Thursday, January 12, 2017

Maurice Cotterell is wrong about everything

        Maurice Cotterell is the dude who made me giggle back in 2011 by saying that if you lined up all the elements in the periodic table, in a row in little containers, you'd get "all the energy you'd ever need." Well, it turns out that this anti-science clown can be catastrophically wrong about more than just the periodic table. He was on Coast to Coast AM last night, and the station published a kind of cheat-sheet to help us all follow along.

        A thorough critical review of this hilarious nonsense would be fun to do but ultimately boring, so I'm just going to pick out two simple elements to mock. First, look at the text at the bottom of page 1:
"[T]here's also a problem with Newton's equation that is just too embarrassing for modern Science to talk about. It goes like this: Galileo showed that all objects fall to the ground at exactly the same acceleration and speed—which is not what Newton's equation says; for example, if we change the apple [m1] with a cannonball [M3], then his equation says that the Force must go up. And if the Force goes up then—given that Force = Mass × Acceleration—the acceleration, and the speed, must increase. Newton couldn't answer this question because he never understood how gravity works."
        So a self-taught engineer with a humanities degree thinks he knows more about gravity than Isaac Newton? Many quite young schoolboys and girls would see the flaw in this argument quite quickly. Cotterell increases the mass in his imaginary experiment from m1 to M3, then says that the force of attraction between the mass and the planet we stand on increases pro rata, and that the equation F = ma then requires that a increase. But you see, dear Maurice, since you've increased the value of m, there is no requirement for a to increase as well.

        Expressed mathematically, the force of attraction of a mass m by a planet of mass M and radius r is:

F = GmM/r2 where G is Newton's gravitational constant

        The acceleration of that mass toward the planet, when any support is removed, is given by:

a = F/m
a = GmM/mr2
a = GM/r2

        Since the m's cancel out, a is independent of the mass you're dropping off the leaning tower of Pisa in  the case of a cannonball, or your kitchen table in the case of a falling jam butty. It's a different law that dictates that a jam butty lands jammy side down.

Gyros
        Cotterell is awfully wrong about gravity, but last night he went even one step more wrong than that, declaring that "when you spin an object, it becomes weightless." He cited the renowned engineer Eric Laithwaite who, according to Cotterell, demonstrated that a spinning gyroscope levitates. However, that's not what Laithwaite showed at all. He showed that if you apply a twisting force to a gyroscope, the reaction is offset by 90°. That's what gyroscopes do. Here's Laithwaite's demo, and here's a very simple confirmation that a gyro doesn't get any lighter when you spin it up. Never mind that Laithwaite himself was fooled by this phenomenon for a while—he understood it eventually. Note that if he had twisted the gyro in the other direction it would have reacted by going down, not up.

        I don't expect George Noory to be a genius at physics, but when a guest on his show makes a statement like that which is so obviously in error, I think we might at least expect something like "Are you sure about that Maurice?"

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Eugene Mallove

        Somebody on Bellgab the other day referenced the murder of Eugene Mallove, 13 years ago this year, and expressed the usual conspiradroid assumption that Mallove was murdered by agents of Big Physics and Big Energy, fearful that Mallove was on the verge of a breakthrough in free energy that would threaten their own entrenched dominance. At the time, Tom Bearden wrote "Since Mallove was increasingly successful in his attempts to make cold fusion accepted by the scientific community at large… then obviously Mallove was an unacceptable threat and he had to go." Brian O'Leary wrote "Most of us in the field believe that this murder was an assassination." Bearden and O'Leary are (or were) enthusiasts for so-called "Free Energy" who were never able to demonstrate a working device. Even Richard Hoagland said on Coast to Coast AM "I can’t believe it’s just coincidence.”note 1

        Who was Eugene Mallove? A qualified aeronautical engineer who had a prodigious talent for writing on technical and scientific subjects. He taught science journalism at M.I.T. and became a strong proponent of cold fusion and other forms of "Free Energy."  He came to believe that the original Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion experiment of 1989 was what it seemed to be—the beginning of a whole new physics. He created the New Energy Foundation and launched the periodical Cold Fusion, which became Infinite Energy but still under Mallove's editorship until his death. He was a conspiracy theorist, I suppose, to the extent that he promoted the view that Pons & Fleischmann were the victims of an organized campaign of ridicule by mainstream physicists.

