Hoagland rejects the WISE catalog

        Congratulations to Esteban Navarro Galán, occasional commenter to this blog, for getting Richard Hoagland to actually answer a question on Fuckbook yesterday. He drew Hoagland's attention to the fact that the WISE catalog of IR sources is now published, and it's a notable FAIL for hyperdimensional physics since WISE did not find the very large object that Hoagland & Bara say is essential to the theory ("Dark Mission," ch.2.) Hoagland's only way out of this dilemma was to summarily reject the catalog, as the suspect product of a "government agency"—he uses that term as if it really meant "gang of ignorant thugs." Here's his reply:

How do we have ANY way of knowing if these newly-released WISE survey results are "complete?"

Since these findings are held in VERY limited hands (as usual ...), the abiltiy [sic] to just "forget" to post confirmation of such an object (or, objects) DEEP in the outer solar system -- especially, if it would TOTALLY UPSET the current Physics paradigm, as Mike Bara and I reported in "Dark Mission" -- would be all-too-easy! :(

Further, how does the WISE Team now "explain away" the far earlier IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Telescope) discovery of PRECISELY such a mysterious object, in 1983 ... and its PUBLIC acknowledgement in an interview that key NASA scientist granted to the Washington Post and my old friend, Tom O'Toole, who was then their science correspondent?

http://astralnewz.com/thereal2012/planetx.html#iras1983

Or, do you believe EVERYTHING a goverment [sic] agency says these days ... or ... that is now dutifully "reported as news" by the mainstream media? :)

        Galán has not so far posted a reply, but if I was not banned from the page this is what I would write (and in fact have already e-mailed to Hoagland, although the chance that he'll read it is very small):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoagland:
Yesterday on your Facebook page, Esteban Navarro Galán asked if the recently-released WISE catalog posed a problem for the theory of hyperdimensional physics. You replied suggesting that it would have been "all-too-easy" for the compilers of the catalog to have simply omitted the discovery of a large outer planet, and asking how the WISE team would explain this report from 1983.

The WISE catalog includes more than half a billion objects and its 18,000 images are now available for scrutiny by anyone with sufficient knowledge and equipment. The following scientific agencies were intimately involved in the data processing:

• Infrared and Processing Analysis Center at CalTech - Primary data analysis
• JPL - Mission management
• NASA Science Directorate, Washington
• NASA Goddard

I draw your attention to the certain fact that responsibility for the primary data analysis fell, not on a government agency as you stated, but on a scientific institution whose record of achievement is world renowned. I don't know the total number of individuals involved in the preparation of the WISE catalog, but it would surely be several hundred spread among the four institutions listed above. I suppose you're entitled to describe that group as "limited," but your bizarre suggestion that the group engaged in dishonesty is an outrageous insult to people who dedicated 14 years of their lives to this project. The idea that it would have been very easy for this catalog to have deliberately omitted one of the primary presumptive targets of the mission is simply laughable. You have no chance whatever of convincing anyone with knowledge of how space science is conducted that what you allege actually took place.

I can't speak for the WISE scientists, but I know how I would "explain away" the 20-year old Washington Post article. I would explain as follows:

The "key NASA scientist" of whom you write was Dr. Gerry Neugebauer of IRAS. James Houck was also mentioned in the piece as not being sure what this object was.

Please look at the list of authors of the following letter to J. Astrophys:

===============================================
Unidentified IRAS sources - Ultrahigh-luminosity galaxies
Houck, J.R., Schneider, D. P., Danielson, G.E., Neugebauer, G., Soifer, B.T., Beichman, C. A., Lonsdale, C. J.

Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 - Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 290, March 1, 1985, p. L5-L8

Abstract:
Optical imaging and spectroscopy measurements were obtained for six of the high galactic latitude infrared sources reported by Houck, et al. (1984) from the IRAS survey to have no obvious optical counterparts on the POSS prints. All are identified with visually faint galaxies that have total luminosities in the range 5 x 10 to the 11th power stellar luminosity to 5 x 10 to the 12th power stellar luminosity. This luminosity emerges virtually entirely in the infrared.
 ================================================

Since you are not  yourself a scientist (notwithstanding your claims) you may perhaps need this to be interpreted in layman's terms. It says WE HAD A CLOSER LOOK AND ALL THE ANOMALOUS OBJECTS TURNED OUT TO BE GALAXIES.

I would like to add that you are in a poor position to accuse Esteban Navarro Galán of credulousness, since you apparently believe:

- A 20-year-old story from the Washington Post that was thoroughly discredited two years later

- Maurice Allais' anomalous paraconical pendulum results, despite the fact that they have never been successfully repeated.

- Bruce DePalma's garage experiment with a spinning ball as evidence of anti-gravity, despite the fact that a conventional explanation (The Magnus Effect) is available and is far more conservative.

- Over-unity energy claims by Thomas Bearden and John Searl, despite that fact that neither has ever been able to demonstrate their "machines" in public.

You have once again done your reputation no service by your rejection of a valid and important piece of scientific research, and your accusation of fraud without a shred of supporting evidence. You need to accept that HD physics has been falsified.

Update:

Esteban Navarro Galán has now responded on FB, citing answer #3 in this astrobiology FAQ.