Friday, August 23, 2013

An engineer accuses Hoagland & Bara

        Derek Eunson Ph.D., who comments here as binaryspellbook, believes in calling a spade a spade. Better still, a fucking spade, if the adjective seems appropriate. Derek totally shares my contempt for Hoagland's faulty mathematics and Bara's "insult as a substitute for rebuttal," and he laid into those two fawlty boys by e-mail this week. Nothing back from Bara or his sweetly passive manager, but a little fantasy back from Hoagland. Since both of them are keen to see this material disseminated as widely as possible, it's my pleasure to republish here, unedited except for one teensy copy-edit.

==========^^^===========
Subj: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: RCH, Mike Bara
Cc: Henrik Palmgren, Richard Dolan, Mike Bara Mgmt
From: derek james eunson 8/21/13

Dear Richard and Mike,

This is an open letter which will be plastered all over every piece of social media myself my colleagues, and our children can find. Isn't it truly amazing how many people you can reach on social media when you get teenagers and young adults involved. Don't you find it astonishing how our children have taken to such things.

Now on to the truth. I realize that this is something that both of you are unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, shall we press on regardless.

To document the bare faced lies you two bandits have been perpetrating over the years would require a ridiculous amount of time. However, since I actually have a real job as a real engineer I will have to cherry pick. And oh my, how big the cherry tree is.

Hoagland's preposterous lies about Von Braun and Explorer1 have been exposed because he couldn't even fill in the numbers and crank the handle on one of the most well known (and simple) rocket equations. I refer of course to the equation derived by K.Tsiolkovsky. Yet this utter garbage is still on his utterly shambolic 1990's style webpage after all these years. Even after multiple instances of Hoagland's atrocious mathematical skills being pointed out. The man has no shame. You couldn't even paint a red nose on this clown. His hubris knows no bounds.

The torsion waves Hoagland pretends to measure with a 40 year old wristwatch and a laptop computer don't exist. Even if they did exist Hoagland has done nothing to prove it. In fact his method is so far short of the scientific method that it is simply laughable. No baselines, no controls, no calibration and no fucking data. Hoagland even refuses to share his data with what he calls "complete strangers." This is what we real engineers and scientists do all the time you dimwit. It is called peer review.

Hoagland told us that comet Elenin was a spacecraft with a hyperdimensional shield generator on board. He attempted to prove this by faking yet another image. First by legitimately stacking frames and then using photoshop to manipulate the final image. True to form Hoagland refuses to tell anyone what frames and in what order he used them.

 He also told us that Elenin had a message for humanity sent from 13,000 years ago by our highly advanced ancestors the Shem Su Hor (the followers of Horus) who apparently had something important to tell us. I must have missed it. Although Hoagland tried to tell the world that the Arab spring was due to Elenin's influence.Yes he really did say all that stuff, and he calls himself a scientist. Stop laughing, he really did say that.

 Comet Elenin disintegrated, everyone with an interest in comets saw it. Hoagland lied about this too, and tried to show an earlier picture as "proof" that Elenin was still intact. He milked that one big time, before being caught rotten on Facebook by many critics. He was caught so rotten that he had to abandon his facebook account (although it still exists he hasn't posted there in well over a year) as he was being made a laughing stock. Not that he already wasn't.

The whole disgrace is catalogued in a wiki page dedicated to Hoagland's spunk-trumpetry.

Hoagland insists that the wiki page is invalid because NASA edits it and are out to get him. Yes he really did say that too. Fucking clownhat.

Mikey boy Bara is simply a thoroughly disagreeable little man. He has no flair for mathematics, lies uncontrollably, and likes to refer to his critics as homosexuals or douchebags. Unless you are female in which case he will ask you not to reproduce because you are too ugly.
I will simply refer you to this rational-wiki page dedicated to the one and only Mike 'Homophobe' Bara.

DJE

 ==========^^^===========
From: RCH
Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: ....


Derek,

Now, now ... temper ... temper ....             :)

And please ... DO post this as far and wide as possible -- gratuitous obscenities included (of course)!

It will ONLY drive more folks to read what you (literally) are "raving about" ... and, to find out what we ACTUALLY have said (and written) ....

