky Fuller architecture – says it all.
As does the repeating pattern of underlying liniments and right-angle geometry … across each successive shell.
These are the shattered, blasted remnants of an ancient, almost incomprehensible science and technology … stark, surviving evidence of a “super-engineering” that once held together an entire world … and for some reason, placed it in the Saturn system.
* * *
At the top of Part I you might have noticed one of the first Cassini images of Iapetus, taken last October. This was done deliberately … to see if anyone would, early on, pick up on the most blatant, most startling piece of planetary evidence we’ve found supporting “artificiality” for Iapetus. The most “in your face” view (sorry …) that NASA ever has released (below)--
To properly begin the analysis, there are several additional things you need to know -- starting with how the image was acquired.
The Cassini spacecraft took this time-exposure by the light of “Saturn shine” – via the reflected glow of the Ringed Planet, shining on the hemisphere of Iapetus that always faces it, from across more than two million miles ….
In this view, acquired by Cassini from just under half that distance, in October 2004, the eastern side of our familiar “dark ellipse” is toward the left – terminating in one of the two remarkable “ring-shaped” features discussed earlier. This eastern “ring” – and an extremely provocative, aligned “rectilinear geometry” completely surrounding it – is located near the center of the hemisphere we’re looking at.
What’s most interesting about this “ring-feature” is how the ~220 mile diameter “array” – and everything surrounding it -- seems oriented … east/west, north/south.
But the most startling feature of this unique, nighttime record is the overexposed, sunlit portion of Iapetus’ surface – to the right. Look very carefully. Do you see what is blatantly apparent -- an aspect of this exotic “moon” which simply should NOT exist … unless we’re right?
Here is a comparison graphic to assist you (below).
This Cassini image (above-left) is of another Saturnian moon -- also first seen as a mere dot of light in Cassini’s small refracting telescope over three hundred years ago – another of the “Titans” … the moon Dione. Taken by the spacecraft narrow-angle camera from about 800,000 miles away, this image is a “normally” exposed view.
Dione is about 200 miles smaller than Iapetus, at only 695 miles across. Its icy surface is also covered with a variety of craters, from untold years of random impacts. Dione, like Iapetus, also revolves and rotates around Saturn synchronously -- one hemisphere always facing the primary planet, the other die forever turned away. Note how the sunlit hemisphere in this image is well-illuminated, with a few of the larger craters showing deep shadows, while the opposite (Saturn-facing) hemisphere is currently in total darkness.
The second image (above-right) is a “time exposure” of the same view, taken a few seconds later. It was produced by integrating the faint light reflecting off Dione’s nightside hemisphere, utilizing the “Saturn shine” time-exposure technique described above. The result is a faintly-illuminated view of the previously invisible, Saturn-facing hemisphere.
As with the Iapteus shot, the (totally overexposed) sunlit landscape is on the right ….
What is critical for properly completing this analysis is to take careful note of the shape of Dione’s overexposed sunlit surface. Even under its low surface gravity (approximately that of Iapetus’ – about 1/50th that of Earth), the mass of ice and rock making up Dione (with a density of about 1.5 times that of pure water) has obviously crushed this mass into essentially a perfect sphere.
Then, there’s tiny Mimas (below) – another Saturnian moon, this one only 247 miles across ... less than the size of some of the major impact basins on Iapetus (note the Saturn shine on the left of the enlarged inset image …)! Mimas' surface gravity is only 1/150th that of Earth (a little under 1/4th that of Iapetus) … yet it too is almost spherical; the difference being a slight “egg-shaped” distortion in the direction of Saturn (below – inset) – created by “solid-body tides” raised in Mimas’ surface, caused by Saturn’s immense gravitational attraction a mere ~115,000 miles away.
Which is the obvious point here: something is radically “wrong” with Iapteus … compared to Mimas or Dione ….
Despite having a larger gravity field and much more mass … and being over 2 million miles from Saturn (so “tides” are totally eliminated) …its overall shape isn’t close to being spherical!
Look again at the “Saturn shine” image of Iapetus (below-left). In the overexposed sunlit portion, the limb of the moon – rather than being round (like Mimas or Dione) – is plainly composed of a set of sharply slanted planes (below-right) …. The exact number is difficult to reconstruct (because of the overexposure and the viewing angle), but the outlined areas appear to mark at least six (tetrahedral?) amazingly flat “sides” – each measuring hundreds of miles in length!
Needless to say -- natural planets or satellites do NOT come with sharply-defined “straight edges!”
And before anyone says, “Oh, that’s just a smeared photo,” I would remind them of the official NASA press release that came with it, which plainly states:
What this means, of course, is that the stark, “impossible” straight-edged geometry we’re seeing on Iapteus’ limb … is real!
In October, following the just-discussed testing of this technique on Dione, Cassini was commanded to take a much more extensive series of similar long-exposure images of Iapetus … over a period of several days (below).
Since one or two images would have sufficed to show the surface features under “Saturn shine,” the fact that Cassini took over a hundred distant images (below) -- as both the spacecraft and the “moon” moved inexorably further around Saturn -- indicates to me that NASA also strongly suspected -- in October -- what we’ve just discovered: that Iapetus, for some reason, is NOT a “spherical” moon ….
In fact … that it’s not a “moon” at all!
If you take one of the first images in this curious sequence (October 20th), and one of the last (October 22nd) -- and compare them (below) -- you instantly see that the angle of perspective (due to the relative orbital motions of the “moon” and Cassini) significantly changes in this two-day period. A careful comparison of these perspective changes unequivocally shows that – whatever is causing the “flat” geometry on this bizarre “moon” – is changing in a three-dimensional manner totally consistent with the changing viewing geometry ….