What happened
        The facts of Mallove's brutal murder have been proved in a court of law by witnesses, and cannot really be disputed. He had recently evicted tenants from the home where he was raised in Norwich CT. He was in the process of junking the tenants' possessions when the tenants' son, Chad Shaffer, happened by. Shaffer was accompanied by Mozelle Brown and Shaffer's girlfriend Candace Foster. An argument ensued, and Shaffer and Brown eventually bludgeoned Mallove to death. The wheels of justice ground exceedingly slowly in this case, but Schaffer copped to manslaughter on 20 April 2012 and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Brown was convicted of murder in October 2014 and got 58 years.

        As evidenced by the opinion expressed on Bellgab last week, conspiracy-minded people remain convinced that Mallove was offed by agents of Big Physics and Big Energy, rather than by two derelict thugs who Mallove had annoyed very grievously. There are three reasons why I reject this view of the tragedy.

ONE. To make the story work, BP&BE would have to have recruited Shaffer & Brown, and paid them enough to do the foul deed even though their entire lives would then be ruined. BP&BE would have to have known of Mallove's plan to ditch his tenants' belongings, and instructed Shaffer & Brown to show up at the time and place. This strikes me as utterly unbelievable. Of course I know that powerful people employ hit-men to off their enemies, it happens all the time. But the enemies get whacked in private, not out in the open in front of witnesses. That way the hit-men stay out of jail and are available for the next job. BP&BE would have had unbelievable good luck in finding a thug who would a) agree to the deal, and b) have a plausible motive of his own.

TWO. Mallove's rĂ´le in the "Free Energy" movement was as a promoter and reporter of other people's work. He himself was developing nothing at all that was any threat to BP&BE. Surely, if anybody was going to feel the power of entrenched interests, it would be those engineers and physicists who were actually developing something in their labs that might actually work. The likes of Bearden and O'Leary would have something to fear, in this scenario.

THREE. If the motive of BP&BE was to suppress Mallove's strongly-expressed opinions, they were remarkably unsuccessful, let's face it. The periodical Infinite Energy lives on with a different editor. The Nov/Dec 2016 edition is currently on sale. Mallove's writings also live on, and his 1991 book Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor is still in print.

        So for those reasons I find that the conspiracy theory in this case doesn't hold water. Personally I have nothing but encouragement for those who choose to try cheating the laws of physics, but cold fusion was first theorized in 1989 and we're still waiting for it to show social benefit. Mind you, you could say the same or worse about mainstream controlled fusion research, too.

=======================/ \======================
[1] Transcript of C2C-AM, 15 May 2004

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Richard Hoagland tries again for 2017

12:20 pm EST

        Richard Hoagland, whose own radio show is still off the air, popped up on The Unexplained (edn #281) on Christmas Eve. This is Howard Hughes' podcast from the UK, and Hoagland has been a fairly frequent guest, resisting all Hughes' good faith attempts to make him face up to his mathematical and scientific shortcomings (so they remain unexplained, hah-hah.)

        The primary reasons for his guesting on this occasion were to sell a book and to contribute an impromptu eulogy for John Glenn. Unlike Mike Bara, who memorialized Glenn by alleging that he was a liar, Hoagland expressed genuine admiration. "He personified the idea of the humble pioneer," he said. I think that's fairly accurate.