And, thanks to YOU, to finally "open their eyes."


 RCH

==========^^^===========

Subj: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: RCH, Mike Bara
Cc: Henrik Palmgren, Richard Dolan, Mike Bara Mgmt
From: derek james eunson
Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:46 PM 

Hi Richard 

Obscenities are a favourite of your former co-author. I have the screenshots to prove it. Mikey boy likes to call female critics "cunts."

Both you and I know this is unacceptable as a man. We may have our differences Richard, but you will agree that speaking to a lassie in such terms is not the actions of a man. Bara would do well to stick with the rudimentary grunts and gestures he was obviously taught as a fledgling.


Moving on. Please respond to specifics. For example Von Braun's secret. You can't, can you. Because you have been proved wrong. Big time. 

Yes the teenagers have been unleashed. Bad for you mate,  good for the sheeple rednecks you plan to fleece.

Please delete the thoroughly discredited Von Braun's secret. It makes a respected scientist like yourself look like a tit.

Oh and can you please state what units torsion waves are measured in. And hows about some data for we real engineers to discredit. 

You know, baselines and stuff like that. Bring it on man, you v me on C2C. You can make it happen. But Noory must not be allowed to moderate since he is under your spell, and therefore biased as well as a dunce.

Kindest Regards
DJE.

==========^^^===========

Editorial comment:
        I can't imagine what Hoagland means by "what we ACTUALLY have said (and written)". Does he think there's SOME OTHER VERSION of Von Braun's Secret that does not contain unpardonable errors? Does he think all his writings about the Inaccutron will magically yield some actual science, if you just look hard enough? I don't think that's how it works, Richard. I join with Dr. Eunson in asking you to retract. Demanding it, actually.

50 comments:

Chris Lopes said...

Hoagie has known about his math mistakes in the Von Braun incident for ages. James Concannon and I had a very long and tedious discussion with him about it back when he still bothered with his fb page. His refusal to change the 'papers' on his site is an indication that he's not just mistaken, but actively lying.

As to the infantile "go ahead and publish, it will give us more fans" shtick, that's Hoagie avoiding the real questions. He knows he was caught on the math and the fake Elenin images. He also knows he tried to pass off a doctored images of a Borg Sphere model as an artist's rendition of another asteroid/spaceship. He knows if he returns to fb, others will remind him and his fans of his past lies.

Robert Ghostwolf's ghost said...

"Spunk-trumpetry" has just joined the list of my favorite insults!

Jaque Bnimble said...

It would seem that you fellows completely miss the point of what that Dick Hoagland is actually all about. Such nonsense is perfectly understandable in the context of mind control. To over simplify here, the effect of a non sequitur can create confusion which results in anxiety. A subject experiencing anxiety seeks comfort and the assurance of acceptability and will grasp onto any half assed reasonable sounding bullshit in order to feel normal. Hoagland is a paid agent of disinformation. It makes no difference what crap it is he hands you, because the aim is to get you willing to accept the bigger load of shit which is next to be presented.

expat said...

If that's the case then it's a failure. When I read 'Von Braun's Secret' I'm neither confused nor anxious. My reaction is to point out the errors, which I have done.

Jaque Bnimble said...

Look at all the effort you put into this page. How do we know that, that isn't exactly the sort of reaction that Hoagland's handlers are paying him for?

As the confused public audience is given comforting reassurances from you, what gets lost is the less conspicuous truth that Hoagland is paid to obfuscate.

Are we all now supposed to blindly accept the errors and commissions in not out right frauds of NASA, which you invariably overlook?

Jaque Bnimble said...


lermanet.com/exit/confusion-technique.htm

Julian Janssen said...

Expat,

Without buying into Jaque Bnimble's explanation, I would say that your response may be off the mark, inasmuch as you are probably not the intended target of RCH's nonsense. Since I started reading your blog, I haven't missed one post. I wonder when exactly RCH made the transition from science correspondent to bullshit artist.

Anonymous said...

