Richard Hoagland's book DARK MISSION

[Bad Bishop]

http://www.darkmission.net/

Not content to let the "Face on Mars" rest in peace, Hoagland has another book this week. It's supposed to unmask big time scientific deception on the part of NASA. Is it worth a read, or is this going to be on the same level as 9/11 conspiracy theories?

 

[Admiral_Young]

Re: Richard Hoagland is at it again

I've been meaning to check it out myself...as much as he seems out there with his theories you gotta admit if you've ever seem some of the photos he posts on Enterprise Mission it makes you think. Unless of course you're a complete skeptic and are going to shoot holes in everything anyways.

 

[anti-matter]

Re: Richard Hoagland is at it again

Of course NASA has things to hide that's one of the reasons we don't have live coverage on the NASA channel. I think it's bogus for what we're paying for those missions but I suppose they do have proprietary info they want to protect. Still and all anytime you're less than open on these so called 'discovery' missions you let yourself open for conspiracy theories. I guess what really bothers me about the NASA channel is those stupid kiddie cartoons airing when I know there's real live coverage to be had.

 

[Bad Bishop]

I want to give Hoagland some courtesy by not pre-judging his book (that's why I just edited the thread title).

According to the website the new book does contain numerous sources. Let's see what they are. Some conspiracy theories are better substantiated than others. And the author did work in the space program.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ The book actually looks really interesting...Richard is someone you have to take lightly but he does attempt to back up all of his sources and does consider himself a serious scientist. Maybe I'm biased because I listen to him alot on Coast to Coast but he does pose interesting theories about the space program. Not as outlandish though as say John Leer.

 

[TerriO]

Hoagland has been more than adequately debunked by badastronomy.com, so I admit that I'm a bit reluctant to leave this open, but I will.

Let's keep the discussion to the scientific merits (or lack thereof, if they are debunkable) of this book, and not get into his back catalog, and see how it goes, okay?

 

[Bad Bishop]

TerriO said:
Hoagland has been more than adequately debunked by badastronomy.com, so I admit that I'm a bit reluctant to leave this open, but I will.

Let's keep the discussion to the scientific merits (or lack thereof, if they are debunkable) of this book, and not get into his back catalog, and see how it goes, okay?

This thread shouldn't be about the Face on Mars. Instead, I hope it will be about Things We Didn't Know About NASA.

I've been to badastronomy.com, and their general position on Hoagland is clear. They don't like him. But they don't have anything to say about his new book. Not yet anyway.

 

[Admiral_Young]

If you're interested Bad Bishop Richard is going to be on Coast To Coast this week along with his co-author to discuss the book. I belive they will be on Tuesday night but I'm not sure.

 

[TerriO]

Bad Bishop said:

TerriO said:
Hoagland has been more than adequately debunked by badastronomy.com, so I admit that I'm a bit reluctant to leave this open, but I will.

Let's keep the discussion to the scientific merits (or lack thereof, if they are debunkable) of this book, and not get into his back catalog, and see how it goes, okay?

This thread shouldn't be about the Face on Mars. Instead, I hope it will be about Things We Didn't Know About NASA.

I've been to badastronomy.com, and their general position on Hoagland is clear. They don't like him. But they don't have anything to say about his new book. Not yet anyway.

And I'm sure they will, once it's released. The thing is, anytime you bring someone as controversial as Hoagland into a discussion, you're asking for his back catalogue to come into play. That's why I tried to encourage everyone to try to confine the discussion to the contents of this newest book, and not the usual stuff that comes up when his name's mentioned.

 

[Mysterion]

Well, if nothing else, Hoagland's appearances on "Coast to Coast" are always entertaining, if not thought provoking.

Some of Hoagland's conclusions can be a bit iffy, but I think the real value of his work is that he asks interesting, and sometimes important questions. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Will be interested to see what he's come up with this time around.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Admiral_Young said:
If you're interested Bad Bishop Richard is going to be on Coast To Coast this week along with his co-author to discuss the book. I belive they will be on Tuesday night but I'm not sure.

Thanks for the tip. I don't want to miss this one.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Admiral_Young said:
^ The book actually looks really interesting...Richard is someone you have to take lightly but he does attempt to back up all of his sources and does consider himself a serious scientist. Maybe I'm biased because I listen to him alot on Coast to Coast but he does pose interesting theories about the space program. Not as outlandish though as say John Leer.

Well, from a look at his intro and blog, it doesn't look all that great.

Starting with his "City of Light" on the moon (apparently near a landing site according to the Intro on the website) -- we landed on the light side of the moon, so anything they saw we should be able to see with a reasonably high powered telescope. How can the entire planet miss an alien city? If I could get a 10,000 mag telescope, I should be able to see the thing. Yet no one, even at an observatory seems to have reported anything unusual on the moon. I find this somewhat unlikely.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

This guy thinks there's a CITY on the moon? What a looney tunes.

 

[TerriO]

Babaganoosh said:
This guy thinks there's a CITY on the moon? What a looney tunes.

Let's try to keep to the science and not resort to name-calling, please.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ He's here? Sorry, I didn't know that.

 

[T'Bonz]

^
She's trying to keep this a grown-up place, not one for the kiddies.

 

[TerriO]

Babaganoosh said:
^ He's here? Sorry, I didn't know that.

First off, what Bonz said.

Second, I'm also trying to encourage civil discussion of scientific subjects, and that does not include name-calling. Disagreeing with a scientific presentation by finding ways to debunk it is far better than calling the person making the assertion "looney tunes." You'll probably also find it goes a long way toward credibility in future discussions/debates/arguments.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Well as always Richard was entertaining...and passionate about attempting to get across his points. I should establish that first of all I'm not really a support of Richard Hoagland's, I'm actually more in the middle conerning his theories as outlandish as some may concieve them to be. Its not so much DO these outrageous claims really exsist as much as CAN we open our minds to belive in the possibility they exsist. That I think is what he is attempting to convey to us...from listening to him on many different occasions he is well aware of the critics and debunkers who have attacked him over the years. He's simply a man on a mission trying to prove himself right. Doesn't matter that he get's laughed at by mainstream scientists and the general public. To make a point...there was a time when we thought for the longest time that the Earth was flat amongst other ludicrous things that we've since proven wrong. So while I disagree with many of Richard's theories and think at times he's reaching when there is nothing there (I kind of take Art Bell's stance on Richard) but he does get credit for making me think. Remember what Spock says...there are always possibities. I also kind of think it ironic that people on a SCIENCE FICTION Message Board are thinking this guy is a nut! That makes me laugh...

 

[Mysterion]

^^^^^
Unfortunately missed Hoagland's CtoC appearance last night, but I have ordered a copy of his book. Will try to post comments/review here when I've read it.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think I'm still going to pick it up...I'm interested in this kind of stuff anyways so I'll be getting it around Christmas time.