        As 2016 wound down to its last week, Hoagland couldn't resist making a prediction, as he has done many times before. 2010 was to be "the year we make contact." 2012 was, of course, the year of the Mayan calendar horrorshow that never quite happened. Here's what he said on Christmas Eve, word for word.
 "2017 is going to be the year of disclosure. Now I don't know whether it's going to be Obama who does it, or it's Trump does it, or we who do it. What do I mean by "we"? If you look at the web, Howard, look at all the stuff NASA's dumping, you'd have to be deaf dumb and blind not to see that there's an incredible ruins of an ancient civilization on Mars. Now, it's more complicated--it turns out there's more than one--but if NASA doesn't announce what it's giving us, if the White House doesn't announce, in the waning twilight hours of the Obama administration [...inaudible...] I've even picked a time--it's going to conform to the other stuff we've been working on for years, figuring out, kind-of like an FBI profiler...I would say the most likely time for the President to make the announcement, if he's going to and not leave it to Trump, would be on New Year's Day, probably around noon, 'cause that will be 19.5 days before he leaves office and the next administration takes over."
        Noon Washington time was about twenty minutes ago. I'm checking the news but I think the President is taking things easy today. Not that Hoagland will care at all that he's laid another stinker. To him, he can never be wrong about anything.note 1 On 2nd January 2011 he said of his 2010 failure "contact has happened. You just have to look." So I confidently expect to be hearing, a year from now, "disclosure happened, I was right. We just didn't notice." Happy new year to all.

Update:
See also Exposing Pseudoastronomy on this same topic.

==========================/ \=========================
1] But see this summary of 11 busted predictions

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Christmas, Carl Sagan, and extraterrestrials

        At this festive season, what topic could be more appropriate for this blog than Carl Sagan's 1977 Christmas lectures at the Royal Institution in London?

        In my previous blogpost I insisted that Carl Sagan may have theorized a possible 10,000 visits to Earth by ETs in his 1962 paper, but he certainly did not hold that opinion for very long. I made reference to his Christmas lectures for support of that proposition, and I'm about to give chapter and verse on that.

        The overall title of the six-lecture series was "The Planets," and it was Carl Sagan at his best--urbane, charming, fluent and full of good information. The R.I. demonstrators were at their best too, providing excellent models and other visual aids to make this sometimes difficult subject accessible. In the last lecture, titled Planetary Systems Beyond our Sun, Sagan started by talking about techniques for detecting exoplanets. Today those techniques have been refined but the general principles are still the same. He talked about the Drake equation, as a way of estimating how many intelligent civilizations there are in the galaxy, and then embarked on an analysis of how radio contact might be established. This included an intriguing demonstration of how a three-dimensional model of a formaldehyde molecule might be transmitted as a message of 29,791 binary digits. The intent of such a message, he said, might be to direct our attention to the natural frequency of formaldehyde where a more elaborate message would be found. He then went on to say this:

47:55 One often comes upon some other ideas about extraterrestrial intelligence -- namely, why go to all this trouble with radio telescopes when the extraterrestrials are already here? We sometimes hear something like that. The ideas are often expressed in terms of unidentified flying objects, and in terms of ancient astronauts. Now there's nothing silly about being able to fly between the stars. We are already doing it although at an extremely slow pace. It's taking us about 80,000 years to go from here to the nearest star with our present space vehicles. But other civilizations more advanced than we might very well be able to do it in much shorter periods of time--so maybe we are, or have been, visited. It's not ridiculous. On the other hand, it's such an important contention that we should demand only the most rigorous standard of evidence. And my judgement is that on the ancient astronaut business what happens is people look at big buildings constructed long ago and say "My goodness, I don't know how that big building was built, probably people from somewhere else built it." Yes--maybe from Egypt, but not from some other star. These ideas often show an ignorance of archaeology--our ancestors were smart, they could build big. There's no artifact in early human history, so far as I know, which requires extraterrestrial intervention.