Is this the germ of the beggining of the end of the Hoag and Bara show? I would love to think it was, but both have disciples who frankly couldn't tell the difference between science and a front loading washing machine. Might I suggest a YT video; taking both charlatans apart the way Spacekills2 did with the Nibiru nonesense.

SB

Anonymous said...

Jacque Bnimble wrote: "the effect of a non sequitur can create confusion which results in anxiety".

But it doesn't follow that creating confusion and following up with greater confusions means "paid disinformation agent".

If your comment looks confused to me and your next one will top that, how would I know who is paying who here?

There's actually documented research available about how the human mind is attracted to a certain type of negative, shocking and tantalizing stories containing absurd elements mixed with interesting facts. Obviously that combination, presented as fiction or not, sells or at least attracts attention, providing status if not just money.

That does not mean every story our mind is attracted to is false. Just a predisposition, like the brain having a specialism in processing facial imagery. It doesn't mean all faces we see are tricks of light and shadow. Just that some might very well be despite what we might feel.

When confronted with simple every day explanations for a certain set of behaviors, do we really need a more complex theory like unknown organizations paying unknown amounts to an unknown amount of agents with unknown instructions?

D.

expat said...

>>Are we all now supposed to blindly accept the errors and commissions [if] not out right frauds of NASA, which you invariably overlook? <<

Examples, please....

expat said...

>>Might I suggest a YT video; taking both charlatans apart the way Spacekills2 did with the Nibiru nonesense.<<

Stuart Robbins did a pretty good job of the ziggurat already. I have a shiny-new webcam so I am actually considering it. As you probably know I've already done several internet radio shows.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Its interesting to see that the idea of Hoagland as "a paid agent of disinformation" is being taken semi seriously.When I did,no one bothered to address the issue.Although I do not believe that Hoagland is a "disinfo agent" Per Se,on many occasions I brought the issue of Hoagland`s debut,his association with individuals associated with the Stanford Research Institute (the same SRI who also works for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).In 1983 Hoagland received 50,000 dollars from SRI`s President fund (Dr William Miller).Hoagland also collaborated with people working for the DOD or close to the Defense apparatus.

I developed the idea that initially Hoagland was part of a complex social & psychological experiment,& he eventually jumped on the "crazy alternative researches" bandwagon in order to make a living.Anyone contesting the very idea of a "social & psychological experiment" should only take a look at the result.The UFO`s,ancient Aliens,Face on Mars,exo-archeology narratives have turned into a religion.Mission accomplished.....

expat said...

Quite strange, isn't it, that he's not been invited to appear on the TV rubbish-series 'Ancient Aliens'? Instead they had Von Daniken saying -- erroneously -- that it was the Mariner spacecraft that first imaged the "Face" on Mars. That must have made RCH grind his teeth a bit.

My theory is that they invited him but he insisted on being credited as producer -- which is what he did with the SyFy 2012 show. They turned him down. Just my guess.

Jaque Bnimble said...

That Dick Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM, agrees with NASASS' fraudulent claims of a bacteria which supposedly uptakes arsenic, but ignores the return of the X-37B on the same night, which had been missing in Space for months.

Is Hoagland right to support NASA?


Re:

Discovery of "Arsenic-bug" Expands Definition of Life

Dec. 2, 2010: NASA


science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/02dec_monolake


Date: 12-02-10
Host: George Noory

In the first half of the show, the surprising scientific announcement about the discovery of an arsenic eating life form in Mono Lake, CA was discussed. After a brief report from Linda Moulton Howe, with audio from NASA astrobiologist Pamela Conrad, space researcher Robert Zimmerman joined the program. He characterized the Mono Lake microbe as an extremophile-- an organism that thrives in conditions that would be detrimental or impossible to survive for most other life forms. Also of interest was the journalistic hype that surrounded the pre-release of the story, he commented, with too much speculation and misinformation being spread by reporters. For more, see Zimmerman's blog entry, When journalism runs wild.

