Friday, July 27, 2012

The zombie ziggy: Hoagland writes

        I'm glad to say (OK, write) that this week I did get some responses from Hoagland on the question of the ziggy. I  mean that "glad" sincerely—such an exchange is a lot better than asking Mike Bara why he writes what he writes and says what he says, and getting nothing but douchebags in return.

        Enjoy the contrast in our styles: Hoagland with his weird attempts to make the keyboard look and sound like him, me with my theatrical snootiness. Both of us sure of ourselves to the point of arrogance.

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: That ziggurat


As I understand it, you're interested in a feature on a 43-year old photo with motion smear, whose resolution is AT BEST 65 m/px. Am I right so far?

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, am I also right?

If that is the case, WHY WOULD YOU NOT go immediately to the NAC strip showing that exact area in the LRO image library and examine it? The resolution is about 0.8 m/px, Richard, that's EIGHTY TIMES BETTER, RICHARD.

If you do do that, Richard, guess what you'll find? That's right -- NOTHING OF INTEREST.

Now will you please apologize for misleading the C2C audience and calling the criticism of you "vitriol."

Regards,
expat

========================================
From: richard hoagland   

To: [expat]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat


And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... what?

Their WORD?

Really, if that's the case ... I have this "REALLY neat bridge ...."                       :)

The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."


Keep going; you're only building more public interest as well.


Eventually, with THEIR help, we'll truly get to the bottom of this decades-long "game" that NASA has been playing with ALL of us ....

RCH

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 

Subject: That ziggurat

If you know of specific evidence that that NAC strip has been altered, let's hear it. Otherwise, Richard, your allegation is an attempt by you to create an unfalsifiable proposition and as such has no place in an organized discussion.

I, on the other hand CAN show you specific evidence that your ziggy-pic has been shopped. The evidence is here summarized by Dr Stuart Robbins, a trained and competent astronomer. Please read it.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/podcast-episode-45-the-moons-changing-recession-rate/


Regards,    

expat 

======================================== 
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012  

Subject: That ziggurat  

>>And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... 

 ...is based on the fact that LRO is a scientific enterprise managed by people who would have NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE, RICHARD, for concealing features of interest.

It really is time you let go of the fantasy that Brookings mandated secrecy. The report, Richard, DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER the question of suppressing information. It merely recommended that the question should be asked.

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, and yet your approach to anything that seems interesting is ANYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC, RICHARD. Stop it, please, and apologize to your audience.

Regards, 

expat 

======================================== 
From:richard hoagland  
To: [expat] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat 


The "motive" IS in "Brookings" -- as reported in its December, 1961 edition, by no less a world-class news agency than The New York Times--

"... prevention of the destruction of the world ...."

Not my "opinion," but their reporting of their professional assessment of the "message" o an official, government report on official "confirmation of intelligent extraterrrstrial life ... or artifacts."

NASA has had, therefore, and for more than fifty years -- half a century -- the THREE key elements required by ANY jury ... for conviction of ANY crime--

"Means ... MOTIVE ... opportunity."
By contrast, you are continuing to live in "delusion land" -- obviously not wanting to even consider such political (not "scientific") possibiities ....
Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :)

Fortunately, it's coming to an end ....


RCH

P.S.  And, please ... continue  making all this public fuss; "where's there's smoke ...."            :)

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat


I would submit that a 50 year old article in NYT has as much relevance to a post-doc processing data at LROC in Arizona as the price of coconuts in the market in Jamaica. Possibly less. You make two classic errors here, errors that have permeated your work for as long as I've been giving myself the agony of reading and hearing it.

1. You persist in willfully misreading Brookings in order to make a totally spurious case. Never mind the newspaper reports, read the text. I don't need to quote it here because you probably know it by heart. Here's what you wrote about it:

"So here we had the proverbial smoking gun. Not only was NASA advised--almost from its inception--to withhold any data that supported the reality of Cydonia or any other discovery like it, they were told to do so for the good of human society as a whole." (Dark Mission, p.163 2nd edn)

That sentence is mendacious, Richard. It's Simply. Not. True. Not only did Brookings never "advise NASA to withhold data," nothing it did advise was ever taken seriously in any case. I very much doubt that those post-docs massaging data at LROC have even heard of it, or heard of you and your daft unscientific theories.