Likewise, on unidentified flying objects, there are things seen in the sky which are unidentified--that's what an unidentified flying object is, it means we don't know what it is. It doesn't mean it's a space vehicle from somewhere else. And there ought to be things in the sky that we don't understand--the sky is very rich in phenomena--astronomical, meteorological, optical and man-made phenomena. And therefore only a very reliable sighting of an extremely exotic object ought to be considered in any way relevant to our problem of life elsewhere.  And to the best of my knowledge, there are lots of exotic reports, but none of those exotic reports are reliable. For example, a 30-foot diameter metallic shaped object lands in a suburban garden. A seamless door opens. A metallic robot walks out, picks a flower, smells it, pets the cat, waves to a lady hiding behind her sliding glass door, turns on his heel, enters the UFO, the seamless door closes and it takes off into space. Now that I would call an exotic story--no question about it. But when we look closely into that, it turns out no-one in all of Long Island, New York City, besides the old lady noticed that this had happened. And the cat was unavailable for corroborative evidence.  And that's an example of an exotic story that isn't reliable. On the other hand there are reliable stories, lots of people see something, that are not exotic--a light in the sky. There are no cases where 200 people see something as exotic as what I just said, no cases where there's a piece of the spacecraft that someone captures and sneaks into a laboratory so they can investigate it. No-one has ever managed to steal the captain's log book. And until that sort of thing happens, it seems to me we must be very cautious and skeptical because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It would save us a lot of trouble if those fellows  would come here, instead of us having to go out and find them. I'm not opposed to it--it's just that there isn't a smidgen of good evidence to support those ideas. I wish it were otherwise. 
It's very unlikely I'll be blogging again until 2017, so best wishes to all.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Donald Zygutis doesn't know what he's talking about

        Up for two hours on Coast to Coast AM last night was author Donald Zygutis, plugging his book The Sagan Conspiracy. Since I have not actually read the book and don't intend to, I'm self-disqualified from reviewing it. However, many statements made by Zygutis last night and on his promo website were so wrong that I wish to correct them. His topic is one that I know about--it's in my wheelhouse, as they say. As a TV producer/director of science documentaries I worked closely with Sagan on three occasions.

Here's a summary of the book, in its author's own words:
"[H]ow many Carl Sagan fans know that while the renowned scientist was at Stanford University, he produced a controversial paper, funded by a NASA research grant, that concludes ancient alien intervention may have sparked human civilization?

Recently rediscovered by the author, Sagan’s lost Stanford paper is the central theme of The Sagan Conspiracy. ... I’m thrilled and honored that The Sagan Conspiracy includes the complete and unabridged text of the breakthrough scientific paper on ancient alienism that Carl wrote at Stanford University in 1962, that the United States government has gone to extreme lengths to suppress."
        The problem with that thesis is that Sagan was not at Stanford in 1962-- he was at Harvard. I don't know whether he wrote any such paper--I can find no reference to it but of course Zygutis would say that's because it's been suppressed by the PtB. Zygutis maintains that Sagan believed that extraterrestrials "may have visited Earth thousands of times in ancient history, and may have even 'terraformed' the planet to make it habitable by humans." However, I know that Sagan had no such belief. On the contrary, in the original Cosmos PBS-TV series he stated quite the opposite belief, and in his writings and lectures he firmly advocated the position that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial visitationnote 1. UFOnuts love to cite Sagan as supporting their wingnuttery, but all Sagan ever said about UFOs is that they are worth investigating.

Is Anybody There?
        Last night Zygutis and guest-host Richard Syrett spent some time discussing the Drake equationnote 2 and the Arecibo message, and revealed significant ignorance on both topics.

        Zygutis said the the Drake equation reckoned the odds of ever receiving a message from an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization, and that Frank Drake himself had solved his equation and come up with an estimate. That is not true. The equation sets out a mathematical way of estimating the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy advanced enough to potentially communicate with us. Drake only gave an extremely wide range of possible values for his term N--from 1,000 to 100,000,000. The point about the equation was not that it could be evaluated with any precision at all, but that the value of N was probably non-zero. Sagan's estimates (see note 2 below) ranged from 0.3 to 10 million.

