Richard Hoagland's book DARK MISSION

[Bad Bishop]

TerriO said:

Message, not the messenger. Hoagland's backstory isn't up for discussion. Just the new book.

I'm still waiting for my copy. You might as well brace yourself for some reference to the alleged "Face on Mars." After all, Hoagland's claim is that NASA has been sanitizing photographs and data from the moon and Mars. How can we discuss this freely if there is a total ban on related subjects?

 

[TerriO]

I'm not banning related subjects. I just didn't want this to degenerate into a "oh, that nutjob, what is he doing being discussed in here" scenario.

From what I can see, there are three options. One, I can let any discussion of Hoagland's work run rampant, and ignore the inevitable degeneration into "he's a crackpot"/"he's telling the truth" that usually comes with that subject. Two, I can try to steer the discussion toward the subject you posted (namely, the book DARK MISSION), and away from the usual landmines. Or three, I can ban discussion of Hoagland's work altogether.

The middle ground seemed like the most logical choice. Although considering how much badgering I'm getting about that choice, I'm beginning to come around to the notion that I was wrong.

Fine, forget I tried to steer the discussion anywhere.

As long as nobody breaks any board rules, go for it.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Actually, TerriO, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to warn members not to resort to name-calling. So please do so. Every forum has a bunch of people with nothing better to offer than insults.

But if Hoagland sets the "Face on Mars" controversy against a background of NASA deception and secrecy (the thesis of his book), then that should be fair game for discussion.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

The Borg Queen said:
Is there a synopsis of what this book is about?

Try these links

Fist the skeptics take on astronomy
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/09/21/hoagland-still-wrong-about-face-on-mars/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/10/06/best-mars-picture-evah/
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/howfar.html
http://www.bautforum.com/fun-n-games/59989-richard-hoagland-vindicated-more-stuff-mars.html
http://www.skepchick.org/skepticsguide/v...e941704926f45f1


Now for the conspiracy believers
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/2005/10/somebody-tried-to-kill-hurricane-wilma.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread122068/pg1
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg38446.html

Make up your own mind if this book is going to be junk or not

 

[voggmo]

Well, there's a difference between "show me some evidence" and "lollerskates electricity! Power from the sky? What an idiot". If Hogland has proof of his city on the moon that he's willing to publicly test (say by giving the coordinates so that amateur astronomers can look for it), there's no reason that I should take Hogland seriously.
\


Fair enough. I wasn't referring to Hoagland specifically, rather that if Ben Frank had gone round chattin to the authorities of the day about a kite & a key, they'd call him a nutter. & furthermore, none of the great technological leaps of note were done by sceptics, they were done by men of vision & imagination, the "hey I wonder" sort of fellows, which is diametrically opposed to the sceptic pathway of thinking. Sceptics doubt rather than explore, negate rather than accomplish, criticize rather than venture, etc etc.

City on the moon? well, nothing new about that, been kicked round for decades. Yes, evidence would be handy. Haven't heard much about Hoaglands slant on it. As mentioned before, he is a scientist, & did work for NASA, so that alone would merit taking him more seriously than say some cat in his backyard with a telescope.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

voggmo said:
[Hoagland] is a scientist, & did work for NASA...

TGT

 

[TerriO]

The God Thing said:

voggmo said:
[Hoagland] is a scientist, & did work for NASA...

TGT

Can you prove that, TGT? Because I'd love to see the evidence.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

TerriO said:
Can you prove that, TGT? Because I'd love to see the evidence.

Prove what? That Hoagland is neither a scientist nor has ever undertaken any work for NASA? Aside from his apparent lack of credentials when it comes to undergrad degrees let alone a masters or doctorate, there are absolutely no references to any papers written by him on either the NASA Technical Report Server or the AIAA database, to say nothing of Acta Astronautica. My collection of AAS books and journals are presently on the other side of the country, but I am quite certain that I never saw his name in any of them either.

TGT

 

[TerriO]

Thank you.

A little evidence when calling something or someone out for BS is never a bad thing. :thumbsup:

 

[voggmo]

OK, so no technical papers. Um, doesn't exactly prove he's not a scientist. He claims he worked with Sagan for years. Sagan admits knowing him for years. So, er were they golfing buddies? or perhaps they did the odd bit of science. Just curious which it might be.

http://www.amazon.com/Hoaglands-Mars-1/dp/6303082211

This tape contains lectures Hoagland gave to a group of NASA scientists in 1988 in which he laid out his theory, as well as other segments of Hoagland speaking in a studio.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/sagan.html

SAGAN: I’ve known Richard Hoagland for many, many years. I think I have just the right measure of compassion. (Laughter)


P.S. He could be a good scientist or a bad one, either way, still a scientist.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Let's say (hypothetically for the sake of argument) that he is a qualified scientist... What scientific merits does the book have?

Is there anything in this book that's reproducible or verifiable or falsifiable, or is it all just conjecture and circumstantial?

 

[GodThingFormerly]

voggmo said:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/sagan.html

SAGAN: I’ve known Richard Hoagland for many, many years. I think I have just the right measure of compassion.(Laughter)

So out of the thousands of planetary science PhDs in the United States, Hoagland just so happened to latch onto the one who also managed to make a household name for himself as an astronomy popularizer. What are the odds? Oh, and speaking of the planetary sciences, I also searched for any papers written by Hoagland in The Astronomical Journal and Icarus. No dice. That being said, according to that interview transcript, Carl Sagan stated the following about Hoagland:

"Richard Hoagland is a fabulist."

Now, what kind of way is that to speak about the work of a respected colleague?

P.S. He could be a good scientist or a bad one, either way, still a scientist.