In the second hour, Richard C. Hoagland posed the question-- "Is it possible that this is an actual extraterrestrial life form which happened to find its right niche in Mono Lake after falling down from the skies?" He further suggested that today's announcement could be part of NASA's plan to lay out a foundation before declaring the existence of extraterrestrial life.


coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/12/02



Arsenic-associated bacteria
(NASA's claims)
By Rosie Redfield
on Saturday, December 04, 2010


rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html



X-37B lands successfully following 220 days in space
December 3, 2010
by Chris Bergin and William Graham


nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/x-37b-lands-successfully-following-220-days-in-space

expat said...

We covered GFAJ-1

http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2010/12/tiny-bacterium-defeats-pseudoscientist.html

I can't see that there was any intent to deceive on the part of NASA Astrobiology. The research looked pretty good at the time, but it has since been more or less falsified. We covered that too.

http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-on-gfaj-1.html

X-37B has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That's not even a NASA program, let alone one in astrobiology.

Jaque Bnimble said...

The question to you, sir, which you still have yet to answer, is if Richard C Hoagland is right in supporting the faulty assertions of NASA with regards to the supposed arsenic up taking bacteria, which remain without retraction or revision on the NASA website?

That entire dog and pony show managed to steal the headlines away from the coincidental return of the
vanished X-37B. The fact that it has nothing to do with astrobiology is precisely the point.

Anonymous said...

Ouch! Hoagland and Bara are idiots, liars, and scoundrels. And "Hoagland", Please learn to use "quotation marks" correctly. There "is" "no" "need" "to" use them "as" much as you "do".
Sincerely, a non-fan.

expat said...

In what sense is Hoagland "supporting" NASA on arsenic substitution? I'm not aware that he's mentioned it since his disastrous comments on C2C that night.

You're obviously suggesting something contrived about the space headlines on 3rd December 2010. I don't believe you. Journalists make up their own minds what to report. I draw your attention to this report in AvWeek.

Jaque Bnimble said...

Hoagland makes no mention of the X-37B, either. Isn't that rather curious that he has no interest in the mini version of the Space Shuttle, and deletes all comments about it from his facebutt page; the man who personally named the first Space Shuttle, Enterprise and promoted the nuclear powered Space craft, Project Prometheus?

What's the readership of AvWeek? The article you link to here, is not journalism. No questions are asked about the mission; what the X-37B was doing for all those months in Space or where it actually went. There were rumors that amateur astronomers seemed to think that they could see the X-37B, but the Airforce wouldn't say.

If Hoagland is such a conspiracy nut, then why didn't he ask these questions on Coast, instead of agreeing with NASA for a change?

Is NASA right in continuing to assert on it's website, that there exists a bacteria which up takes arsenic?

expat said...

>>Is NASA right in continuing to assert on it's website, that there exists a bacteria which up takes arsenic? <<

You mean this? No, I agree some update ought to be added to that.

Anon: Thanks for your comment. You aren't the first to find Hoagland's spurious "quotes" ( and italics, too) infuriating.

Strahlungs Amt said...

http://mikebara.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-comet-ison-spaceship-who-am-i-to-say.html

This Just In.
Is Comet Ison a Spaceship? Who am I to Say No?

Anonymous said...

Jacque Bnimble: "..ignores the return of the X-37B on the same night, which had been missing in Space for months".

So you're really just disagreeing with how Hoagland picked his topics? That's fine but you are also inferring something dark and sinister about it without providing much further reasoning.

I could list dozens and dozens of interesting and mysterious space news items that I feel Hoagland should have mentioned on the air in that period of time right after the news was released. Or even at some later stage. But he never does, he limits his range and focuses on whatever he beliefs is conductive for his main thesis.

What you do here is called "cherry picking". To me it's obvious why the bacteria on Mars would be more interesting for Hoagland than the testing of a surprisingly well documented spacecraft in Earth orbit. Why isn't it obvious to you?

D.

expat said...

Strah: Mike updated his blog to add a link to this video, Dr. Max Mutchler of STSI explaining the parallax effect.

Mike wrote that the vid "purports to" explain it, as though he knew better. I commented that comparing Mutchler's knowledge of the subject to his was like Mt. Shasta to a pimple on his ass. Don't expect to see my comment on the blog. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Emma Peel:

There have been many people over the years floating this idea of Hoagland being some paid agent, provocateur, or being involved somehow in some social engineering. It's a topic worth considering perhaps, like a brave old attempt to bring some potential method to what otherwise would be just the disheartening madness of a few lost souls.