        Syrett asked about the Arecibo message that Sagan sent from the huge radio telescope in 1974, and Zygutis made two errors in answering. First he said that radio telescopes can only receive information, not transmit it, and then he said the experiment was an obvious failure since no answer was ever received. Well, the fact is that Arecibo did transmit the 1679-digit message, and considering that it was directed toward a globular cluster at a distance of 25,000 light years, it's more than a little premature to be saying that no answer has been received. Again, fans of the paranormal cite Sagan, incorrectly, as believing in the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. In fact, to Sagan this was a question, not an answer, and he simply felt that the investigation of it should be led by science, not fantasy or religion.

         Well, speaking of religion, I see Donald Zygutis is a graduate of Corban University. Corban describes itself as "a gospel-driven community of scholars and leaders who seek to bring a biblical perspective to all areas of study and practice." OK, now we know.

Update:
        Ah, I found the 1962 paper after all. Its title is Direct contact among galactic civilizations by relativistic interstellar spaceflight, and 18 handwritten pages of it are in the Library of Congress here. Sagan had a brief postdoc appointment at Stanford, in the department of biology under the supervision of Joshua Lederberg. That would have been around 1962, so I may have to concede that point too.

        I found this through Jason Colavito, who covered Zygutis's ideas on 6th October this year. Well done Jason--meticulous as ever.

        Colavito thoroughly refutes the idea that Sagan's paper was ever suppressed, and writes that the meat of the paper was not nearly as optimistic as Zygutis claims. In fact, it was really just an attempt to evaluate the Drake equation--Sagan wrote "For purposes of the following discussion, we adopt N=106"--but that does not mean he thought planet Earth had had a million visits. Far from it.


       Colavito also points out that Sagan once said "The idea that we are being visited or were once visited by powerful benign beings who live in the sky is after a religious idea, the terminology is slightly different, we don't talk about angels, we talk about extra-terrestrials but the emotional significance is identical.” So we're back at religion after all.


======================/ \====================
[1] The Demon-Haunted World New York: Random House 1995  pp. 81–96, 99–104
See also Sagan's 1977 Christmas Lectures at the Royal Institution in London, esp. lecture #6

[2] N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

Key, with Sagan's 1962 pessimistic/optimistic estimates in parentheses:

R* is the rate of formation of stars in the galaxy (1 per year / 3 per year)
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets (1/100 / 1/10)
ne is the number of planets per star that can possibly support life (3 / 3)
fl is the fraction of such planets that actually develop life (1 / 1)
fi is the fraction of such planets supporting intelligent life (1/10 / 1)
fc is the fraction of those that actually release radio communication (1/10 / 1/10)
L is the average lifetime of such radio-communicating civilizations (from 1000 to 100,000,000 years, yielding pessimistically 0.3 < N < 3 × 104 , optimistically 100 < N < 107)

NOTE THAT much more recent results have dramatically increased the probable value of fp.

Friday, December 9, 2016

Mike Bara has his own idea of what the word "tribute" means

        Mike Bara was handed two hours to flog his latest horrible book on Coast to Coast AM last night. It was a typical George Noory interview--no challenges at all, just wall-to-wall marketing. There were some oddities, as indeed there were in the book. Somehow the topic of secret space programs expanded to include the airships of the Sonora Aero Club and the EM drive. The airships may have been secret but they had nothing to do with space, and the EM drive may connect with spaceflight but it's not secret.

        Toward the end, Bara suggested the listeners might like to go read his blog, which today contains "a tribute" to John Glenn (who kicked the bucket yesterday at the grand old age of 95--the last of the "Original Seven".) Well, it was the wee small hours in my time zone, but, hearing that, I mustered enough strength to pound my bedside radio into tiny pieces and throw it down the canyon.