In other words, this is a completely independent check (beyond NASA’s own official statements) – on whether the over-exposed, “straight-edged geometry” we’re seeing on the sun side of Iapetus is simply an imaging “artifact” -- due to “blurring.”
It is NOT.
As I gazed at this astounding image, something about it was eerily familiar ….
Then it hit me: this was the same geometric shape (below) that H.G. Wells – that famed Victorian science fiction writer, who also left us immortal classics like “The Time Machine,” and “The War of the Worlds” -- had proposed for his own spaceship … in “First Men In the Moon” (1901)!
(Which brings up the nagging question: what did Wells know … and how did he get wind of it ..!?)
Such a shape, of course -- in two dimensions (as a silhouette or projection) -- is structurally derived from one of the more complex three-dimensional “Platonic Solids” (below) – the only regular polyhedral (“many sided”) geometric forms which will fit perfectly within a sphere ….
In this case, apparently an irregular polyhedron based on the … dodecahedron (below).
The appearance of this startlingly regular geometry on a Saturnian moon – but only (at least, at this angle) on the sunlit side, and only with sufficient overexposure of the image – was a crucial clue to the physics of this whole “impossibility.”
If this one-time “spaceship moon” was originally constructed along the geometric lines of a higher Platonic Solid (icosahedron … dodecahedron … some variant thereof …), eons of micrometeorites (according to the apparent ancient age of this astonishing object …) would have preferentially eroded the exposed vertices of such a polyhedron … inexorably whittling away at the highly angular structure, until what remained (under normal lighting) resembles more or less a sphere!
Only sufficient camera overexposure, at the immense distance of Saturn from the Sun, can reveal Iapetus’ original geometry -- by enhancing the faint scattering of sunlight still reflecting from those parts of the Iapetus’ former structure still “hanging in the sky” … above the long-eroded surface of this ancient “moon” …. In other words, more of what we have already seen above Iapetus’ polar regions (below).
This was why the over-exposed, sunlit limb of Iapetus in the “Saturn shine” Cassini image – as a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional Platonic Form – must reveal in silhouette the original three dimensional geometry of this “artificial moon” (below).
This is compelling evidence – and on a planetary scale (below) – that Iapetus was, in fact, constructed … as a geodesic moon.
Additional confirmation of this astonishing geometry – and the entire “tetrahedral moon hypothesis” -- is visible in other images as well ….
A set of mosaiced, narrow-angle Cassini images of Iapetus -- taken as the spacecraft passed much closer to this extraordinary satellite (within 80,000 miles, during the December 31 encounter) – revealed a magnified straight-edged aspect to the moon’s horizon (enlargement-below, top). Appearing as if the image was actually taken on a Hollywood soundstage! – with the sharp, angled horizon (enlargement-below, bottom) the result of “forced perspective” on a set – in fact, the Iapetus image turned out to be a much higher-resolution example of the same, impossible “geometric planes” seen in the distant “Saturn shine” October images!
Again … natural satellites do NOT come with hundred-mile-long “facets!”
The fact that this startling “straight edge” geometry is clearly evident on a normally-exposed image of the dark, leading hemisphere, seems to be trying to tell us something quite significant … particularly, about external erosion taking place on the two different hemispheres of this increasingly perplexing “moon.”
One of the prevailing models for the Saturn system proposes that micrometeorite erosion is enhanced on the leading hemisphere of the synchronously rotating satellites – due to the simple fact that the moons’ orbital velocities around Saturn (and, at certain times, around the Sun) add to the speed (and thus destructive energy …) of any impacting objects “on the front.”
The fact that we’re seeing stark evidence of Iapetus’ original ground-level plane geometry in this leading hemisphere (while such remains have almost disappeared in the trailing hemisphere – and are only visible now in lengthy time-exposures), would at first seem to be a major contradiction – both for the meteorite theory … and the age of the original geometry itself. In fact, the visibility of such remains should be exactly the other way around: they should much better-preserved in the one place shielded from such constant micrometeorite abrasion … on the trailing hemisphere.
However, if Iapetus has not always kept its darkened hemisphere aligned with its orbital motion around Saturn -- as seems the case with several other of Saturn’s moons (they’ve apparently reversed their orientation over the lifetime of the solar system, several times -- due to large, external impacts …), then perhaps Iapetus’ now leading hemisphere … was once facing in the opposite direction (below)!
If that’s the case, then the discovery of surviving straight-edged geometry at ground level in the current leading hemisphere could be another means of unraveling the deepening mystery of the “dark ellipse” itself.
Another mystery that the discovery of Iapetus’s bizarre Platonic Geometry could solve, is the reason for the precise placement of the two “ring basins” -- 240 degrees apart, at the east and west ends of the front hemisphere “ellipse.” If Iapetus is in fact an artificial, now anciently eroded, dodecahedron (or a higher order “geodesic sphere”) – then, the “tetrahedral” siting of these two strange “rings” suddenly makes perfect sense!
As can be seen (below), if a tetrahedron is placed inside a dodecahedron, its vertices can also be precisely placed on select vertices of the dodecahedron itself. This, in turn, generates a “lowest order solution” to the puzzle of why the two “impact basins” marking the Iapetus ellipse would be located on the surface according to a tetrahedral geometry.
The answer: they aren’t “natural impact basins” after all -- but more ancient, geometric evidence that Iapetus was once a Platonically-designed … world-sized … spaceship “moon” ….
Check out the Enterprise Mission Viewscreen for our streaming digital video library.
Copyright © 1996 - 2013 Richard C. Hoagland+ All Rights Reserved