We here at Emoluments HQ have been ragging on Hoagland for years now, about the pathetically inadequate protocols he reports from his Accutron measurements. One of our criticisms has been that he never presents baseline readings. In other words, when he shows us traces like the one below and calls them "stunning", we only have his word for it that the 40-year-old watch doesn't behave like that all the time.
image credit: Richard Hoagland
If it did, of course, that would render his "measurement" instantly meaningless, since it would just be the normal behavior of a malfunctioning wristwatch.
Well, it's beginning to seem that his baseline really is as wonky as his "stunning" experimental results. How about this, from the panel discussion at the Glendale Awake & Aware pseudo-conference:
Since I am measuring actual documented changes in the physics, particularly since the 2012 date... Where we live is miles away from the Sandias—which is this huge 12,000 ft mountain range that I conducted the solar eclipse measurements from, that you saw, that were so stunning... I now understand why native peoples think of mountains as sacred and spiritual, because the physics is higher there. It's simply a huge amplifier, solid state amplifier, of "The Force".
It used to be that I could do measurements in my office and I would get nothing but noise—straight line. You have to go to a pyramid, or to that mountain, to get really interesting stuff. Over the last several months, particularly the last several weeks, I have seen readings [...] that are as boggling as any at any pyramid anywhere in the world, just sitting there in the office. And it's replicable—it's happened more than once, in fact one set of readings was so bizarre it looked like it was some kind of artificial modulation of the torsion field, with square waves. You don't get square waves in nature—you don't get, y'know, when a supernova goes off, a pulsar rotates ... curves and all that. This was beautiful square waves. In one part the curve tracked from higher to lower frequency over a particular window of time like redundant messaging.
Several comments come to mind:
:: He reports this as though it's a new phenomenon. And yet, discussing the Inaccutron on Coast to Coast AM last June, he reported "The Accutron went nuts for 12 hours non-stop" in his office on the occasion of the summer solstice.
:: His expression "the physics is higher there" has no conceivable meaning.
:: He uses the word replicable. I point out that the behavior of a broken wristwatch is replicable, too, in that sense. But when real scientists use that word, they mean "When Procedure A is applied to a system, B is the reliable result." They do not mean "B happens quite often."
:: And then, we still have all our other objections to his protocol: No controls, no specific predictions, no actual stated measurements or even a statement of what units the torsion field is measured in.
Truly junk science. In case any reader is totally new to this topic, there's a good summary here.