         Just kidding. But my point is, Bara's blog piece, far from being a tribute, is a repeat of his totally mistaken accusation that John Glenn was a liar. This is an echo of the same Mike Bara's "tribute" to Neil Armstrong on the Book of Faces in 2012:

"RIP Neil Armstrong - a true American hero who wanted to tell the truth but was loyal to his oath.note 1"

        So much for de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicenda est. Bara doesn't understand latin (or much of anything else, come to that) so he just gives himself permission to shoot his mouth off as he pleases.

Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V
        Bara's snide blogpost wasn't even original. It was a verbatim copy of a page from Richard Hoagland's web site, written in February 2012 to mark the 50th anniversary of Glenn's historic Mercury mission. Bara only attributes it to Enterprise Mission, not to its author, although here I must allow that Bara ghost-wrote plenty of pages for Hoagland, so it's possible that the author is himself. The bottom line, as I have written before, is that Glenn's guest-spot on Frasier was A JOKE. The liars are Richard C. Hoagland and Michael Bara.

Performance
        Last night I noted, as I have before, how well Bara performs on the mass media as long as you judge the performance and not its content. He's articulate, and delivers interview answers of just the right length. He does have a few too many intrusive "you know"s, but not to the point of real annoyance. So it might exasperate me, but it shouldn't surprise me, that he gets these free marketing opportunities after every book. And indeed, he scooped the traditional reward--the book ranking on Amazon (Kindle edition) went from 533,780 on November 2nd to 56,489 this morningnote 2. Nowhere near good enough to sustain Bara's lifestyle for very long, but a boost nevertheless.

===================/ \===================
[1] On that occasion, Yelp Pacifica ran a thread titled What do you think of somebody calling Neil Armstrong a liar when his body isn't even cold?

[2] From 274 to 34 in Nonfiction > Science > Astronomy & Space Science > Astrophysics & Space Science.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Hoagland in retirement

        It's been a while since I had any reason to check Richard Hoagland's 1990s-style web site, so when I did today, for research purposes, I was dead surprised to find something missing. That something was the principal navigation graphic, right at the head of the page. This one:

credit: Enterprise Mission

        Using the Wayback Machine, I discovered that the last date on which the graphic appeared was 19th April this year. What now heads the page is the garish announcement of The Other Side of Midnight -- a new radio show. That's "new" as in dating from July 2015. So it really does look as if Hoagland has abandoned this site, although his domain registration is paid up through next December. Removing the main way for your users to browse your site sends a pretty definitive message.

Under construction
        Not that the nav was ever well maintained anyway. The links to Bridge, Physics Lab and Stores did at least lead somewhere useful, although the Physics Lab contains such stunning material as a transcript of RCH's radio interview from 1996. Communications and Library both led to an UNDER CONSTRUCTION graphic. Conference Room was the real joke--a forum for members only, moderated by Keith Rowland and costing $3.95 a month to join. Hoagland and Rowland both walked away from that quite soon after it was established in 2002, while continuing to collect membership fees for several months.note 1

Death of a Radio show
        Say, does that remind you of anything? It should do. Hoagland has been collecting $5/month membership fees for "Club 19.5" for two months now, without providing any new content at all. A replay is billed for tonight, so that puts the kibosh on any hope of a return this week. At this point, and given his documented record, I'd be surprised if he's ever back.

========================/ \=====================
[1] Then there was the vanishing newsletter from 2010, which James Concannon blogged about.
And here's another Hoagland walk-away.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Hoagland still off the air, and now it's a full-blown scandal

        So Richard Hoagland's radio chatshow The Other Side of Midnight is still in a state of chaotic hiatus, with no new shows since 13th October. (For the background on this, ref. my 20 oct blogpost.)

