Saturday, August 17, 2013

Renewing the attack on Explorer 1

Date: 17th August
Subj: Some technical reading for your weekend
To: Richard Hoagland
cc: Mike Bara, Adrienne Loska
You all ought to read this technical report on the Juno rocket and the Explorer satellites it launched. You will find enlightenment in these pages. These are FACTS.

For example:

On page 13 (25 in pdf) You will find a discussion of the variability of thrust and burning rate of the T17-E2 solid fuel of the Baby Sergeants.

Between batch: 3%
Within batch: 0.1%/1.5%

That's getting very close to the 4% velocity excess of Explorer 1, which is what is calculated when someone who knows what he's doing applies the Tsiolkovsky equation (as opposed to Hoagland, whose mathematical skills are almost absent, and who stated on Coast to Coast AM [21 August 2008] that the excess was 30%).note 1

On page 47 (59 in pdf) you will find the launch trajectory. You will note that, by the time the second stage ignited, the vehicle was already at altitude. The task of the three solid upper stages was to accelerate the vehicle horizontally to orbital speed. It follows that any so-called "anti-gravity effect" induced by spinning would have been irrelevant.

On pp 59-66 (68-78 in pdf) You will be thrilled to read a description of the networks of tracking stations established for Explorer and to discover how totally wrong you both were.

The Microlock network consisted of:
Antigua (doppler)
RED - Earthquake Valley
GOLD - AFMTC Floridanote 2
BLACK - Ibadan, Nigeria
SILVER - Singapore

The Spheredrop network had stations at:
China Lake, CA
Temple City, CA
White Sands, NM
Cedar Rapids, IA
Huntsville, AL

So ten in all. The map Richard included in his wretchedly inaccurate web page Von Braun's Secret is shown to be totally wrong.  Mike said on Stranger Advice Radio (20 April 2010) that only three tracking stations were active.

You guys are really, really wrong about all this stuff. You should stick to writing about pet psychology.


1. A neat summary of the math is in the Rational Wiki.  Readers new to this whole subject ought to read it.
2. An interesting sidebar is that not only is the oft-misquoted "Goldstone has the bird!" wrong (because Goldstone was not operational in January 1958,) but the oft-corrected version "GOLD has the bird!!" must be wrong too, since GOLD was in Florida.


expat said...

Anybody who is utterly baffled by this post and needs some background info can find it here.

Binaryspellbook said...


The only thing I find utterly baffling is the fact that Hoagland and Bara have been caught redhanded, with their mathematical trousers down, and both their grubby paws in the cookie jar. Yet still they press on with the same old bullshit.

I guess since selling bullshit is what they do for a living it is hardly surprising. It's unbelievable people still give them airtime when they have been so brutally exposed on all levels as mere hucksters and pretend scientists.

People may find this correspondence with Hoagland somewhat amusing.


9:28 PM (14 hours ago)

to me
Did YOU know that Wiki is edited by NASA (Google)? :)

As my grandmother used to say--

"Consider the source."


Hi Richard,
It's very telling that you only choose to respond to emails where you have some wiggle room or you can throw forth one of your famous unfalsifiable claims. You refuse for example, when pressed, to state what units torsion fields are measured in. You refuse to admit that your Explorer 1 explanation is poppycock due to your inability to apply a simple equation correctly. But you will boldly state stuff that cannot be verified.

You could have written that Wiki (or indeed Rational Wiki, as you claimed in your reply) was edited by two of the surviving Von Trapp children supervised by Julie Andrews. It sounds as ridiculous as NASA editing pages dedicated to exposing pseudoscientists, but I cannot state that it is not true. No matter how preposterous the notion.
You told us that water is a very effective shield with respect to torsion waves, yet still wanted funding to visit the Baltic Sea object. Don't you remember being caught with that one ?
Not ONCE have you addressed your mathematical errors, and in fact they remain on your page after all these years. Perhaps you are lazy, or maybe you just don't give a monkey's curse about either your audience or your critics.
Not once have you provided baselines or controls when conducting experiments. You have never shown your data. In fact you stated that, "you would not hand over your data to complete strangers." This is what we engineers and scientists do on a regular basis Richard. It's called peer review.

Expat caught you faking data. You were nicked 100% with no get out of jail free card. You said there is a mile square ziggurat on the Moon, knowing the source of the data was from a teenage gamers forum, and quite probably knowing that the image was a fake, and not a very good one at that. Not a word though from you or Mike now that kksamurai has shown up with the original that he faked all those years ago.

As my Grandfather used to say, "If you can never admit to making a mistake, you can never be a real man."
Kindest Regards

expat said...

Hoagland is remembering the "wikiscanner" -- now defunct. James Concannon covered this back in 2010.

I might add something we didn't quite realize at the time -- the wikiscanner ONLY logged edits from IP addresses from which the editor was not logged in.

So, it goes without saying, Hoagland's "Wiki is edited by NASA" is the purest poppycock.

Unknown said...

Regarding Ranger 7 Images of:
Domes on the Moon (1964)

Forbidden Science, Vallee

page 113


page 114

Were Dick Hoagland's pictures from this mission, or of from some latter date?

expat said...

In respect to Explorer 1, he never presented any "anomaly" pictures. I don't recall that he ever found anomalies in any Ranger images. From that era Zond, and Lunar Orbiter, yes.

In his now discredited web page, Von Braun's Secret, Hoagland has some very silly speculation about the Ranger program.

Unknown said...

Then perhaps Hoagland's falsified images of the supposed Domes on the Moon was to divert from the original Ranger 7 images which were kept from the Press as well as the Soviet members of Planetary Commission of the International Astronomical Union, by the president, Audouin Dollfus as well as Gerard Kuiper, Eugene Shoemaker, and Dick Lewis of NASA, who had no real explanation for the Domes.

Anonymous said...

Binaryspellbook? Did you recieve a reply from RCH to your e mail? I'm taking a punt and guessing that you didn't.


expat said...

He did. We're planning to post the full exchange on this blog once we're pretty sure it's complete.

Chris Lopes said...

At one time, Hoagie was claiming that 1960's era spy satellites were used to find anomalies on the Moon. He spun this great yarn about meeting some guy at a conference somewhere who told him about it. The story included such exciting details like meeting the guy in a dark parking lot and having to authenticate the film reel the guy showed him. When asked why the film hadn't been revealed yet, Hoagie kept claiming there were legal issues involved. Eventually the claim went down the memory hole like every other Hoagland failure.

James Concannon said...

Yep, I remember that. And it was tied in to his JFK meme, too -- the film revealed such ORRIBLE THINGS that JFK said "Yikes! We'd better not do this alone, I'll call Khruschev."