But still, for me the details don't add up. For example SRI International was at the time (as was the US Government) involved openly and secretly in various rather outlandish research topics, like psychics and remote viewing, which all fell out of grace one or two decades later. So one has to view the wide cast net of SRI through the prism of a still open culture of "naivety" perhaps, for lack of better terms, trying to attract the best and brightest and also most unusual minds and topics.

Hoagland got his 50,000 via Miller but one could also mention the relationship between Hoagland and the space-plane and exploration proponent George Keyworth, a close friend to Miller at the time, as the driving force and possibly also Hoagland's main "Deep" source. And perhaps also as one of his "believers" and sponsors in the later years. Although that last bit is just informed speculation. I know it's scary to think that seemingly influential and knowledgeable people like Keyworth would back Hoagland but you need only one or two to keep the circus rolling for a long time.

The suspicions themselves are well understood: there are and were many research projects involving psychology, marketing and social engineering at SRI International. It's tempting to assume a cross-over happened but without a bit more than circumstantial evidence the simpler explanation would remain the unfortunate occurrence of a string of failures to remain critical and truthful.

D.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Anonymous.
I am merely speculating,but I am very suspicious of Hoagland`s sources of income.He hasn't held a job for more than 3 decades.He wrote one and half book but I don't think anyone could make a living out of such revenues, especially on a 30 years time frame.He also gives conferences from time to time (basically twice a year) & used to be on the Coast to Coast payroll,but how much does he get paid?.A couple of 1000`s bucks for a conference & probably a thousand monthly from Coast to coast for his position as "science advisor".There is no way the old coot can sustain a living on his own,with less than 10,000 dollars annually.Hoagland is a professional parasite but I think there are legitimate questions regarding the individuals who may fund him.

expat said...

EP: I agree, and I think $1K/month is optimistic for his C2C retainer. Make it about half that.

Wonder how much Robin makes, selling diluted Gulf of Mexico water for $22.99 per 2 oz?

Jaque Bnimble said...

[ expat said...

In what sense is Hoagland "supporting" NASA on arsenic substitution? I'm not aware that he's mentioned it since his disastrous comments on C2C that night. ]

Hoagland has yet to issue a retraction about the phony arsenic drenched bug any more than has NASA. Are you saying that since he doesn't talk about it that he must have changed his mind, and now disagrees with NASA once again?


[ expat said...

X-37B has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That's not even a NASA program, let alone one in astrobiology. ]

Why does NASA have articles about the X-37B on it's website if it's irrelevant, then?

Anonymous said...

Expat & Emma Peel (call me "Dee" :)

How do we know Richard does not have a local job of some kind? Or the kind of lifestyle he needs to support? Without those details it's hard to know how much he'd need. And I'd gladly let him have that privacy.

However, I did know of people who supported him in the past generously and privately. It's hard to know how many that could be in total, considering the rather wide audience. It's perhaps like with Nigerian spam, no matter how it might sound to anyone with half a brain, if the mail reaches millions, a few souls always respond and sign something away. So the trick is to keep sending those mails!

Actually it's perhaps one of the reasons he might have wildly switched topics at times since the bigger money might have some kind of rider attached, like a nudge. Just speculation though, I can only imagine how a wealthy retiree would love to yammer in Hoagland's ear.

That said, for a long while RCH did not want even a donation button on his website and never asked for anything. That seemed refreshing but I knew already then from contactsthat there had to be some wealthy donors. That whole circuit he moved in was full of people who really believed this was the biggest thing, the future of mankind at stake! That opens up pockets like only religion can, even without asking.

Only after his heart problems he started to ask openly for help with the medical costs (which I found a bit disturbing but what do I know, I'm from Europe). Donation buttons appeared later but he already peaked by then.

D.

G. Francis DeMara said...

Ms. Emma Peel/Expat
Re: Hoagland's C2C salary

While I do not specifically recall within which C2C program the following transpired, I am confident this (paraphrased) exchange is an accurate representation of this limited aspect of the introductory conversation.