        The first broken promise was for election night, 8th/9th November. Guests Carl Johan Calleman & Georgia Lambert were supposed to be on hand to comment as the last results flowed in. That never happened. Twice more, on 10th and 14th, the same show was billed and replaced at the last minute by re-runs. It is now billed yet again for tonight. The comments on the web site have been almost universally scornful, although there are a few fans who'll apparently remain loyal no matter what. Like "Rob," who posted this morning:
"Just know, that many of us will wait for you to get things fixed. We know how important your work is. Thank you for all the years of service."
        The strangest thing of all was a message from Robin Falkov, Hoagland's partner, on 11th November. Falkov pleaded for patience, writing that "We have fought a long hard battle since the first airing of the show." She added that "...the solutions will be in place by next week at the soonest." So why, therefore, was the Calleman/Lambert show even billed for the 14th? If she really meant "latest" rather than "soonest," well, that's a rather serious error--one of which "Doctor" Falkov should be ashamed.

Scandal

        Falkov's message was headed "To All Our Family at OSOM..." Presumably she and her paramour like to think of us as a family because within families people aren't necessarily expected to pay off their debts. Club members, who pay $5/month for acess to the archives, have seen no new shows for over a month now. Requests for refunds are apparently being stone-walled, that's why I say this is becoming quite a scandal now. "Marcus" posted this comment on 9th November:
"I assume Mr Hoagland and the radio station have adequate legal representation. Tomorrow I will contact the Postal Inspectors on behalf of my elderly aunt who has been scammed and can’t even get a response on a request for refund."
         Unfortunately, Marcus won't win, and neither will any of the other angry members of "Club 19.5." The membership guarantees access to the archives, that's all. You don't have to pay to listen live. So, just like the Foolbook fans who contributed $1,200 to Hoagland's fantasy expedition to Egypt in May 2012, or the 20-ish punters who paid $189 (inc. box lunch) to witness Hoagland "measuring" the torsion field at the Pyramid of Kukulkan on 19th December 2012 (the expedition that was aborted when Hoagland was kicked out by security men,) they won't see a cent of a refund.

Hoagland's state of mind
        Many commenters, both on the OSOM website and in Bellgab, have wondered why Hoagland, never normally at a loss for words, has made no statement about this royal fuck-up, and instead allowed Falkov to speak--erroneously--on his behalf. My take on this is that Hoagland is just beside himself with rage. His arrogance is such that he doesn't think the normal rules apply to him, and he's very likely cursing Fred Lundgren and Keith Rowland for failing to appreciate his genius. Hoagland has shown that he feels no obligation to responed to critical reviews of his writings and doings, and those who write the critical reviews--including me--are by defintion idiots. On 2nd June 2015 Hoagland said this about us:
"These people have no character. They are certainly not any people that I would possibly want to answer to because they're not in the conversation. They are deliberate disinformation artists designed to submerge the truth."
        We'll have to see whether he turns up tonight/tomorrow morning. I wouldn't bet on it.

Update 16 November:
        Replay again last night. From KIYQ Las Vegas, not KCAA.Right now the Calleman/Lambert live show and the Imaging panel replay are both billed. Bunch of amateurs!!


Update 24 November:
 This just in on the Book of Faces:
"soon very soon - I can't give a date but think next week... "

...and from Robin Falkov...
"Please understand what a monumental job this has been to repair the damage to the site. The problems gave you double, triple and more billing, inability to log in, inability to access archives and more. There is a team that has been hard at work to make sure these issues do not rear their ugly head again."
...plus another eight paragraphs of rubbish, ending with a plug for her business. They must think we were born yesterday. "Monumental job" my ass. So the back end of the web site was broken, now it's (maybe) fixed. It happens, but IT DOESN'T TAKE 40 DAYS and there's no justification for suspending radio shows while it's being fixed.

        Meanwhile on the Comments page there was an allegation that a negative comment was deleted and the commenter accused of being "a paid misinformant." That's one of RCH's fave accusations, but of course he's never produced the slightest evidence that anyone is paid to cut him down to size.