Wednesday, June 13, 2012

I never said Elenin was a nit-pick

        Wonder of wonders!! I actually got an e-mail reply from 'The Big Man,' as Richard Hoagland self-describes. I don't think any preamble is needed, and not much postamble either. Here's the entire épistolat.

expat to RCH:
Greetings. During the 'Awake & Aware' conference last year you stated as follows (times relate to the Youtube video set):

"Elenin is NOT a comet." Part 1, 04:15
"Something is active on board."  Part 5, 07:50
"So we've got a spacecraft of some kind, flying in an orbit of some kind..." Part 5, 09:52

On Coast to Coast AM, 2nd April, you shouted down a caller with the words "I NEVER SAID ELENIN WAS A SPACESHIP."

Do you think you owe that caller an apology?

RCH to expat:
A "spacecraft" is NOT axiomatically a "spaceship" ....     :)

"Mariner 9" was NOT "Apollo 11."

"Something active on board ..." described anything from "a possible active, automated control system ..." to "a real AI."

Never once mentioned "living beings" -- driving an crewed [sic] "spaceship."    

Words HAVE meaning.

expat to RCH: 
In this page you use the word "spaceship" three times to describe Phobos, yet you have never said that Phobos is "occupied" and indeed it certainly is not. It follows that the definition, to you, includes any celestial object that has ever been under intelligent control. Incidentally, your assertion, in support of your ideas about Phobos, that "You can't have a natural object that's 30% hollow" is laughably incorrect. To name but two contradictory examples, Hyperion is about 40% hollow. Kelp floats are >90% hollow.

In another interesting example of words having meanings, the meaning of "geodetic latitude" is the angle made by the extension of the local vertical with the equatorial plane.  The geodetic latitude of the Port-au-Prince earthquake was NOT 19.5°.

Bandy
        I hesitate to bandy words (Bandy? How did something describing dodgy legs also come to mean verbal sparring?) with one so totally skilled at picking the nit, but I'll just point out that wikipedia says 'spacecraft' and 'spaceship' are synonyms. I realize wikipedia is largely the work of bored twelve-year-olds in the Manchester suburbs, but I think if there were originally two separate articles the kiddies would have had a hard time merging them.

         I've waited most of today, like a Tennessee Williams spinster longing for a gentleman caller, for the continuation of this dialog, but I don't think it'll continue. If it does, you'll be the first to know.

        Meanwhile, back in Facebookistan, nothing but dead air on the subject of the Inaccutron "experiment" during the Venus transit. Even some of the Branch Hoaglandians are getting testy. No doubt the testiest are the ones who gave Hoagland money for nothing.

Update:
        Just for fun I hit the translate button, and translated this post into French, a language I understand a bit. Here's what the frenchies would read as the first line of RCH's e-mail:
Un "vaisseau spatial" n'est pas axiomatiquement un «vaisseau spatial»
What's French for "WTF"?

German: Ein "Raumschiff" ist NICHT axiomatisch ein "Raumschiff" ..

92 comments:

Chris Lopes said...

Yes words have meaning. Unfortunately for Hoagland, in this case (to paraphrase The Princess Bride) that word doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I found a discussion about it from some folks who actually know what they are talking about here.

Misti Parker said...

craft
noun \ˈkraft\

5
plural usually craft a : a boat especially of small size b : aircraft c : spacecraft

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/craft
__________________________________


ship
noun, often attributive \ˈship\

1
a : a large seagoing vessel b : a sailing vessel having a bowsprit and usually three masts each composed of a lower mast, a topmast, and a topgallant mast
2
: boat; especially : one propelled by power or sail
3
: a ship's crew

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship?show=0&t=1339643968

Misti Parker said...

Interesting that Hoagland prefers one on one to group interaction, at this juncture.

Chris Lopes said...

Yes it is. He also never answers his critics. Perhaps no one is taking his calls and he got bored?

Anonymous said...

Wow, you actually got an email from the giant o' science himself?! Well done!