George Noory: "You're also the only Science Advisor that works for free."

RCH: "Ummm, o.k."

It seems likely that given Hoagland's loquaciousness and his never surrender the last word ethic, he certainly would have contradicted Noory's condescending remark if incorrect.

Best, Jerry.

expat said...

>>Hoagland has yet to issue a retraction about the phony arsenic drenched bug any more than has NASA.<<

It's not for Hoagland to retract, it's for Felisa Wolfe-Simon ("Iron Lisa"). It might be interesting for a reporter, reporting a press conf in good faith, to later write or say "Turns out there are some pretty bad problems with that" but I can't say that he's under any actual obligation to do so.


>>Why does NASA have articles about the X-37B on it's website if it's irrelevant, then? <<>

I dunno.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Anonymous
To be extremely honest I am not particularly preoccupied with Hoagland & his sycophantic poodle Mike Bara.Hoagland is a crook who doesn't even believe his own bullshit.His life is a monument of deceptions & rip off`s.
People tend to forget that Hoagland was instrumental in promoting the Hale Bopp fiasco,alongside "academic" nutcase Courtney Brown & uber scumbag Major Ed Dames.
The same Richard Hoagland who pushed the Elenin story, who identified a "German Panzer" on the surface of Mars: http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/tank1.jpg
The clown who told us that amongst "unmistakably artificial objects" captured by the cameras of Curiosity,""There's a sneaker on Mars".....
How many times do we have to flush before the pestilence known as Richard Hoagland disappears?

expat said...

What Hoagland SHOULD HAVE retracted is the breathtakingly ignorant comment "This marks the first time NASA has confronted the question 'What is Life?'"

Binaryspellbook said...

I'm pretty sure I heard Hoagland on air saying he was not paid for his appearances on Coast to Coast.

I am sure of the veracity of the above statement since Hoagland routinely lies for a living.

DJE

Anonymous said...

Emma Peel wrote: "To be extremely honest I am not particularly preoccupied with Hoagland & his sycophantic poodle Mike Bara".

Don't be ashamed :-). Clearly you are quite preoccupied with the topic. We could argue about the exact degree but it has to be quite serious to take the trouble to read and write on this blog with the detail you normally provide in your responses. Of course it might take you only a few minutes because you're so clever.

The problem with TEM and Bara is that for every soul you might be able to warn or inform, another is drawn into their writing because of the exposure. RCH was right in that regard, he doesn't need to prove anything. Just being mentioned again with some references is enough to get to the ones wanting to believe. Those looking for stories like this, half faith, half research. Seductive cocktails.

D.

expat said...

Dee: I'm highly reluctant to believe that critically reviewing RCH's "work" may act to draw fans to it.

Even if you could prove it, I'm not going to stop.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Anonymous.
I apologize, I should probably stick to girlie topics (Paris Hilton`s latest scandal or Kim Kardashian menstruation problems).Take my word,I am not fixated on Hoagland.Hoagland & his ilk (the charlatans) are just pawns in the game of deception.They are small shoes.What interests me,is the psychological & mental process that lead people to take the garbage sold by professional bottom feeders (like Hoagland & Bara) as face value.I am not a debunker on a particular mission.I have no pretension on "educating" the gullible souls.

Anonymous said...

Expat, you're not going to make someone into a critical reviewer. But for those who already are, this blog is an important reference and reminder. Thanks!

D.

Anonymous said...

Emma, nobody was suggesting you're fixating, menstruating, debunking or educating gullible souls. :-)

As far as focusing on RCH & Bara spin-offs, that only as much as this very blog is. Same with nearly all commenting here. And why not?

I think TEM is a fine example of the problems you mentioned, mainly because of the long checkered history of events, facts and claims available for reference. And space science, even when applied so wrongly, remains fascinating as well to bring in the mix. Not to mention the entertainment values of the various characters involved.

Cheers,

Dee.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Anonymous.
I concur.This is precisely why I do not belong to the skeptics community,& I have to say,I avoid them as much as I avoid the believers (in any shape and form).

