Well, I don't usually blame C2C guests for plugging books—they get no other compensation for giving up most of a night's sleep (and by the way, it really works, as I have reported passim.) But in this case the plugging was strident and the problem is that IT'S NOT HOAGLAND'S BOOK. It's Richard Grossinger's book. Grossinger was the original publisher of The Monuments of Mars after Simon & Shuster reverted Hoagland's contract for non-performance. Grossinger wrote at some length about his pal Hoagland in 2010. Here's an excerpt:
"Hoagland is a unique mixture of amateur scientist, genius inventor, scam artist, and performer, blending true, legitimate speculative science with his own extrapolations, tall tales, and inflations. He is a brilliant and glorious myth-maker and a evidence-based scientist at the same time."New Horizons for a procrastinating author
The book is 300 pages long and contains 31 essays by a smörgåsbord of writers. None of the names ring a bell with me except Jason Martell and Grossinger himself, who contributes #2 in addition to a 44-page introduction (which is quite well-written, in fact.) Hoagland himself is #3 up, strutting around the book for 64 pages. His chapter title is New Horizon ... for a Lost Horizon, and it's recognizably Hoagland but ever so slightly toned down. We get lots of "extraordinary," "astonishing" and "stunning." There are the unmotivated italics and the bizarre ellipses, but no all-caps overemphasis and no exclamation points. Deo gratias.
Well, here's a flavor of the sheer mendacity of this material, as Hoagland tries to substantiate his thesis that the solar system is replete with evidence of a now-dead advanced civilization:
"Our research has now revealed that this stunning, new solar system reality first became known to the U.S. Department of Defense under the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s—in part via a pioneering, top-secret JPL (U.S. Army) effort at a first unmanned circumlunar reconnaissance mission, "Project Red Socks." We believe the shocking results of this clandestine mission formed the real reason behind NASA's sudden public emergence after Sputnik, and the rapid congressional authorization, only one year later in 1958, of NASA as the loudly-proclaimed, lead "civilian space agency of the U.S.A."
"This was the perfect cover—in the 1950s world of perpetual Soviet pursuit of any and all technological supremacy over the West—for NASA's real, long-term covert mission:
To secretly ascertain ... from NASA's inception ... the full extent of (potential) military threats (or benefits) of these long-abandoned, ancient ET derelicts ... as well as those ancient surface installations still partially preserved on various planets and moons (Cydonia et al.); the surviving riches of an entire, astonishing Type II Civilization in our own backyard—whose extraordinary legacy and scientific potential was only fully accepted (even within NASA) when Apollo astronauts fulfilled their real Kennedy Mission and clandestinely returned, beginning in 1969, unquestionable intelligently-designed and manufactured ET artifacts to Earth—from the Moon."note2
He writes of "the shocking results" of Project Red Socks. The most shocking result was that the project never happened. It was way too ambitious for a group of people who would not even succeed in orbiting a tiny 14kg satellite for another three months. Red Socks was a panic reaction to the Soviet success with Sputnik 1, conceived as a series of nine lunar orbiters which would, at a minimum, return photographs of the far side. It was even suggested that they might deliver a nuclear weapon to the surface, then wait patiently for some of the debris to come flying back to Earth by sheer good luck (I almost added an exclamation point there, tsk tsk.) Some vestiges of Red Socks were folded into the Pioneer 4 mission in 1959, but basically, it was a non-starter.
As for that utterly daft allegation that Apollo returned the technical artifacts of a lunar civilization—he made the same claim in the introduction to Dark Mission. He did not then, and does not now, produce one scintilla of evidence for that assertion. On the contrary, the evidence is all against him. We know what was brought back from the Moon. It was meticulously catalogued in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, where Hoagland's pal Ken Johnston worked. Surely Ken could set the Hoaxster straight on that. It's all very well him saying "Ah well, that's what they want you to think"—without some evidence, he just looks like a buffoon. In Dark Mission he further alleged that the lunar goodies were then subjected to reverse engineering. Well, where are the results, Richard?