2. You also persist in regarding purely science-driven activities as under the control of some evil power intent on covering up information. In the case of the LRO cameras, I would remind you that data processing is carried out, not by a secret cabal of NASA masonic elders, but by skilled people from fourteen academic institutions including Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins.... bla bla bla. The notion that all of these people could be collaborating to keep data from appearing has NO CREDIBILITY WHATEVER. Over the last few days we have learned that the proximate source of the ziggy-pic was Mike Bara, and that Bara has no idea where it originally came from or who "enhanced" it. It would be hard to imagine anything carrying less weight of evidence of what you wish to allege.

You should be ashamed of misleading your readers with such lies. You should be ashamed of going on C2C and marking the anniversary of a heroic achievement with a piece of self-promotional flim-flam that was an attack on the very agency that was responsible for the heroism. You said

"[T]his is only a tip of the iceberg, George, as to what they've been hiding for 43 years, that we have got to take control of now."

A few days later you wrote

"it seemed appropriate to remind everyone -- on the 43rd Apollo 11 Anniversary -- how MUCH NASA has been hiding, all these years"

It was not appropriate, Richard, not appropriate at all. It was SHAMEFUL.

Now, in the present exchange of views, you write

"Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :) Fortunately, it's coming to an end" ....
In 2010 you said disclosure was imminent. You declared 2011 "the year we make contact." Pardon me if I ignore your admonitions about what is about to happen to my "state."

Regards,
expat
========================================

         Caution: Just because I had the last word (for now) it would not be correct to score a win for me. A win would be if he actually did apologize. Preferably not just to me but to all his listeners and disciples.

35 comments:

Esteban Navarro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Esteban Navarro said...

Wow, Expat! Very good! Let me the arrogant daring of give you a little advice as I accepted yours about "ad hominem arena." I think if you would not challenge his intellectual vanity or other considerations ,like his more than doubtful morality or his ineptitude as a prophet, and you cant put him focused only on discussing the "facts and evidences", He would have to recognize that his incriminatory speech to the entire scientific community doesn´t hold more than in his "intuition", that is to say :in anything solid .Anyway, he always does the same, vaguely answered once and then disappears when it gets ugly. (I wonder how Phil Plait has the impression that he could not handle the debate they had in C2C. I would like read the transcript)...and hackneyed and pretended Quijotish forms of "...They barking, Sancho, because we ride ..." (just NASA or LRO could say )... The world turned upside down.

Anyway , Bravo!!! P.S:What´s his e-mail, just in case?he he he...

expat said...

Gracias, Esteban. I can't help my style, it is what it is.

I don't think the Hoagland/Plait debate ever happened. The Hoagland/Ed Mitchell debate did -- I commented it in detail.

http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2008/07/testimony-of-12-moonwalkers.html

enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com

Esteban Navarro said...

True, Expat. You're right, again. Apparently the debate was with Nancy Lieder ...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/c2c_march102004.html

Trekker said...

Expat, the link you give Hoagland to Stuart's new video is the wrong one. It's a link to his later blog, the one about The Moon's changing recession rate. Although he mentions the new video in the text of the blog, the podcast is of his talk on the Moon's recession rate.

expat said...

I guess you're right. Too late now. I know at least one other person sent him links. He replied "Just because it's on Youtube doesn't mean it's true." To which the answer, of course, was "Just because Mike Bara found a jpg 'somewhere on the web' but can't remember where, doesn't mean it's true either."

astroguy said...

What Trekker said about the link to me.

As to Plait/Hoagland debate, Phil has stated he will not do this. People have suggested lately I should offer myself to do it, and I won't do it for the same reasons that Phil won't. there are basically two.

First, Hoagland is much, much more familiar with the mythos he's built up over the past several decades than I - or nearly anyone other than Hoagland - could hope to be. Since we wouldn't be arguing from basic science concepts, I would need to be familiar with everything he's done, otherwise I would appear deficient.

To that end, second, the moderator (and Hoagland) would need to agree before-hand to limit the debate to a few specific topics. That way I could actually prepare -- read up on what Hoagland says and then figure out what's really going on so that I had any sort of "chance" at "winning" (which wouldn't be possible to the C2C audience). But, I don't trust ANY of the C2C hosts to agree to this, and even if they did (the producer supposedly promised this to Phil), I don't actually trust any of the hosts to stick with it nor for Hoagland to stick with it and not interrupt. (For example, I'm listening to a 2004 "debate" now on C2C about Velikovsky and George specifically told them, starting out, to jump in whenever and interrupt.) The only host I would remotely trust for this would be Ian, but he's on now like once a month.

Thus, when Hoagland just goes off those topics or interrupts, I would hang up. Which would make me seem like more of an asshole than Hoagland.

Anonymous said...