Skeptics & believers are two eco-systems that need each other in order to exist.They reproduce & display the same socio-pathological behaviors.The conviction of over inflated self importance,the group thinking mentality,the proselytism,the feeling of "being on a mission" to deliver the truth & re-educate the mass,(what I call: the pedagogic demagoguery syndrome),the arrogance,intellectual endianisme & dogmatism.

These two communities are preaching to the choir,& you are absolutely right, we are not going to make someone into a critical reviewer or change anything.I am not pretending to challenge the status quo,I am merely trying to be intellectually honest & keep my independence.
Thanks for the feedback.

Jaque Bnimble said...

Even the field of Astro-biology itself, is based entirely on hypotheses. Some skeptic you are.

Thought you could slip that one past me, eh?

expat said...

Emma: That's perceptive. One of the best recent Coast to Coast AMs was Mike Wood talking about his research on the skeptic/conspiracist dichotomy.

http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/10/what-does-online-discussion-tell-us-about-the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/

Ms Emma Peel said...

Expat.If course there are major socio-psychological differences between the conspiracists & the skeptics,but as organized groups,they more than often reproduce the same type of behavior.Personnally I don't stop at debunking or refuting "irrational" or fringe claims, I also question what skeptics & rational thinkers hold as truth.I am always surprised at how self-proclaimed skeptics always support the Government-establishment view of virtually everything, no matter in what direction the evidence points.Somehow,keptics intentionally use semantics to murky the waters.Any individual who would espouse the idea of "conspiracy as reality" is systematically labeled as a "nut-job".But you only have to take a look through the National Security archives or the CIA declassified documents,to understand that "conspiracies" are intrinsic elements of the political & historical process.( I am using the US as a reference but the same can be told about any other nation)

I think skeptics have a tendency to desperately side with the viewpoint they think holds authority & represents authority.On the contrary conspiracists systematically question everything coming from authority sources.Both parties hold a pathological fear of standing alone.

Thanks for the link.

Ms Emma Peel said...

Expat.
(I think a couple of typos slipped through my comment.I am having difficulties with my brand new micro PC tablet with Japanese keyboard).
I found the following interview of Mike Wood on The Psychology of Conspiracy.Quite interesting indeed.Wood has a very good approach.
http://youtu.be/JDjbB4mlzoI

Jaque Bnimble said...

Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown.

-- Jacques Vallee

(Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)

expat said...

7.6 billion € -- cost of the LHC -- says that science is willing to investigate the unknown.

Jaque Bnimble said...

When an ignoramus such as James Oberg, summarily dismisses reports of sightings of UFOs as delusions, he offends a great many perfectly objective witnesses of sound mind and body.

When an authoritative figure tells an individual that they are simply imagining things, this often creates anxiety. As a result, some sane people begin to doubt themselves, and become neurotic or psychotic as a result. Others may search elsewhere for explanations for what they saw and/or, experienced, turning to alternative authority figures, like that Dick Hoagland and his followers at Heaven's Gate.

Wasting money trying to engulf planet Earth in an artificial black hole, notwithstanding.


Ms Emma Peel said...

Jacques Vallee is not a reference. He is either totally ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

expat said...

>>When an ignoramus such as James Oberg...<<

Oh, stop it! You're just trying to push my buttons, or what you think are my buttons. JimO reads this blog and he'll come up with a counter-zinger if he feels like it, I guess.

Jaque Bnimble said...

Seriously, James Oberg and that Dick Hoagland are two heads of the same coin. Neither one of them will address factual accounts with honest science. Together they work to obfuscate the truth.

It's similar to the two party US political system. Each party want's to eliminate half your Rights. The voters get to choose which Rights they loose. As the disillusioned electorate vacillates back and forth each election year, alternating between the two parties to administer government, the lost Rights never get restored. Eventually, the People are left with no Rights at all.

Science fails to honestly examine the genuine phenomenon of UFOs, cattle mutilations, and human abductions. James Oberg and that Dick Hoagland aim to keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

Ye flipping gads, Misti is back spreading libel and loon drool. I thought she/he was banned.

Miti, you have clearly never read Oberg, he is honest, clear and insightful. To say otherwise destroys the atom of credibility you had left.