Hoagland is SUCH a weasel - an oily weasel trying to wriggle and squirm his way out of BEING WRONG. If his giant, self-adulating ego wasn't the size of 19.5 jupiter's he would just just admit he made a mistake, but we know that will never ever happen.

Even his most loyal of sheep would surely know "spacecraft" or "spaceship" to mean exactly what we ALL think of by those very words.

This is a guy who is an "expert" at connecting the dots and reading between the lines, and yet has to argue over the possible meanings of words to avoid being shown to be a liar?!?... I mean, it's not like time and time again he said how "interesting" it was that YU55 was described as 'aircraft-carrier size' instead of "big"; and that the folk at NASA used the words 'structures' when reporting on photos of YU55/Vesta etc. (As we all know, 'structures' can ONLY mean artificial buildings built by lifeforms and has no other possible geological meaning whatsoever).

I wonder what Dick's definition of the word "science" or "scientists" is, or "proof", or "hyper-dimensional"?... (hopefully we can purchase Dick's Dictionary to supplement the third book?)

Esteban Navarro said...

Bravo, Expat! Welcome to the club of those who Hoagland answer absurd nonsenses!

Blanche DuBois,Dire Straits...Nice touch.;)

Chris Lopes said...

Anon,
That's the thing. If you picked the random Hoagland fan and asked him/her if a spacecraft is a spaceship, they'd say yes. In fact, most people (in and out of the business) would say yes. Hoagland is making an artificial distinction to cover the fact that he lied to a national audience to get rid of a nasty question about how he wasted weeks of his fans' lives with this nonsense. His only defense of the act is a "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" one. Pathetic.

Trekker said...

Great achievement there, Expat, in getting a reply from him!

Would you be so daring as to try again, and see if you can get an explanation for his 'stunning' silence following the Venus Transit, and his plans for refunding the funds donated by his fans? Even some of those docile creatures are starting to get restless!

Misti Parker said...

A boat is not a ship. A Ship is large and a boat is small. A craft is a boat. Craft may also be several boats, plural.

How big is big? How small is small?

Misti Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Misti Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Misti Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Misti Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Misti Parker said...

Teddy Kidd
The Starship Enterprise, is a Spaceship. The Shuttlecraft Galileo, is like a boat.

The big man, Professor, Richard C Hoagland, may be full of ship, but Dick's just a little dinghy.

4 minutes ago · Like

Anonymous said...

Misti, you intrigue me. Tell me all about yourself. G. F. DeMara.

Binaryspellbook said...

Expat,
I'm cartoonishly startled that you managed to solicit a response from Hoagland without offering him money and, incredulously, without being labelled an MI6 operative.

I'm unsurprised by the reply. Hoagland (to my knowledge) has never admitted to being wrong about anything. Ever. I knew what he would say before I read his reply. Both he and Bara play the same word games when it suits their agenda. Just as NASA can be trusted when the "Big Man" decrees it so.

I wonder, regarding the recent cutoff you had on a radio show. Where Bara was guest, and you asked, "how many shuttle launches fitted with his ritual alignment model ?" If he spawned a litter of kittens whilst making the throat-cut gesture to the host.

I also wonder if you have a link to the broadcast.

Next, and continuing on the agenda will be; The John Carter movie, the Prometheus movie, and the narrowing of the proposed landing ellipse of Curiosity. And of course whatever the HD "model" predicted this week.

I'd easily wager fifty new pence (remember I'm a Scot) that the juggernaut of contemporary science is, as I write, honing his photoshop skills.

expat said...

The Mike Bara radio show was on blogtalkradio "The Bright Side." This might be a link to it:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/brightside1/2012/05/27/the-bright-side-show

expat said...

BTW Hoagland covered the adjustment to the landing ellipse of Curiosity, in a short appearance on C2C a few nights ago (thus proving that they haven't cut him off totally, just refused to play host to his Inaccutron rubbish.) He said the reason for it was to hurry the trip to the central peak so that the announcement that a civilization has been found could be made before the election.