If I ever find myself in the same room as Dick Hoagland's computer keyboard, I'm stealing the quotation mark key.

Geo said...

Brilliant as always! But I can't believe you're bothering him will all these details when he's been
working (literally) around the clock, for weeks, preparing a substantive Report on their first Eclipse results for a new post on Enterprise which will probably not happen before the zombie apocalypse.

Can't wait to read his reply.

Biological_Unit said...

The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."

He's making an allegation that his debunkers are engaged in a conspiracy against him. He should press charges of course ...

Esteban Navarro said...

Well, let me join the group of people have suggested you that so, Astroguy.
Hoaglandian Mythology is not that extensive (The face on Mars, the maths of Cydonia ruins on the moon, natural satellites are artificial,-Phobos and Iapetus-, and HD phisycs based on a huge planet not seen by WISE ) and I ´m certain , despite attempts by Hoagland to interrumpt and razzle - duzzle you, you could manage to bring the debate always to the shit evidence he provide (it´s his weak point and he knows, Hoagland is 10% tests and 90% absurd bla, bla , bla), without falling into the trap of arguments conspiranoic-especulative.Discussing just the facts and Orly his “evidences”, Hoagland is sold.

Even if he treats of exposing your ignorance based on small and twisted details and petty data from pseudo-scientific arguments, you could even argue on air the words you just said in your last post, the same as Plait. Far from being an excuse not to debate him, I think are in fact quite the opposite , is a great “crutch” to take the conversation to the field you want.

I know that appear in the media, which are actually a vast machinery of trivialization and banality, and more in such programs, may lead some loss of academic prestige to you, but it would be also a great opportunity to tell the face of pseudoscience to do business with its mysteries and its reactionary entertainment all they want, but stop to criminalizing knowledge and science to get it, NASA hasn´t deliberately killed any astronaut. Enough is enough!

expat said...

How about this for a protocol?

The initial debate would be pre-recorded, with Ian Punnett moderating. Both participants would be told that it would then be edited:

- Any interruption of one party by the other would be automatically cut (tiny interjections excepted).

- Each "speech" would be time-limited to, say, 02:30. Any overrun would likewise be cut off.

- Either party could call timeout to go and search for online data to comment on. This would prevent rhetorical tactics such as "I presume you've seen frame # AS16-21-444? No? Oh well then you can't be expected to understand."

After the replay both participants would be available live to take calls.

expat said...

I'm not sure about having a rigidly-defined set of topics for discussion. Maybe. Certainly during the set-up both would state which areas they are most keen to discuss, and I'm sure a decent moderator could then shape the debate appropriately.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think the clueless can't get any more stoopiderer........... http://i49.tinypic.com/2nr0r40.png

HAHA!

expat said...

OMG, 'Celestial'!! What utter crap (set to excellent music).

Esteban Navarro said...

Expat, your whole proposal is so reasonable and equanimous that probably Hoagland would say no...

But how interesting would that could be done, even on cheap one in those Internet TVs ......

strahlungsamt said...

Astronomy for Rednecks: 58 minutes of lunar analysis and anomaly huntin'. Yeeee-HaW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ggirhnTm4

CELESTIAL - a JOSE ESCAMILLA film

Published on Jul 21, 2012 by joseescamilla

The film that challenges anyone to prove that the Moon is grey. This film proves the Moon is a full color celestial body and that there are incredible structures and towers built by "someone" that has the ability to build a structure ten miles wide and six miles high within an eight month period. The evidence is presented and you will be amazed at what you will see in this film.

Esteban Navarro said...

Ah ha ha...Escamilla strikes again! ... He discovered a "humanoid" in the Moon size of L.A. , remember?

Minute:6.39:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aal1ENM9fkM

Misti Parker said...

RE:

From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: That ziggurat


As I understand it, you're interested in a feature on a 43-year old photo with motion smear, whose resolution is AT BEST 65 m/px. Am I right so far?

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, am I also right?

If that is the case, WHY WOULD YOU NOT go immediately to the NAC strip showing that exact area in the LRO image library and examine it? The resolution is about 0.8 m/px, Richard, that's EIGHTY TIMES BETTER, RICHARD.

If you do do that, Richard, guess what you'll find? That's right -- NOTHING OF INTEREST.

Now will you please apologize for misleading the C2C audience and calling the criticism of you "vitriol."

Regards,
expat

----------------------

From: richard hoagland
To: [expat]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat


And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... what?
___________________________________


Am I missing something here?

Is Hoagland using an older issue of the image, because it is supposedly more original that the higher resolution one?

