Sunday, January 5, 2020

Hoagland vs. Hogue: Word-fight at the Blogtalk Corral

        The Rational-wikipedia page on John Hogue characterizes him as "a woo-meister and bullshit artist." It notes that "In a stopped clock moment of remarkable quality, Hogue had the foresight to title the biography he hosts on his website as An Idiot’s Autobiography.

        Hogue himself says he's a world authority on Nostradamus, and his talents at astrology and other ephemera make him a remarkably accurate predictor of world affairs. He used to claim that he correctly predicted the outcome of the last so-many presidential elections. Since he had Clinton for 2018, he's cunningly amended that to "the last so-many presidential elections by popular vote." Har-har.

        Well, of course, we know how it goes. All these clairvoyant people who appear on the media inevitably predict ghastly things in our futures. I guess they think nobody would pay any attention if they said "I've looked at the prophecies and everything's going to be hunky-dory."

        Richard Hoagland had Hogue as a guest on his blogtalkradio show The Other Side of Midnight, 29th December. The on-demand public audio has just been posted, so I was able to review it (the link will probably expire in about a week). For an hour and a half, the two Hoags discussed the decade to come. We were, indeed, warned about "a decade of destruction" to include catastrophic climate change, overpopulation, famine...bla bla bla. But then things took a different turn, as Hogue (rather reluctantly, I thought,) revealed that he was not an adoring fan of RCH and his whacko ideas. It went like this:

==============================================
[after RCH declares emphatically that Hurricane Dorian was deliberately manipulated to stall over the Bahamas]

1:37:52 RCH: That was not accidental. That was a designed catastrophe. It can't...
JH: That's your belief.
RCH: No, it's technology..
JH: That's your belief.
RCH : It has nothing to do with belief, it's science, John. I have sources.I know there's technology to manipulate hurricanes. I know there's technology to provide unlimited energy with no pollution. I know there's technology to provide anti-gravity lift so we can take giga-tons into space to make...

JH: You've got it all figured out, Richard.

RCH: No, the part I don't have..
(together)
RCH: The part...
JH: ...listening to a guy like me..
RCH: The part I don't have...
The part...
JH: You've got it all figured out.
:::
RCH: The part I don't have figured out in my research is the transition politically, with hope, to a future that we want, and not the terror that you are forecasting.

JH: Well, I'll tell you. I... First off, I definitely would love to see what you're saying. And all the climate change that's coming...

RCH: No, it's here.

JH: No, it hasn't even started yet. You wait, the next five years....

RCH: Have you watched what's going on in Australia lately?

JH: Yes.

RCH: Do you know why it's been Australia?

JH: Well, you tell me what you think it is...

RCH: No, it's based on science, and research The hemispheres... this has nothing to do with the sun  This has to do with the physics of planetary and stellar energy sources. The problem we're facing tonight, John, is not so much greenhouse because of burning fossil fuels—it's because the physics is cyclic, and it's not cyclic together in both hemispheres. The southern hemisphere is going to be hit worse than the northern hemisphere. That's why we're seeing this incredible problem in Australia, in their northern [sic] summer. The only way out of a scientific problem is with a scientific solution. The problem is those solutions have been suppressed in decade after decade after decade, because the √©lites either didn't believe this was going to happen, or they really want 90% of the world to die.

JH: Richard, this is what I call, um, basically, conspiracy-itis. It is something I've dealt with.... and it's where—you know, I just have to say it for the record. I consider, as brilliant as you are, that you sometimes take a possibility and make yourself believe you have the evidence. And then, when the evidence is questioned, you perhaps do what conspiracy people do, they end up saying "Oh it's been suppressed." And, I mean, I have to go all the way back to the face on Mars. I have to go all the way back...

RCH: (laughs) What does the face on Mars have to do with 90% of the world dying because of climate change?

JH: It has something to do.. Look, I'm sorry I don't want to have to go to...I told you I didn't want to go to..

RCH: You have a choice, John.

JH: I have to.

RCH: You have a choice.