When that announcement doesn't happen, of course, he'll drop the subject. Not a chance he'll ever say "I guess I was wrong, then."

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA - that's the funniest thing I've read in ages!

So let me get this right, the RITUAL DRIVEN NASA - the people who cannot "go to the bathroom without the right celestial alignment, George", the people who have managed humanity and hidden knowledge for years in accordance with ritual, have now just suddenly decided to speed-up Curiosity's mission and forget all about ritual timings and alignments, because re-incarnated sphinx pharaoh emperor king barry is going to seal an election victory by announcing to the world life has been found on mars???? (You know, just in case his political policies on the wars or the economy or healthcare don't seal a win).

Obviously those evil republicans would cover up such information (unless Mitt is a Hawaiian Mormon) and so all those NASA heads are only too happy to help out barry - or perhaps they're all on his drone list and are being forced to speed up the mission or else!... Makes perfect sense if you're as good at reading between the lines as Captain Enterprise is!

Then again... Surely the REAL powers behind the scenes that have been keeping secrets for 70 years (if not thousands), have "star trek technology" beyond anything we can imagine, might just have something to say about this??? (after all, this is one of those times we CAN trust NASA, right?!) Wait, hang on a minute, what am I doing applying logic to show how ridiculous Dick's notion is - back to the fantasy thinking.......

Imma have to find that C2C clip - tis the most wonderfully absurd thing I've heard in a while! Classic Dick!

And yes, not a word will be said about such "non-prediction" when alien life is NOT announced to the world... unless Dick is right for once - in which case, I sure hope barry has his teleprompter switched on or he'll have to leak the announcement in his next christmas card secret message - and I for one would love to see our economy increase 17x (obviously 16x and 18x is just ludicrous) because of the golden age that will happen instantly. What channel is The View on again? I want to stay tuned so I don't miss the most important event in human history!!!! (Obviously that's the logical place he'd announce it, right?!)

Here's hoping Curiosity has some pretty big buckets attached to pick up extra campaign funds from those martians - or we might never know the truth, and Hoagie might miss his chance to go down in history as the greatest scientist of all time.......

Anonymous said...

I found the C2C clip - including Dick's nonchalant "disclosure" that he will be doing a full show in a couple of days (he's gracious enough to give us peons his time and the inside scoop on whats really happening behind the scenes) - and he does indeed state that nasa/barry will announce 'biological methane sources on mars, ergo potential life'. (oh the irony of a man who is full of shit talking about methane!)

Obviously he doesn't do predictions, but it certainly sounded like one... but we all know how slimey Dick is with words and meaning and inferences. (I wonder what he means by "announce" and "will" and "biological life"? I thought Curiosity was nuclear powered so it could go inside the apartment blocks of our ancestors? Or does "methane sources" mean a martian donkey has been discovered and nasa needs more money to go get it?... It would be wrong for me to assume the meaning of such a statement without Dick's Dictionary.

He said this on Jun-13 C2C's - does anyone know if this has been discussed on his FB page since? I don't see any sign of it - surely this is exactly the sort of thing his legion of sheep would be facebook-fapping to non-stop?!

expat said...

The Fuckbook page is on hiatus for the moment -- this has happened before. Another heroine using the name Sarah Bilgri has partly filled the vaccum with some words of wisdom:

Sarah Bilgri: "Look, there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. Contrary to what Hoagland seems to believe, many great scientists have made many great discoveries by doing just that. But this is a joke. Hoagland solicited a ridiculous amount of funds for an expedition that could have cost much less, and where is he with the stunning results-any results-that many of you had directly contributed to? A week and more of complete and utter silence. Pay attention, guys-nobody's suppressing these "amazing discoveries". You've got a senior citizen who (unlike a real scientist) can't afford ANY logical questions regarding his methods to remain. Read this carefully before it disappears. This guy's an old clown with shattered dreams of being a respected scientist. The only ones not laughing are you guys. 32,000 people in the whole world-many who are friends only out of casual interest-for a lifetime of work. Take a look at Paris Hilton's friends and then ask yourself what kind of impact this crap will ever have on the world. Well done, Hoagie. I'm sure your legend will only grow."

