um,
Well, we don’t know the exactly process that created those features.
But undoubtedly they are natural features, imho.
Objectively speaking, what's better, a torough explanation of the reasoning behind a certain hypothesis, for how 'alternative' it may sound, or a dogmatic "undoubtly, it's as I say it is"?
I haven't seen you counterargumenting his points, probably because you're too convinced of your own opinions that can't even bother to check whether they're right or not.
(perhaps it’s just my pagan upbringing, but i my reality must be quit different from yours. )
My reality is the one I see with my own eyes, and with my own eyes I see something I can't explain as a natural process.
And I haven't seen you explaining it either.
And ignore Hoagland; i would personally class him as a conman, who takes advantage of those who are scientifically disadvantaged...
See, that's what I mean. You didn't even bother to read what he wrote, because it must be rubbish, must not it?
Sorry, but I'll take what anyone cares to argument and question, and seems even remotely plausible to me, over what someone else takes for granted.
That's what scientifically educated people should do. Dogmas are for religion, scientists ask themselves questions, and seek for plausible and replicable answers.
A moon splitting itself in two, right at equator, then rejoining, then melting/freezing who knows how many times, then producing for that reason hexagonal patterns large hundred of kilometers (I'd like you to explain the exact process of that), is as likely as the whole universe collapsing right now as I'm writing.
---- EDIT ----
Seriously, re-reading that hypothesis of yours, I wonder where you took it from and why does it somewhat sound more plausible to you than that moon being artificial.
The odds that another civilization was in this solar system before us are the same as the ones for us being here right now. Quite likely, I'd say. For what we all know, it could be
us who placed that thing there, eons ago. Yes, this is pure science fiction, but consider the possibilities of this being true vs the ones of your scenario... We have tons of myths spread among the thousand of different cultures all around our globe which share the same fundations; We have references to Atlantis from Plato, we have mysterious artifacts found all around the globe which are still now unexplained and that
official science seems to have forgotten.
You need to put
all pieces together to complete the puzzle, and you can't cheat. You can't pretend some things don't exist just because they don't fit your model, you need to make a model that fits
all things you've discovered.
Unfortunately science is a form of religion for many people. They often say they have no god, but their god is the science itself, and anything that doesn't fit the dogmatic view imposed to them by their predecessors is 'heretic'.
Science should be all about having open minds, evaluating all kind of possibilities, not forgetting any details and developing comphrensive models. Unfortunately, it's not like that.
Mind you, this rant is a general one, not geared torward the particular topic at hand. Coming back to the original topic, whether Iapetus is artificial or not I don't know, but as of now any proof that it's natural is lacking, and all clues point to it being artificial. In the end we may discover it's as natural as a {bleep}ball, but right now that's not the case.