I love the fact that Amazon categorizes this work as Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Folklore & Mythology. Yes indeed, Amazon.
Update 10th April:
Oy veh, Coast to Coast saw fit to give Hoagland yet another two hours last night to mention "my book" a dozen times. He talked at some length about private enterprise Moon landings, then added:
"Another reason to buy the book is that part of the proceeds will go toward funding this enterprise."FACEPALM. There are 31 authors to pay. After publishing costs the book might generate as much as $50,000—probably less. How much use does Hoagland think the residuals would be to a manned lunar landing mission?
 Everything in the show is recycled Hoaglandiana, but it's worth following that Youtube link, just to enjoy the mocking comments.
 That second half is all one sentence. That's Hoagland for you.
Some of my favorite moments came in the first few minutes of the show. Syrett gave a summary of John Brandenburg’s ideas about nuclear explosions on Mars, and RCH went on about how Brandenburg “gave a paper” at the LPSC this year. I was looking for Brandenburg’s abstract and came across Stuart Robbins’ great overview of Brandenburg’s adventures at the LPSC:
Turns out it was a poster, not a presentation, and not much of a poster at that.
But the best part of this discussion was when RCH, true to form, tried to claim credit for all of Brandenburg’s ideas. You see, Hoagland “specifically picked [Brandenburg] out” to be a part of his Mars investigation back in 1983 because Brandenburg knew nuclear weapons. RCH had noticed that craters near Cydonia looked like craters from nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, and he realized he needed a nuclear expert. So I’m totally responsible for John’s stuff.
And then when Syrett tried to move on to the next question after that diatribe, RCH implored “So none of that impresses you?” It does not.
So this is what we’ve come to. Like a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, RCH says he’s still present at scientific conferences by proxy, because he had a conversation 30 years ago about some of the same ideas. Just like he’s solely responsible for Mike Bara, Judy Wood, the Pioneer plaque, and the hammer and the feather. I wonder if there’s anyone left who doesn’t react like Syrett did. Yes Richard, you’re very important, you’re a big boy who’s all grown up. Now let the adults talk, please.
You nailed it, Jourget. Great comment.
Two spam comments from Novvak disallowed
The Report From Iron Mountain which Hoagland was talking about on Coast the other night, are what you call Spam? I provided a link to it by it's official title, which is different, and discussed the controversy of it.
No, you rambled on about the Electronic Research Collection. Not interesting. Not relevant.
"I've got plaques flying out among the stars, on Pioneer, that me and Eric Burgess suggested to Carl Sagan."
Yes he said it again.
He's got a cool ocean on Europa to sell you, too...
'Richard Hoagland is like the Forest Gump of NASA: if it happened he was involved in it in someway'.
In relation to his talk on C2C, Richard said the Chinese landed their moon rover at 19.5 degrees so if this is correct then thats a very interesting co-incedence. I'm no rocket scientist but I wonder if this was intentional - surely in our technological age we can direct things with pin point accuracy quite easily? If cars have GPS to give exact co-ordinates from satelites miles above the earth is it really so difficult to calculate an exact location on the moon and land a rover to an exact position with laser guidance etc? Or did the Chinese really just pick a general area to land their rover and pretty much just hope for the best?
« Richard said the Chinese landed their moon rover at 19.5 degrees so if this is correct then thats a very interesting co-incedence. »
No it isn't. Let me explain. Per Hoagland's often-reiterated theory, 19.5° has significance as a latitude because of the inherent geometry of an inscribed tetrahedron. It has no significance at all as a longitude, because the 0° longitude point is arbitrarily assigned by astronomers.
Chang'e 3 landed at 19.51°W longitude, 44.12 °N latitude. Yes, it was a deliberate choice, in fact they re-targeted within a week of the landing. Even in Apollo days, pinpoint landings were achieved.
"Embedded Tetrahedral Latitude" Discovered At Cydonia
These interlocking, extremely meaningful, and highly predictive relationships -- coded now in both the mathematical and blatant geometric aspects of the Complex -- can only be interpretated with extraordinary effort as anything other than the result of a deliberate and systematic plan -- designed to underscore the importance of "tetrahedral geometry."