Teddy Kidd: "What's age got to do with it?"

Sarah Bilgri: "Age is not an issue in itself; but it illustrative in this case of Hoagland's lack of penetration despite more than two decades of "stunning results". His life has been so completely wasted. He likes to reference his more than 30,000 Facebook friends, as if such a biased audience indicates that he's getting anywhere with anyone of importance. He's gone from brief appearances on "real" programs like CNN and semi-real presentations at venues such as the UN to preaching to the choir at like-minded conferences and counting his fans on Facebook, a venue where people who already know about him seek him out. In all, it's not a bad thing that he's old; my Grandpa is more than twenty years older and can look back on a life of service to his country and raising a loving and successful family. Hoagland will bleat out his nonsense for another decade or two and then be forgotten except by those who don't know how to draw logical conclusions."

Anonymous said...

I'm still very surprised none of his faithful picked up on his statement: to say the pres *will* announce the discovery of "biological life" on another planet in a couple of months is surely the biggest statement Dick's ever made - it would be history-making if it were true.

There's usually always people writing on his FB wall saying "Dick will be on C2C news tonight"; and his name is indeed listed right there on the C2C website for Jun13's show - I can't believe his fans aren't all over this in a frenzy...

It's almost as if every one of those 32,580 "fans" he loves to reference so much aren't actually hanging on his every word with baited breath as much as they used to... (or as much as he thinks!!)

Misti Parker said...

Has anybody got a youtube link to Hoagy's preDICKedtion, por favor?

Anonymous said...

Damn, looks like they banned Teddy Kidd,, he was about the only good reading on there.

Misti Parker said...

RIP, Teddy Kidd

By the way, I have it on good authority that Mae Naught never did get nuked. She moved to another town, and didn't want to be asked by facebutt for a cell phone number. That's what happens if they think somebody has attempted to hack your account.

Chris Lopes said...

Expat,
The French aren't the only ones who do not see the difference Hoagland is trying to create. In Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot there is a chapter named "The Triumph of Voyager". In that chapter, Sagan uses the terms craft and ship to describe Voyager interchangeably. At one point in fact, he compares the two Voyagers to the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, vehicles even Hoagland would call ships. So in this case, Hoagland is attempting to be pseudo-pedantic (pseudo because his point is based on false knowledge).

Misti Parker said...

Sagan was wrong too.

Chris Lopes said...

Yes Misti, an uneducated hack who has never dealt with a real program of space exploration has a better idea what these words mean than an accredited scientist who had a hand in numerous space missions, wrote a number of NYT best sellers (as in #1 best sellers, not the kind that barely make the list for one week then disappear) and produced and hosted an award winning television series. The hack is playing word games so he doesn't have to admit he lied on national radio to get rid of a pesky caller who insisted he answer for his error.

Think about it. He had his followers talking about this nonsense for weeks on end. He made use of it in a paid video performance (that he suggested one reader skip a meal to buy, it was that important apparently). He made it the center of the Hoagland universe, then when it didn't turn out the way he predicted, he pretended it never happened.

Then when by some happenstance he gets a question about it on C2C, he shouts the caller down with a lie. It was the act of a bully and a coward (he knew Noory would back him up no matter what he did) and his response to Expat is disingenuous at best. If he really believed that nonsense, he'd have made the distinction while on the air. He didn't, because he doesn't. He just wanted the caller to go away.

Anonymous said...

What's French for "WTF"?

Bien merde alors !

Is the closest expression of which I can think

Misti Parker said...

Sagan made a fair analogy between the mission of Columbus and the Voyagers' missions, but there are notable distinctions between them. The ships of Columbus were in fact, ships. Voyager 1 & 2 were too small to be ships, and they were not manned, so therefore would most accurately be describes as un-manned craft.

jourget said...

To be fair, I believe Sagan presented the Columbus analogy to illustrate the pioneering nature of the respective journeys, not the similarities of the vehicles with which they were accomplished. The comparison was particularly apropos in the sense that neither expedition was the first to their respective port of call, though they were both tremendously historically significant.