FlightSuit said...

Ho, ho, ho, Expat, you and your mindless faith that NASA has not taken extraordinary means to hide the truth! See, that's the crux of the matter:

Richard C. Hoagland's arguments are based on pure science, but your arguments are all faith-based.

;-)

expat said...

>>Is Hoagland using an older issue of the image, because it is supposedly more original that the higher resolution one?<<

By Hoagland/Bara logic, if a crappy, noisy 65 m/px image shows a ziggy and a nice clean 0.8m/px image doesn't, it's the latter that must be faked.

expat said...

...and by the way, the crappy/noisy 65 m/px image was "found somewhere, I can't remember where."

Biological_Unit said...

found somewhere, I can't remember where

He knows damn well. Someone extracted it from an orifice, through "back-channels".

strahlungsamt said...

Ooops!

http://www.inquisitr.com/258095/baltic-sea-ufo-really-just-rocks/

Baltic Sea UFO Really Just Rocks

Reality: +1.
Hoagie & Mike: FAIL (again).

FlightSuit said...

strahlungsamt, I read that article, and it contains no information proving the Baltic Sea UFO is just rocks; it mere contains a quote from somebody speculating that it might be rocks.

That does not constitute anything remotely resembling a decisive debunking, in my opinion.

strahlungsamt said...

FlightSuit

Point taken. The article is linked to on Hoagie's FB page though followed by the usual "People can't accept the Truth" quotes. I saw it there and posted without giving it a second thought.
Then again, maybe I'm just another spook who doesn't like the idea that the Millenium Falcon crashed in the former Soviet Union (and is being covered up because the Brookings Report says Chewbacca's DNA must remain a secret).

Anonymous said...

Damn it! If ONLY that Millennium Falcon would have crashed on the lands of those good ol', god-fearing capitalist folk instead!! Then barry could have told the world about our secret alien HD heritage with no problems whatsoever............. (how long is it until the next christmas card comes out??)

expat said...

My comment today to Mike's blog:

So, let's see now... You find this image "somewhere on the web" and you don't know who put it there or what that person did to it. The original version of AS11-38-5564 doesn't look the same, and the NAC strip in the LROC image library, at 80 times better resolution, shows nothing of interest.

And, Mike, YOU CONSIDER THIS GOOD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF AN ALIEN EDIFICE TO PUBLISH IN A BOOK????????

I predict that you're going to get a very great deal of criticism in October. Not hate, just criticism for very, very shoddy research.

FlightSuit said...

strahlungsamt, that's hilarious! People just can't accept the truth! Can you *prove* the article isn't a disinfo piece?

Heh, heh...

FlightSuit said...

Mike Bara continues to post highly academic science content on his Facebook page:

Mike Bara
Friday near Auburn, WA via mobile
Ok, who HASN'T seen the picture of Lady Ga-Ga's Koochie yet?

Misti Parker said...

Linda Moultan Howe admitted the other night on Coast that the Baltic undersea subject of investigation is a sloppy pile of rocks, but she tried to excuse that fact.

FlightSuit said...

Ooh, do tell!

Chris Lopes said...

Well Hoagland has a point about all the commotion adding to the interest of Moon anomalies in general and this one in particular. The problem for him in this case is that he isn't really in a position to take advantage of that interest. It's Mike who has "found" the image after all, and it's Mike who has the book coming out on this very topic. Bara has hoodwinked Hoagland into helping him promote his book.

As to the substance of the email exchange, Hoagland is only trying to turn lemons into lemonade. He knows very well that if the image (that not even Bara can source) were to be examined in any detail (and it has), it's fraudulence would be easily exposed (and again, it has). He just didn't expect it to be exposed this quickly (and he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for that meddling astronomer!), so he has to play the "you are playing into my hands, hahahahaha!" game. It's so juvenile, it must be Bara's idea.

expat said...

Today Mike posted "Something just happened that's sooooo exciting but I can't talk about it!!!!!! Arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!"

Hmmm, this can't be good, I feel.

Misti Parker said...

Update on Baltic Sea Mystery Structure

--Linda Moulton Howe

"When Peter Lindberg and I recorded our interview on June 20th for Earthfiles and Coast to Coast AM, I did not have the so-called "fireplace circle of stones" image in front of me that Peter describes as being 25 to 30 stones tightly arranged in a 3-foot-diameter circle photographed by one of the divers on the right side of the larger circular object. However, in the stone ring image now included in this report, the anomaly is more a loose ring-like arrangement of rocks."

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1989