Sunday, October 13, 2013

"Ritual Alignment Model" falsified

        To put it simply, Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara have long made the claim that NASA preferentially times mission events when certain stars are at certain elevations as seen from some relevant vantage point. In November 2009 Mike Bara said "NASA always seems to want to land or launch when the stars are in favorable positions, at least according to their mythology." 

       This blog has commented many times, starting with this post in December 2010 and continuing with this one and this one. I pressed Hoagland & Bara further on 16 September this year:

To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 16 Sept 2013
Subj: Ritual Alignment Model

Greetings...

I've been asked to do further analysis on what you have called NASA's "obsessive, relentless"[1] drive to pay homage to the Egyptian Gods Isis, Osiris and Horus. The idea would be to either confirm or falsify your proposition.

I need to know what tolerance you allow on the times of alignment. Also, please confirm that it's the launch and landing times as planned, rather than as occurred, that should be considered. I believe you said that at the time of the final Shuttle mission.

The latter point is extremely important, given that only 55 of 135 Shuttle launches were on time. However you do seem to have been inconsistent with this, since you cite the landing of Apollo 16 at a time when Sirius was at 33°. As you know, the landing was delayed 6 hours and the entire mission was delayed a month.

That assumes great importance since 16 was one of only two Moon landing you cite in Ritual Alignment. If you are forced to abandon that one, your "hit rate" reduces to one in six -- hardly "relentless" or "obsessive."

Please provide the information I need to confirm your work. Thanks.

Regards,....


[1] Caption to Fig. 5-10, Dark Mission
=================================================

To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 11 Oct 2013
Subj: Ritual Alignment Model
 
Let me try one more time, perhaps you're in a co-operative mood today:

- What tolerance do you allow on the star elevation?

- Do you take the time of an event as planned, or as occurred?

If you refuse to provide this information, how do you expect other researchers to confirm or falsify your work?

Regards,...

========================================================
To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 13 Oct 2013
Subj: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified

In the face of your steadfast refusal to give the information that would be needed to confirm or falsify your so-called Ritual Alignment Model, I have done some research and found the answer to one of the questions.

On 19 April 2011 you posted to Facebook as follows:

    "You're forgeting[sic] one important detail ... regarding "symbolic rituals":

    It's NOT when they "eventually" happen ...; it's when (and how) they're first PROPOSED (birthed) that's critical. :)"


I also notice that you refer to a "two-minute window" in association with a few of your events, and that is perhaps the answer to the other key question.

Accordingly, I have re-analyzed your Table of Coincidence. My guide is the following passage from p.14 of "Dark Mission" 2nd edn:

    "only five stellar objects ... have any significance ...: the three belt stars of Orion, ...Sirius, ... and Regulus. And only five narrow bands of stellar altitude (19.5° above and below the horizon, 33° above and below the horizon, and the horizon itself) have any significance."


I find the following errors in the table:

1. Inauguration of George Washington

    New York inappropriate as vantage point

2. Newt Gingrich's resignation

    EQ Pegasi, Comet Encke not allowable

3. Launch of Ranger 7

    Moon not allowable

4. Landing of Surveyor 3

    Moon not allowable

5. Launch of Freedom 7

    51° not allowable

6. Launch of Friendship 7

    Encke not allowable

7. Apollo 13 planned landing site/time

    Pegasus not allowable

8. Apollo 16 landing

    Landing 6 hours late, not "as birthed"

9. Apollo 16 landing seen from Houston

    Ditto

10. Ascent of Apollo 17

    Apollo 12 site irrelevant

11. Mars Pathfinder landing

    Earth not allowable

12. MGS imaging Owen Mesa

    Giza plateau irrelevant

13. Release of MGS Viking 1 landing site image

    Giza plateau irrelevant

14. Launch of STS-88

    Encke not allowable. Mars not allowable. -3.33° not allowable. Phoenix irrelevant. Launch not "as birthed"

15. Docking of Zarya and Unity

    Mars not allowable. Encke not allowable. Phoenix irrelevant. Apollo 11 landing site irrelevant

16. STS-88 EVA-1

    3.33° not allowable. Not "as birthed". Mars not allowable. Apollo 11 landing site irrelevant. Encke not allowable. Viking landing site irrelevant

17. ISS activation

    EQ Pegasi not allowable. Phoenix irrelevant. Apollo 11 landing site irrelevant

18. Loss of contact with SOHO

    Mars not allowable. Giza plateau irrelevant

19. Closest approah of J1 comet

    Giza plateau irrelevant

20. World premiere of Armageddon

    Totally irrelevant


Twenty errors in a table of that size is unacceptable. I am now declaring your "model" falsified and void.