JH: I have.. and I chose to go there. You can throw me off, or you can let me tell it. Hey, it's your show, you wanna do that, that's fine. Wanna kick me off—that's fine. But the reason why I'm going there... it's the only way I can respond to what you've just said. Is that I have a serious problem with your research—patterns of research. I think a lot of it, in my experience, is belief-based, and, you know, all this stuff about all these phantasmagorical things being ...     I think it's a bit over-active, er, over-reactive. It's intuitive, and I have to go back to the face on Mars. I remember in the 70s, hearing you on radio, hearing you talk about all that,  and I ... and I thought "Well, I hope that's true." But when I looked at the pictures,  I wondered...   God the pictures aren't that clear. What if we...maybe  some day we need to get clearer pictures, when our technology is better, when we land on Mars. But, you know, NASA came up with the pictures, and there's no face. But all the years ....
:::
RCH: Let's go back. You looked at the latest imagery from NASA of Cydonia. And your conclusion, based on looking at the pictures—you don't see a face. Right?

JH: There is no face.

RCH: No no no no no, let's talk. To you there isn't a face.

JH: And to you, there is.

RCH: And a whole bunch of colleagues all round the world, who have invested thousands of man-hours and woman-hours in researching not only Cydonia, but all the rest of Mars, and all the other artifacts we've found, and the book we're working on, and the videos we've produced, and the briefings...

JH: [over] ...religion....

RCH: There's no religion, John.

JH: Yeah, I can look at all the people from the Catholic faith, and the Moslem faith, and all the theologians who say "God exists" and all that, but the truth is unless we go on Mars ... unless we actually set foot on Mars and see these things, there's some doubt.

RCH: There's always doubt. Science is nothing if it's not, you know, prediction. The way you know it's...

JH: You've got all this army of people that agree with you.

RCH: People doing independent research coming to the same conclusion.

JH: There's a lot of people who've come to the same conclusion in history, and it's been wrong.

RCH: John, you seem to have an emotional...
JH; (together)...technical enquiry...
RCH: You seem ...
JH: I didn't want to go here.

RCH: You don't have to. Because you're attacking the essence of my science. And what I would like you to do...

JH: No, I'm attacking the essence of your belief system, which is why...

RCH: My work has nothing to do...
JH (together)...
RCH: ...has nothing to do with belief. Believe me, after thirty years,

[Keith Morgan interrupts and makes a point supporting RCH, emphatically]

JH: The difference between you and me is that you're angry about this...

KM: I'm not angry.

JH: Yes you are, you're angry. You're shouting at me now. If you want to be factual, be factual about what's happening between you and me right now.

[Keith Morgan makes another point, even more emphatically]
:::

You're disempowering your argument. That's what I've learned, when I get angry like this, is that it bleeds off my energy, it bleeds off my ability to argue my point because of my attachment to the point.  This is... This is not how you're going to convince me of ...of... of what you're doing, because you're getting angry, and that is disempowering.

KM: Because, you, right now, you're saying all of this is a joke.

JH: Did I ever say it was a joke? You said...

KM: I get the impression....

JH: You said... Hey! Say it right! You're getting impressions that's what it is....  No, you accuse, you said "You think this is all a joke". That's you projecting on me, my friend.

RCH: John, just a couple of minutes ago you accused me of having a belief system as opposed to a scientific process.
(together)
JH: It's my feeling...

[...and general squabbling until Kynthea intervenes]
[ends 1:48:41]

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

        It was classic Hoagland. He was talking bullshit but doing it so eloquently that he made it sound plausible. If his sources promise hurricane control, free energy and anti-gravity, then his sources are rubbish. And my other point would be; if you can't cite your sources, it ain't science.

15 comments:

astroguy said...

That's an impressive squabble. I'll need to download it.

THE said...

Did Hoagland say anything about collaborating on a book with Gary?

Unky said...

Citing sources would be journalistic, but not science unless those sources were peer review results of a tested theory. Gracious of you to give points for style, though.

expat said...

« Did Hoagland say anything about collaborating on a book with Gary? »

Not while I was listening. Maybe in the last hour. But I believe Keith Laney is the major collaborator. In March 2017 he said this:

"[W]e are giving the loyal Club 19.5 members that have stayed with us during our recent hiatus, Richard C. Hoagland’s latest and most anticipated work – just recently completed with The Imaging Team from the show. This gorgeous and pioneering new book, “The Hidden History of Mars: A War In Heaven” with a foreword by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, chronicles the Human Race’s Ancient History on the Red Planet with groundbreaking information that has largely been hidden from the world until now."

Trekker said...

Was that a typo, Expat? There was no presidential election in 1998.

expat said...

It was, I've corrected it. Thanks for your vigilance.

Chris Lopes said...

Hoagland has been playing this game for a long time. He may have known in the beginning that it is all a joke, but by now it's been internalized as the truth. The tone certainly sounds darker, with not a shred of the upbeat "everything I said is about to be proven true" that he used to sell with his conference videos. To bad.