I invariably lie about being an investment banker whenever I encounter women IRL that I may at some point wish to use for sex. It still doesn't make me an investment banker, good or bad.

TGT

 

[Bad Bishop]

The Borg Queen said:
Let's say (hypothetically for the sake of argument) that he is a qualified scientist... What scientific merits does the book have?

Is there anything in this book that's reproducible or verifiable or falsifiable, or is it all just conjecture and circumstantial?

Buy yourself a copy and find out. The website says that it contains about 200 footnotes and scientific references. Apparently, there's plenty that's verifiable. I'll be happy to share the juiciest parts of the book after I'm done with it.

 

[voggmo]

Now, what kind of way is that to speak about the work of a respected colleague?

No, rather it highlites that Sagan is an ass. Nothing more, nothing less. It's well known he doesn't like Hoagie much these days, so what?

Hoagland was well ahead of NASA scientists about Europa under ice oceans, yes I know, he wasn't 1st with that, but still well ahead of the supposed "qualified" legit scientists at NASA.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

voggmo said:
No, rather it highlites that Sagan is an ass. Nothing more, nothing less. It's well known he doesn't like Hoagie much these days, so what?

These days? Sagan has been dead for over a decade.

Hoagland was well ahead of NASA scientists about Europa under ice oceans, yes I know, he wasn't 1st with that, but still well ahead of the supposed "qualified" legit scientists at NASA.

Not that I have all that much regard for NASA since the departure of von Braun from directorship of MSFC, but how exactly do you know which researchers at the relevant NASA centers for planetary science (Ames, Goddard and JPL) knew what when concerning the possible subsurface oceans of Europa?

TGT

 

[voggmo]

These days? Sagan has been dead for over a decade.

Ok, an ass when he said it.










"but how exactly do you know which researchers at the relevant NASA centers for planetary science (JPL, Ames and Goddard) knew what when concerning the possible subsurface oceans of Europa?"


Reading up on it I suppose. Here's a link that covers a lot of it.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/FaxBack.html

Hoagland's ideas about Europa appeared as the cover story in the January, 1980, issue of 'Star & Sky'. Given the potential importance of the concept, I issued a news release to coincide with the issue's publication. It was picked up by all the major news services and the story ran in hundreds of newspapers. It appeared in 'The Toronto Star' on December. 27, 1979, under the headline 'By Jupiter! Maybe there is alien life in space'.

Then, instead of Hoagland's ideas appearing in textbooks, NASA brochures and other publications about the solar system, they were ignored.

 

[Tyson]

"No, rather it highlites that Sagan is an ass."

Epic fail.

 

[voggmo]

Epic truth.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~heensle/ufo/sagan.html

Once Sagan was talking about ESP and he related a dream he had when he was young. He had this intense dream where one of his good friends died the very next day. It was so intense that Sagan actually thought it would happen. Well....the next day came and passed and his friend fortunately did not die. Now the conclusion that Sagan drew from this experience was that ESP obviously never occurred and it was all a bunch of bunk.

Here is an example of his stunning logic. To make a UFO equivalent, this would be like someone thinking that he saw an alien craft and later finding out that it was just a plane. This person would then conclude that no UFO's existed.

Needless to say, one can be well educated, one can be famous, but it doesn't mean he is always logical.




http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Sagan-Life-Keay-Davidson/dp/0471395366

while both Poundstone and Davidson detail Sagan's marijuana use, Davidson goes further and suggests that the Pulitzer-winning Dragon's of Eden was largely a marijuana- induced work.


He should've teamed up with Tommy Chong on dope induced "universe" theory.

Ok, my apologies to the starry eyed Sagan worshippers.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

voggmo said:
Ok, my apologies to the starry eyed Sagan worshippers.

Not that I ever had much regard for Sagan (he was barely a zit on the ass of Freeman Dyson as both a physicist and a writer), but your posts in this thread are becoming even more incoherent than usual. On the one hand you invoke Sagan's supposed relationship with Hoagland in an attempt to give the latter an aura of scientific legitimacy. However, after I pointed out Sagan's obvious contempt for Hoagland - in an interview you linked to - you shift gears and accuse Sagan of being not only an "ass", but also a brain-damaged marijuana addict (which he may very well have been) in a feeble attempt to discredit him. Make up your mind already.

TGT

 

[voggmo]

Well sorry for your poor ability to absorb the simple & obvious. Sagan knew him, worked with him, this ( rather obviously), means Hoagland was involved with science. Now the fact the Sagan didn't like him has nothing to do with whether or not Hoagland was a scientist. Perhaps you were not aware that often scientists do disagree with one another & as well often do not like each other. This does not in any way mean that 1 of the 2 scientists is not a scientist. My apologies for not being able to present a more simplistic, say 3rd grader level presentation for you.

More on Sagan...

http://www.amazon.ca/Demon-Haunted-World-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345409469

Sagan comes across as a "killjoy", who is bitter about the seemingly innocuous pleasures that many Americans indulge themselves in (Star Trek,


http://www.mufon.com/arch015.html

Carl Sagan stated that he believed all abduction accounts are delusions or hallucinations So far, Nova appears unconcerned that Dr. Sagan has yet to mount a serious investigation into even one abduction report.


What evidence does Dr. Sagan, for example, present to buttress his sweeping -- and to the abductees, damning --indictment of their ability to separate fantasy from reality? None. None whatsoever. For a man regarded within popular culture as a kind of Pope of Science to offer such a wholesale denigration of UFO abductees with no supporting evidence is worse than irresponsible.

He often doesn't even apply scientific principle to his opinions. The term hack scientist comes to mind. Or Pseudoscientist perhaps even more appropriate.