Nevertheless, Sagan's comment is still relevant, because while he undoubtedly realized the distinction between unmanned spacecraft and manned ships, he considered the distinction to be so negligible as to be irrelevant.

expat said...

Are we creeping toward defining "spacecraft" as unmanned and "spaceship" as manned? I hope not -- I would reject that distinction. The idea that a spaceship is bigger and more impressive than a mere spacecraft has some appeal.

Chris Lopes said...

jourget,
Exactly. Sagan used the words interchangeably ("Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are the ships that opened the Solar System to the human species, trailblazing a path for future generations.") because he saw no difference. He saw no difference because there is no difference.

The splitting of hairs that Hoagland is attempting is for the purpose of explaining a lie he said on C2C. He knew what the caller meant and could have offered the same explanation he gave Expat that very night. He didn't because it didn't occur to him just then. He just wanted the caller gone and knew Noory would back his play. He got rid of the question and the C2C audience was spared the experience of Hoagland admitting that another one of his wild spaceship chases ended up being a big fat nothing.

Misti, if you are really going to use size as a criteria (that's not Hoagland's excuse, but whatever) consider that Elenin was supposed to be a "craft" the size of a comet. Most people would consider that big enough to rate the term "ship".

jourget said...

Expat,

I agree that the distinction is invalid, not just because of the formal definition of the terms, but also because of the way in which the terms are colloquially used. Since some terms are used in the real world in very different ways than their formal definition would imply (for example, submariners referring to their vessels as "boats" when the subs' sizes would lead many to refer to them as "ships"), Hoagland's very suggestion that the terms "spacecraft" and "spaceship" have anything other than a highly subjective, individualistic definition is laughable. Just another example of RCH's "my definition is correct, for I am a SCIENTIST!" syndrome.

Misti Parker said...

Ship is large and singular, craft is small and singular as well as plural. There is no presumptive distinction between manned and unmanned unless specifically noted. Hoagland only tried to obfuscate that point because he felt threatened. Sagan could just as easily been asked for clarification, but I doubt if he would have gotten so defensive about being asked. Of course, I don't think that Sagan had anybody just waiting to jump down his throat if he didn't speak as if he were reciting a dissertation.

jourget said...

Misti,

Again, nobody here is criticizing Hoagland for using one specific word when he should have used another specific, very similar word; he would have been spectacularly wrong in either event. Indeed, HE'S the one who seems to be implying that he's speaking with the precision of a dissertation whenever he talks about anything, telling us he very specifically meant to say craft instead of ship for a specific reason. What everybody here is pointing out is that such an insignificant distinction is a cheap sidestep to avoid admitting that the speaker is a moron.

Chris Lopes said...

Misti,
Hoagland tried to obfuscate the point to cover the fact that he lied to shut down a line of questioning he wasn't prepared to deal with. Remember, at the time Hoagland (who has used both words himself, as Expat pointed out) did not make such a distinction on air. He simply shouted the guy down.

Sagan wasn't making the distinction because he didn't see one to make. If asked, he probably (since that's how he behaved) would have said they are equivalent terms. A spaceship is a spacecraft.

Oh and to add to the confusion and show how meaningless these distinctions can be, there is an interesting example from modern Naval terminology. The average nuclear attack submarine is both very large and has a crew. This craft is a very capable warship by anyone's imagination. Yet the term for such a craft is 'boat'. Now I suppose you could claim that the Navy is wrong and Hoagland is right, but that wouldn't be very convincing.

Esteban Navarro said...

Entangled and irreducible Misti...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmFRvpwVSwo

;)

Misti Parker said...

Spaceship and spacecraft are not equivalent terms at all, and Carl Sagan could not have correctly claimed them to be synonymous.

Hoagland tried to say that a spaceship is manned, and a spacecraft is unmanned, which is not necessarily right or wrong; it depends, but you guys here went off on a tangent about the proper definition. So far, I'm the only one who has given the correct usage, you feckless bunch of Bozos.