That the anomalies predicted by this "geometry" encompass a range of demonstrable solar system phenomena -- from deeply-buried planetary mantle "hot spots," to associated shield volcanoes, to atmospheric thermal "upwellings," etc. -- is also now readily apparent--
Even if the reason for their specific "latitude-dependence" is not!
Once again, the number 19.5 has no special meaning other than as a latitude. Hoagland has explained possibly a million times how the number arises from solid geometry. He is completely in error when he attaches significance to it as a longitude, a time, the apparent magnitude of a comet, the inclination of an orbit, or the price of a shirt at Old Navy.
Then you do confirm, Patrick, that 19.5 when applied to latitude does demarcate location for Torsion effects?
@Ripley a.k.a. Novvak
just a suggestion.....
longitude...east-west orientation from Greenwich
latitude...north south orientation from equator
Hoagies tetrahedral theory [which really didn't originate from his brain by the way] is based on two pole orientated tetrahedrons namely one which tops the north pole and the other interlocked tetrahedron topping the south pole for any given planet.
Chang'e 3 landed at 19.51°W LONGITUDE
Which and what part does not compute ? Or in other words...which and what part is that difficult for you to comprehend ? Two interlocking tetrahedrons topping at the equator being 180 degrees apart is complete and utter hokum. Why you might ask...? Well...? Even the Hoagie wouldn't be that desparate to consider such a possibility :-)
Expat, that's not the complete story as Hoagland also links ritual Egyptian symbolism "secretly practiced by NASA throughout these past five decades".
While the number can be derived from geometry, he also includes it into a "pattern of behavior on NASA’s part" or as: bizarre internal obsession by the Agency with three “gods” and “goddesses,” reaching across the millennia directly from ancient Egypt - Isis, Osiris and Horus.
Hoagland always has talked about ritual magic and sacred numbers, signs and locations as ways to "communicate", not only to an attentive human audience (carrying secret decoder rings) but suggesting that at least some are trying to communicate to "Others" by doing so.
It's always been there, the (often erroneous) mathematics on the one hand and on the other hand these attempts to cross-over into mysticism and ritual magic, trying to somehow merge by introducing one unifying force which would work scientifically as well as personally, in formula as well as common signs and symbols -- his version of "God" one supposes but in medieval style where science and faith are back in the same chair with Richard as some Pope residing on it.
[That last sentence I stretched on purpose]
« Then you do confirm ... that 19.5 when applied to latitude does demarcate location for Torsion effects? »
Emphatically NOT. The idea merely has the virtue of making sense, geometrically. All the examples Hoagland & Bara cite (Red spot of Jupiter, Olympus Mons, etc. etc.) are false. None of the top ten quakes and eruptions in history have been at the magic latitude. As Dee writes, up there ^^^, it's just numerology.
BTW this was not Hoagland's calculation -- it was Erol Torun's. Also I haven't checked it, wouldn't quite know how.
Dee is the only one who gets it.
Patrick tries to hold Hoagland entirely to somebody else's hypothesis, then he turns around and disavow his own argument. What difference would it make for Hoagland to assert significance to 19.5 in any context, if no context were valid in the first place?
There is no significance, that's the point.
The 19.5 calculation is not a hypothesis, it's a mathematical fact.
BTW I have now checked it and it's true. This amateur video gives the method.
Fine, but what's the difference if Hoagland uses 19.5 with wider symbolic latitude, if that geographic location produces no Torsion effects?
By the way, NASA says with certitude, the they will discover alien life within the next couple of decades.
Do you believe, Patrick, that they will, or is NASA full of shit?
No idea, sorry.
I believe Ripley is at it again :-) unbelievable :-)
but I do think NASA will discover Alien live...
and they will send Ripley to deal with it :-)
Updated to comment on RCH's new aggressive book-pluggery.
Post a Comment