Anonymous said...

We have gone down the rabbit hole when John Hogue, of all people, is being the reasonable and skeptical person in a conversation.

Moonman said...

Maybe Hoagland means this idea....
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110204159
Of course, it states that the "application status is abandoned" whatever that means (but it doesn't sound too hopeful).

Eastlund also did some work in this area but I do not think he got very far beyond computer simulations...
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/931731 "Taming tornadoes: storm abatement from space"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4271321 "Taming Tornadoes Storm Abatement from Space"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4526526 "Atmospheric Heating as a Research Tool: Link to Space-Based Solar Power"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1367646 "Mission for Planet Earth: defining a vision for the space program"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1235075 "Thunderstorm solar power satellite-key to space solar power"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1656145 "Thunderstorm solar power satellite-issues dealing with weather modification"

Anonymous said...

You know, Hogue needs to be told Nostradamus stole the quatrains, he didn't write them, they were the work of a Flemish Cistercian monk.
https://hubpages.com/travel/Nostradamus-and-the-Lost-Templar-Treasure

Concerning this battle, Hogue is right overall about RCH's expectations and approach. Still, that doesn't mean humans aren't manipulating the weather. I still don't have a big enough reason to believe we are lifting gigatons in anti-gravity.

Until the truth is de-classified, we'll never know until "they" want us to know.
To be ignorant of secret programs is to fail as a researcher.

expat said...

Even if you could prove to me that some subset of humanity controls the vast amounts of energy necessary to steer a cat 5 hurricane, that still would not be evidence that such evil people controlled this particular hurricane. That's the point that Hoagland is, typically, missing.

Another point: If you have a perfect anti-gravity shield, you have no need of an Earth orbit. It would be pointless.

Anonymous said...

I agree with John Hogue about questioning many of the theories of Hoagland. I've never been into all those way out theories he has proposed. But the one thing I would disagree with John Hogue about is Mars (the only thing I did get interested in) but then again Hoagland only has himself to blame for people that still question if there was an ancient civilization on Mars that was destroyed. The evidence for that is overwhelming and so Hoagland did get that right but fell far short of using the evidence he could have used to seal the deal.

Hoagland seems to have a selfish personalty and he hung his entire argument about Mars on his Face and Cydonia. John Hogue was correct in saying Hoagland's face was questionable at best, because it is. There were and are many independent, unknown Mars researchers who came up with much better faces on Mars that would have made Hoagland's case but he decided to ignore them because he seems to hate to push the research of others. So those unknown researchers remain unknown because of a lack of being exposed to the public by gate keepers like Hoagland.

On one hand I thank Hoagland for getting me interested in Mars but on the other hand I recognize he has a somewhat flawed personality or put more simply Hoagland is his own worse enemy.


.

Moonman said...

Hoagland went on and on about glass domes on the Moon. With all the thousands of images from various orbiters, where are the pics? 'cause there aren't any. Not matter whether you use images or laser reflections.

Not likely to be any real faces (or monuments) on Mars too. It is amazing to see how many "things" are seen on Mars that people insist are cities or structures. Leave Mars science to scientists.

Reminds me of Brandenburg saying he found proof of nuclear blasts on Mars, mainly because he found some Xenon 129 there. But he is not a Mars scientist, just a plasma physicist. Not even a particle physicist. But people will back him up saying the only proof will be to send people to Mars. No. Just look at all the isotopes in the Mars atmosphere and compare them with a presumed nuclear blast generated isotopes and you can see Brandenburg was cherry picking. Fiction.

expat said...

I thoroughly agree about Brandenburg. My 2016 essay about xenon isotopes is, strangely, among the top ten all-time posts on this blog in readership. Linda Moulton Howe was totally bamboozled by Brandenbollocks. Calls herself an "investigative reporter"--she didn't investigate Branden one iota, just handed him a pulpit from which to preach to her flock of followers. Pathetic.

Hoagland has an "out" on the glass domes, which he uses shamelessly. "No, of course you can't see them!!! They're GLASS. TRANSPARENT." Dwayne Day had some fun with that in The Space Review.

Moonman said...

>Hoagland has an "out" on the glass domes, which he uses shamelessly. "No, of course you can't see them!!! They're GLASS. TRANSPARENT."

Given all the laser shots (>6 billion) that have hit the Moon especially from LRO, you would think at least one would reflect off the "domes". Not a chance.

Dwayne Day is hilarious. ;)