Chris Lopes said...

Misti,
The words are seen as equivalent by those who are actually in the field of space flight. Apollo 11 may not be Mariner 9, but they are both considered spacecraft and spaceships. Hoagland is trying to promote a difference that does not exist in common usage, in an effort to avoid admitting he lied in order to not explain why he blew it again. He wanted the C2C audience to forget the weeks leading up to the broadcast where he was comparing Elenin to the ship in Rendezvous With Rama (which was also unmanned).

No, Hoagland was not trying to promote what he says is the proper use of words, if he were, he'd have actually mentioned it at that time. He only mentions it now when people ask him about the lie. It's called an excuse and has no basis in reality. Then again, nothing else Hoagland talks about does either.

Misti Parker said...

Lopes, show me an official NASA glossary that succinctly defines the terms, Spaceship and Spacecraft. You are jumping to erroneous conclusions, and persist in making a fool of yourself, as well as a being an all around, general nuisance.

expat said...

Misti please STOP IT. We already know that there's no essential difference between a spacecraft and a spaceship. You're just being rebarbative to amuse yourself. STOP IT.

Misti Parker said...

Pattycakes, you don't know that at all, because in fact, there is a difference, as I have already illustrated with reference to the English dictionary.

However, I do recall an interview with either a NASA engineer or maybe even an astronaut, back during Apollo, where the expert was saying that the Apollo capsule was almost more of a spaceship than the Mercurys, because it had some measure of piloted control.

Actually, that would tend to support Hoagland's argument.

expat said...

Misti, I'm telling you. I will delete your posts if in my judgement their sole purpose is to needle Chris Lopes.

Biological_Unit said...

A Rocky body in space has never been controlled by intelligence.

It's a dead hulk like all of Misti's blogs. HHMSS Sword. Misti is this liar SwArd.

Misti Parker said...

What I recall is Hoagland saying that he believed that Elenin and YU55 were controlled by intelligent forces, and that their influence was responsible for the Muslim violence in the Middle East, which he called positive change.

Richard C Hoagland also broadcast to Art Bell's audience of 20,000,000 listeners, that Comet Hale-Bopp had a piloted companion. The Heaven's Gate cult refers to this on their website, which still functions. I do wonder who pays the bill to the webhost for that?

Misti Parker said...

http://www.heavensgate.com/misc/link.htm

Chuck Shramek's Hale-Bopp Companion Page Hale-Bopp Companion

The Art Bell Web Page #1 Late Night Talk Radio Program

NASA Images from NASA

Whitley Strieber UFO News!

Anonymous said...

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html

Phobos is, indeed ... "an artificial spaceship!"...

3 sentences later:

Phobos could be an "intelligently-created, giant spacecraft"

Anonymous said...

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Phobos2.html

Steins also turned out to be a ship ... a 3-mile-wide, ancient spaceship orbiting the sun...

Next sentence:

A giant spacecraft shaped, ultimately ... like a truncated "double tetrahedron!"

Misti Parker said...

It's interesting that you clowns prefer to split hairs about terms for technology that has yet to be fully developed, and totally evade the real issue, which is the subject of intelligent control of large objects in Space.

This is what I mean about the Roosters and the Owls. Hoagland spins the truth and so do you posers. The only difference being you own respective agendas, neither which are benevolent.

One side claims the most outrageous bullshit as factual, and the other side throws the baby of facts out with the bath water.

Both sides working together to cover up the truth.

If the shoe fits, Cinderella, delete it.

expat said...

Misti, the REAL issue is Richard Hoagland's intellectual dishonesty. I think that's adequately covered in this blog. Intelligent control of large objects in space is a sub-set of that overall discussion. Since there's no evidence that it has ever happened, I think it's a barren topic, personally.

Misti Parker said...

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Paddy. In your view, Richard C Hoagland is more dishonest in saying that a Spaceship is manned, and a Spacecraft is un-manned, then he is to assert that Elenin and/or YU55 are either?

