More Accutron fraud

        Following up the previous post on this blog, I came across further dishonesty in this MicroSet timing trace:

Image credit: Enterprisemission.com

        Recall what's going on here: Richard Hoagland has gone to the Coral Castle in Homestead, Florida, at the time of the Venus transit of June 2004 to attempt to verify his hypothesis that interaction between the Sun and the planet Venus creates a "torsion wave" which temporarily reduces the inertia of anything it interacts with. His test apparatus consists of an Accutron wristwatch connected to a MicroSet watch timer, displaying on a laptop computer screen. A system diagram is here. The hypothesis is that the "torsion wave" will increase the frequency of the tuning fork controlling the watch. Hoagland wrote:

To make a LONG story shorter ... the torsion/HD effects of Venus -- as it was physically departing the western edge of the Sun (as seen in the Florida sky at dawn ...) -- were simply astonishing!

Based on the major frequency "jump" of the Accutron tuning fork occuring EXACTLY at the moment of 3rd Contact (when Venus' edge just "kissed" the Sun's western limb) -- from ~360 hertz (cycles per second) to 364.5 hertz -- the extrapolated daily acceleration of the Accutron at that rate was about twelve minutes per day! For a watch normally rated (by Bulova) as "... accurate to a minute a month." Clearly ... unquestionably-- "Something" had reached out from Venus at the precise moment it was geometrically projected against the visible edge of our closest star -- when, remember, Venus was ~25 million miles away from Earth -- and (somehow!) "touched " our little Accutron detector ...

Venus and the Sun -- by means of their own extraordinary masses and separate, but reversed, rotations (Venus spins backwards, remember ...) -- were obviously creating their own extraordinarily powerful, interfering "torsion fields" -- just as we predicted!! 

         Hoagland's theory is highly problematic. I cannot imagine any rational reason why third contact, as seen from South Florida, should be an event that would generate torsion, even if torsion fields existed (which they do not.) Moreover, there's a simple problem with Hoagland's timings. He notes third contact at 07:03:53, and fourth contact at 07:21:00. However, this table, issued by NASA Goddard, reports third contact at 07:07:33 EDT, and fourth contact at 07:27:31 EDT, both at Miami. Homestead is on the same longitude as Miami. Hoagland's frequency trace is therefore clearly fraudulent.

        Hoagland provided one other trace, from later that same morning:

Image credit: Enterprisemission.com 

        This trace covers a longer stretch of time—from third contact all the way through 12:15 EDT, when he says that Venus was 1.5 solar radii away. He draws attention to a further frequency spike at that time without commenting on how that fits his hypothesis, and completely ignores the biggest spike of all, to over 366 Hz. There's no time scale to measure by, but that spike can be interpolated as occurring at 09:06 EDT, unrelated to any actual astronomical event. The simplest, and therefore most likely, explanation for all this woo-woo is that Richard Hoagland's wristwatch is crap.

"Let me through, I'm a world-famous pseudoscientist"

        Hoagland has said he took the same test apparatus to Stonehenge last August, and although he was shocked to discover that he was not permitted to enter the stone circle, he nevertheless says he achieved similarly "astonishing" results. If he ever publishes them, I'll study them with interest. Don't forget, too, that we're due for another Venus transit next 6th June.