I was recently re-reading your May 1997 essay "Where is the informed criticism of Richard Hoagland?" I note this sentence, toward the end:
"If Hoagland is wrong then let him be proved wrong. Let the critics who doubt the quality of his work repeat the process, and find him in error."
I have now done that, in relation to:
- The mythical anti-gravity boost to Explorer 1. His calculation is totally in error.
- The photo-processing of the rock called "data's head". His processing was found to be fraudulent.
- Neil Armstrong's 25th anniversary speech. Armstrong actually said the OPPOSITE of what Hoagland claims he said. You have conceded this.
- The allegation that Apollo astronauts actually returned artifacts of a lunar civilisation. You have conceded that there is no evidence of that.
- His characterisation of the Brookings Report as "strongly recommending" concealment of evidence of alien life. It did not.
James Oberg has falsified your allegations of sabotage in respect of Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, and Mars Climate Orbiter.
Are you now going to withdraw the 1997 essay?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Informed criticism? Yeah — we got that
Mike Bara censored the following post today, disallowing its appearance on the official "Dark Mission" blog in its entirety:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Until I really decided to delve into Dark Mission for what was ostensibly going to be a quick tongue-in-cheek, 'Avoid This At All Costs' one-off review I have to admit that I was a Hoagland follower, albeit sceptical. Now it's hard for me to image that he (or Bara) have even the tiniest shred of credibility. Every idiotic idea after another just seems rife with flaws. I can barely bring myself to look at or read at the self-congratulatory alter of the Dark Mission blog. You're a braver man than I for banging your head on that wall...
Post a Comment