I personally say that Hoagland has supported his position better than you have, because I personally witnessed an expert from NASA say that the Apollo capsule was more like a Spaceship than a Spacecraft because it had some measure of manned, pilot control. Whereas Carl Sagan apparently used the terms interchangeably.

At the very least, Hoagland is on at least as firm a ground as Sagan on this subject. That's a far cry from intellectual dishonesty.

The topic of intelligent control of large objects in Space is far more fair game for you to criticize, for the very fact that you say it isn't worth mentioning. Hoagland makes the extraordinary assertion on simple observation.

Biological_Unit said...

Oh come on! You probably have two fleshy rocks in your pants. No hot chick has ever argued in this fashion in the history of arguing!

Troll Alert!

expat said...

Misti you don't understand me correctly, no. Hoagland is dishonest in his response to a caller on C2c, as Chris Lopes has explained extremely well.

expat said...

You cannot possibly sustain a theory that Hoagland requires a spaceship to be manned, since he clearly described Phobos as such three times in one essay.

Chris Lopes said...

Again, if that were really where Hoagland was going with "I didn't say it was a spaceship", he'd have said so that night. Hoagland has never turned down the opportunity to show his 'superior' knowledge of space science to an audience. Correcting a caller's 'improper' use of terminology would have been right up his alley. It would have made his point clear and demonstrated his 'inside' knowledge of the subject. He didn't do that because that wasn't what was on his mind. Giving the audience the impression that he didn't really say what he really did say was what had his mental focus. The word game came latter.

Misti Parker said...

I thought guys here were saying that Hoagland said that a Spaceship had to be manned, and that a Spacecraft was unmanned.

Misti Parker said...

I have heard Hoagland say that Phobos is a derelict Spaceship, that at one time, it had been occupied by some sort of intelligent beings.

I don't recall him ever saying if they were biological, but from what I gather, his view seems to be that they must be human ancestors from Orion or more specifically, Sirius, perhaps.

What does that do to your guys nit picking?

Misti Parker said...

The Message of the

Sphincter Boy

Biological_Unit said...

Mister Parker. Parks it into Misters. Yeah I went there swArd!

Brutal austerity + toxic levels of government debt + rising bond yields + a lack of confidence in the financial system + banks that are massively overleveraged + a massive credit crunch = A financial implosion of historic proportions.

Misti Parker said...

I guess you guys must get paid to try and divert everybody's attention from the fact that this is now 2012. I fail to grasp Dick's logic that Earth's 26,000 year cycle of Precession which places the planet closer to Orion now than most other years, could really make any significant difference in the amount of time it would take to travel from Orion to Earth, creating a most favorable launch window a number of years back. I suppose those ancient Spaceships might have needed every reduction in light years they could manage to cut from the journey, but you'd think that by now they would have had plenty of time to invent something faster. They probably should have been here a lot sooner, unless they feel like they have to wait and honor their scheduled appointment?

Biological_Unit said...

No that is plain vanilla wrong! Expat will roast you alive when he responds!

Misti Parker said...

I'm just wondering'sall

Biological_Unit said...

You don't understand Precession and have little grasp of the hugeness of Space.
There is nothing planned that could get anywhere in 10 THOUSAND years.

AND

Zero-Gee kills in two years.

Misti Parker said...

Did you hear about the Pollock manned mission to fly to the Sun?

They plan to go at night.

Misti Parker said...

Oh, gee, why is the Space Station in 2001 made like a wagon wheel?

Misti Parker said...

Sirius is little more that eight and a half light years from Earth, so anyone with half way decent sublight speed could make the trip in no time.

Misti Parker said...

Phobos is big and round. If one were to design a Spaceship that could create it's own artificial gravity, what better design than a hollow ball, other than that of a wagon wheel?

Biological_Unit said...

Except no one has reached 1/1000 of "light speed", and never will, because I said so!

Misti Parker said...

Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light could be closely approached, but not exceeded. If so, then the trip from Sirius to Earth could be completed in less than nine years, Earth time.

