Thursday, July 24, 2008

Testimony of the 12 moonwalkers (updated)

        Very little has been heard from the 12 moonwalkers in response to Richard Hoagland's unsupported and plainly ridiculous assertions about artifacts of dead lunar civilizations, vast glass structures, and other such flim-flam. Hoagland, of course, claims -- again with no evidence whatsoever -- that they've been deliberately deprived of their memories (he doesn't say HOW). The truth is that they have nothing to say since most of the Apollo astronauts haven't even heard of Richard Hoagland, who has no reputation at all in the world of lunar science. It's a safe bet that none of them has heard of Mike Bara, who is also devoid of reputation in any field that matters.

        There are a couple of exceptions, however. Buzz Aldrin knows who Hoagland is, and once devoted some of his valuable time explaining to a group of reporters that Hoagland's ideas are hogwash. Ed Mitchell once went so far as to agree to appear on 'Coast to Coast AM' with Hoagland and listen to Hoagland's reasons for believing in the vast glass domes. To nobody's surprise, Mitchell listened and then dismissed the idea as "green cheese and baloney".

        Ed's been in the news this week because he flatly asserted that UFOs (or at least some of them) really are intelligent alien visitors, that the US Govt knows it and has been covering it up. That should not be news -- he said the same thing to George Noory on 'Coast to Coast AM' in September 07 (Noory replayed that interview last night, 25/26 July).

        However, Mike Bara treated it as though it was news and posted on it July 24th, together with a link to a transcript of the twelve-year-old so-called Hoagland/Mitchell "debate". Fighting back the nausea, I re-read that transcript and posted four comments to the darkmission blog. Mike Bara added a few insults, as he usually does in lieu of reasoned rebuttal, and then exercised his privilege as moderator to suppress any further discussion. The full dialog was as follows:

EXPAT: Several points occur to me on re-reading that so-called "debate". I won't expound on all of them, just the most important.

1. Art Bell was a dismally poor moderator, permitting Hoagland to interrupt on numerous occasions and generally dominate the conversation.

BARA: Since it was Hoagland’s data that was the subject of the debate, his responses obviously were more extensive.

EXPAT: 2. In segment 2, Mitchell made the good point that there were "dozens" of photo-panoramas like the one Hoagland considers anomalous, and that to be at all rigorous all of them should be examined. Hoagland replies "We have two or three of those pans right now, but we don't have all of them, but we want all of them and want to do the same thing." OK -- 12 years later, I'd love to know what the result of that research has been, but I strongly doubt I'm going to find out.

BARA: The only pans that were in question were the first generation prints that Ken Johnston had. There were not “dozens” of pans on Apollo 14, and not all the missions landed in areas where there might be such ruins. What we do know is the same structures are evident on NASA’s newly published versions of these same pans, although in a degraded form, putting the lie to the idea that the ruins are a product of our enhancement processes.

EXPAT: 3. In segment 4, Hoagland's mind-boggling dishonesty strikes me, as he partially quotes from the Space Act "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." It drew a response from Mitchell that I'm sure Hoagland relished. "I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language." But of course, if Hoagland had been at all honest he would have completed the clause with "....for the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 35 of the US Code". As we have discussed on this blog previously, Title 35 is exclusively concerned with patent law, and Chapter 7 concerns patent applications by employees. This legal language emphatically does not mean that NASA is "a direct adjunct of DoD", and the book ("Dark Mission") should be corrected. In particular, the very first sentence in the book should be struck. It's a lie.

BARA: It’s not a lie, you’re an idiot. As we’ve discussed before, this specific language gives NASA and the DOD carte blanche to classify any “discoveries” made by NASA. They do not have to be patentable.

EXPAT: Of course they do, if they're covered by this clause. How many times do I have to type these words? TITLE 35 IS EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH PATENTS. Chapter 17 (sorry, 17 not 7) can be read here: I direct your attention to Sect. 181 in particular. All readers of this blog will, I think, understand the point.

Notwithstanding this, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if you are correct in writing that NASA has other ways of classifying anything it chooses. That does not make it a "direct adjunct of DoD", neither does it mean that "The NASA we have known for 50 years has been a lie". If Richard Hoagland was not aware of NASA's classified activities when he was consultant to CBS, he was negligent -- it's as simple as that.

BARA: The book will not be corrected, because it is correct as it is now written. Your inability to comprehend the meaning of the US Code does NOT make it a “lie” on our part.

And if Hoagland is so dishonest, why did he include the specific language you cite in the introduction to Dark Mission?

EXPAT: He was totally dishonest in the context of the Mitchell "debate", a hair less so in the Intro to "Dark Mission". The Intro nevertheless contains quite enough distortions and outright lies.

BARA: You remind me of one of my favorite U2 lyrics "It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else."

EXPAT: 4. In segment 2, Hoagland makes the astonishing suggestion that some in NASA management were aware of the mile-high glass domes. He says "Well, maybe you didn't [know about them], but maybe the guys that sent you there and picked the landing sites did." Just think about that. He's saying that mission planners were aware of a mile-high physical hazard in the vicinity of the landing site AND SAID NOTHING TO THE CREW??? That's so utterly preposterous, revealing such utter ignorance of mission planning, that if I were Art Bell I'd have concluded the discussion right there and said "Go to bed, Richard. We'll call if we ever need your opinions again."

BARA: Again, all you prove here is what a fool you are and how desperate you are to try and “catch” us at something.

He’s not talking about the Mission planners. He’s talking about Farouk El-Baz. The Mission planners did not pick the landing sites. Dr. El-Baz did.

EXPAT: Is that why he used the plural word "guys"?

BARA: Given that we had consulted on all this with Marvin Czarnik, a 35 year NASA veteran and mission planner, we were hardly “ignorant” of mission planning requirements.

EXPAT: I've never heard of Czarnik. Did he advise you that Apollo crews could be kept in ignorance of major hazards in the vicinity of their landing sites? If so, he's worthless.

BARA: ....But apparently you are.

EXPAT: Have you ever attended a NASA landing site review meeting? I have, although not for Apollo. I can personally assure you that hazards are a subject of discussion.

No comments: