The zombie ziggy: Hoagland writes

        I'm glad to say (OK, write) that this week I did get some responses from Hoagland on the question of the ziggy. I  mean that "glad" sincerely—such an exchange is a lot better than asking Mike Bara why he writes what he writes and says what he says, and getting nothing but douchebags in return.

        Enjoy the contrast in our styles: Hoagland with his weird attempts to make the keyboard look and sound like him, me with my theatrical snootiness. Both of us sure of ourselves to the point of arrogance.

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: That ziggurat


As I understand it, you're interested in a feature on a 43-year old photo with motion smear, whose resolution is AT BEST 65 m/px. Am I right so far?

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, am I also right?

If that is the case, WHY WOULD YOU NOT go immediately to the NAC strip showing that exact area in the LRO image library and examine it? The resolution is about 0.8 m/px, Richard, that's EIGHTY TIMES BETTER, RICHARD.

If you do do that, Richard, guess what you'll find? That's right -- NOTHING OF INTEREST.

Now will you please apologize for misleading the C2C audience and calling the criticism of you "vitriol."

Regards,
expat

========================================
From: richard hoagland   
To: [expat]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat

And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... what?

Their WORD?

Really, if that's the case ... I have this "REALLY neat bridge ...."                       :)

The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."


Keep going; you're only building more public interest as well.


Eventually, with THEIR help, we'll truly get to the bottom of this decades-long "game" that NASA has been playing with ALL of us ....

RCH

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 
Subject: That ziggurat

If you know of specific evidence that that NAC strip has been altered, let's hear it. Otherwise, Richard, your allegation is an attempt by you to create an unfalsifiable proposition and as such has no place in an organized discussion.

I, on the other hand CAN show you specific evidence that your ziggy-pic has been shopped. The evidence is here summarized by Dr Stuart Robbins, a trained and competent astronomer. Please read it.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/podcast-episode-45-the-moons-changing-recession-rate/


Regards,    
expat 

======================================== 
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012  
Subject: That ziggurat  

>>And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... 

 ...is based on the fact that LRO is a scientific enterprise managed by people who would have NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE, RICHARD, for concealing features of interest.

It really is time you let go of the fantasy that Brookings mandated secrecy. The report, Richard, DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER the question of suppressing information. It merely recommended that the question should be asked.

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, and yet your approach to anything that seems interesting is ANYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC, RICHARD. Stop it, please, and apologize to your audience.

Regards, 
expat 

======================================== 
From:richard hoagland  
To: [expat] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat 

The "motive" IS in "Brookings" -- as reported in its December, 1961 edition, by no less a world-class news agency than The New York Times--

"... prevention of the destruction of the world ...."

Not my "opinion," but their reporting of their professional assessment of the "message" o an official, government report on official "confirmation of intelligent extraterrrstrial life ... or artifacts."

NASA has had, therefore, and for more than fifty years -- half a century -- the THREE key elements required by ANY jury ... for conviction of ANY crime--

"Means ... MOTIVE ... opportunity."

By contrast, you are continuing to live in "delusion land" -- obviously not wanting to even consider such political (not "scientific") possibiities ....

Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :)

Fortunately, it's coming to an end ....


RCH

P.S.  And, please ... continue  making all this public fuss; "where's there's smoke ...."            :)

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat


I would submit that a 50 year old article in NYT has as much relevance to a post-doc processing data at LROC in Arizona as the price of coconuts in the market in Jamaica. Possibly less. You make two classic errors here, errors that have permeated your work for as long as I've been giving myself the agony of reading and hearing it.

1. You persist in willfully misreading Brookings in order to make a totally spurious case. Never mind the newspaper reports, read the text. I don't need to quote it here because you probably know it by heart. Here's what you wrote about it:

"So here we had the proverbial smoking gun. Not only was NASA advised--almost from its inception--to withhold any data that supported the reality of Cydonia or any other discovery like it, they were told to do so for the good of human society as a whole." (Dark Mission, p.163 2nd edn)

That sentence is mendacious, Richard. It's Simply. Not. True. Not only did Brookings never "advise NASA to withhold data," nothing it did advise was ever taken seriously in any case. I very much doubt that those post-docs massaging data at LROC have even heard of it, or heard of you and your daft unscientific theories.

2. You also persist in regarding purely science-driven activities as under the control of some evil power intent on covering up information. In the case of the LRO cameras, I would remind you that data processing is carried out, not by a secret cabal of NASA masonic elders, but by skilled people from fourteen academic institutions including Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins.... bla bla bla. The notion that all of these people could be collaborating to keep data from appearing has NO CREDIBILITY WHATEVER. Over the last few days we have learned that the proximate source of the ziggy-pic was Mike Bara, and that Bara has no idea where it originally came from or who "enhanced" it. It would be hard to imagine anything carrying less weight of evidence of what you wish to allege.

You should be ashamed of misleading your readers with such lies. You should be ashamed of going on C2C and marking the anniversary of a heroic achievement with a piece of self-promotional flim-flam that was an attack on the very agency that was responsible for the heroism. You said

"[T]his is only a tip of the iceberg, George, as to what they've been hiding for 43 years, that we have got to take control of now."

A few days later you wrote

"it seemed appropriate to remind everyone -- on the 43rd Apollo 11 Anniversary -- how MUCH NASA has been hiding, all these years"

It was not appropriate, Richard, not appropriate at all. It was SHAMEFUL.

Now, in the present exchange of views, you write

"Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :) Fortunately, it's coming to an end" ....

In 2010 you said disclosure was imminent. You declared 2011 "the year we make contact." Pardon me if I ignore your admonitions about what is about to happen to my "state."

Regards,
expat

========================================

         Caution: Just because I had the last word (for now) it would not be correct to score a win for me. A win would be if he actually did apologize. Preferably not just to me but to all his listeners and disciples.