Misti Parker said...

Of course Phobos is a big old slug, like something shot out of a muscat, so it would be a lot more wind resistant, and might take a lot longer to get here, like maybe closer to nine thousand years.

Biological_Unit said...

Mister Parker, you trolleth!

Biological_Unit said...

I got you SwARd!

Only swOrd presents the "gun shot" launch system. SwOrd also is a lousy speller. It's Musket not "muscat".

Mister Parker is Captain Of Tools of the obviously fake Unit SwArd!

http://hhmsssword.blogspot.ca/

Misti Parker said...

Vitis vinifera

Biological_Unit said...

You have been exposed already! Why linger here, you awful liar and phony cheat!

Misti Parker said...

See the interesting thing is that there is actualy something too, much of what Hoagland says, but then he saws off the branch upon which he sits, gives you good old boys the wink and a nod, so that you can proceed to discredit it all. That way, the legitimate issues do get raised, then rejected, because of the tainted tarnish that Hoagland pissed all over it all with.

Misti Parker said...

Of course as Dick points out: "THE lie is different at every level."

Biological_Unit said...

I do not agree, Sword.

Esteban Navarro said...

The odd couple!Nice job, BU.Being a veteran is a degree...Sword...Hahahaaaa...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygAE_-1Zv_8


Funny thread.

Binaryspellbook said...

Hoagland appears to be in hiding again. Just like he hid after the embarrassment of Elenin and YU55.

Just in case anyone is unaware of Hoagland treats people who express a differing opinion to him. Here's two short clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkMhq0Neck0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgixXX3_llc

Biological_Unit said...

I won't tell yous what I think HHMSS stands for!

I feel dirty thinking about that group. I consider the matter closed.

Misti Parker said...

You can joke all you like, but I don't want credit for another's work; I'm not that Sword feller.

Misti Parker said...

What was that more recent incident where Hoagland shouted down a listener to Coast who called in with a question; gottalinktothat?

Anonymous said...

Ricardo C.onman Hoagland has been AWOL from fanbook for weeks - I wonder if any of his flock have noticed their master has gone, or are they all still bowed down so much they haven't looked up yet?!?...

I best go find some ufo video clips from 2005 on youtube, and post them on his wall; do my bit to keep the page alive and well...

Biological_Unit said...

another's work??

It's Fiction and trolling rolled up in a sweaty orgy of fakery. That's not work, it's Dancing in the Clouds.

swArd

Binaryspellbook said...

Misty,

I think this is the link where he tries to wriggle out of a difficult Elenin question. It's at the end of the video. The last hour is callers, so you will find it in there somewhere.

The rest of the show is Hoagland as usual lying like a bastard. This time he is claiming Edgar Rice Burroughs was "an insider, writing fact as fiction"...so that people in the know would know that he [Rice Burroughs] knew,and people who didn't would be handed some easter eggs via the John Carter series of books."

It's a long hard listen. Possibly Hoagland at his most desperate and musteline. I am proud to admit that I didn't throw up this time when listening to this disgraceful liar.

Binaryspellbook said...

Hoagland denies calling Elenin a spaceship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6YCAezVu4E

Misti Parker said...

Thank's Binaryspellbook,
I like your review. I'll give a listen to the youtube, now.

Binaryspellbook said...

Expat,
Drop me a line at binaryspellbook@gmail.com

Some ongoing data collection you will be interested in. Although not yet ready for public release.

Kindest regards
Derek James Eunson.

Misti Parker said...

Something wonderful DID happen! - Richard C Hoagland: 1:28:27

Misti Parker said...

In that Coast interview, Hoagland tells a caller that any humans who visit Mars will have to confine themselves to caves due to radiation, but he has also claimed before, that the radiation at Fukushima has been neutralized with the technology from Hyper Dimensional Physics, and that we therefore have no reason not to use nuclear powered plants on Earth, nor nuclear powered Spacecraft.

Misti Parker said...

(I would delete my bad grammar, but deleted posts looks even worse.)