Regards,....


================================================
To: expat
From: RCH
Date: 13 Oct 2013
Subj: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified


You REALLY need psychological help for your (obvious) continuing pathological obsession; and, the idea that you "declaring" ANYTHING "falsified and void" ... means ANYTHING -- is only final confirmation of your sad pathology.

One obvious example:

Your "definitive" statement that "New York is inappropriate" as the optical "vantage point" for celestial alignments around Washington's First Inaugural -- thus revealing a (apparent) TOTAL LACK of basic knowledge, that George Washington was sworn in as the First President of the United States, April 30, 1789--

In NEW YORK CITY.

NOT ... Washington, DC (which didn't EXIST yet!).

With this as a RANDOM example of your "careful scholarship" and "research rigor" in trying, relentlessly and obsessively, to attack every aspect of this work, your continuing delusion -- that your prejudiced opinions on our research MATTER in the slightest -- is only further evidence for just how "separated from reality" you really are.

NO ONE'S listening.

Enterprise "out."


RCH


===================================================

To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 13 Oct 2013
Subj: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified

I apologize. I certainly didn't know about George Washington's inauguration. I withdraw that one, reducing the number of errors in your table to 19.

This is not, however, a RANDOM example as you claim. It's one mistake made by me, for 19 made by you. My analysis of your research is not opinion, Richard, it is fact.

Regards,...

Update 1:
To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 14 Oct 2013
Subj: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified

You quite rightly took issue with the first of my error list yesterday. My mistake.

So that's one down, 19 to go. In a table whose total entries are 42. CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT that this belief of yours is false? CAN YOU POSSIBLY justify your contention that NASA has an "obsessive, relentless" preoccupation with Egyptian ritual?

Regards, etc.

Update 2:
To: RCH/MB
From: expat
Date: 15 Oct 2013
Subj: Failure of your Ritual Alignment Model, by program

Ranger: Zero hits of a possible 18 (9 missions, events are launch and lunar impact)
Surveyor: Zero qualified hits of a possible 28 (7 missions, events are launch and lunar landing, vantage point either The Cape or JPL)
Lunar Orbiter: Zero hits claimed of a possible 20 (5 missions, events are launch and lunar orbit insertion, vantage point either The Cape or JPL)
Mercury: Zero qualified hits of a possible 14 (7 missions, events are launch and splashdown)
Gemini: Zero hits of a possible 48 (12 missions, events are launch and splashdown, vantage point either The Cape or Houston)
Apollo: 2 hits of a possible 94 (11 manned launches, 6 lunar landings, 6 lunar takeoffs, 9 Lunar Orbit Insertions, 9 Trans Earth Insertions, vantage point either The Cape or Houston, or the lunar landing site where applicable)
Shuttle: Zero qualified hits of a possible 536 (135 launches, 133 landings, vantage point either The Cape or Houston. NOTE: If -- as in your Table of Coincidence -- events could include EVAs, possible hits would be in the thousands)

Aggregate: 2 hits of a possible 744.

If you have any integrity at all you will withdraw the Table of Coincidence in addition to Von Braun's Secret.

Regards, etc.


13 comments:

Chris Lopes said...

It's obvious the only reason he responded at all was to point out your mistake. It's also obvious that he couldn't find any others mistakes, as he would have loved to rub your nose in those too. Hoagland generally ignores critics, as he knows he's just bullshitting people.

What interests me though, is the venom his reply contained. On those rare occasions when he answers critics, it's usually with a "catch me if you can" kind of playfulness. This response looks a lot like the crap he used to throw at James Concannon on his FB page. It sounds like you hit a nerve.

Chris Lopes said...

As Lt. Columbo used to say, "just one more thing." I love the "Enterprise out" thing. One gets the feeling that Hoagie actually does see himself as Captain Kirk sitting in his recliner in the living room. I wonder if Robin dresses up as Yeoman Rand from time to time. Ah well, best not to go there.

Dee said...

Perhaps a new summary of RCH's total research program then:

Moving the goalposts

- common informal logically fallacy
- tactics of bullying behavior (as critics can never come close and are ridiculed for it)
- aka "feature creep": goal of "completing" the product/article/thesis/theory .... may never occur.
- bad faith all around

Yes, it's certainly one of the RCH's "deadly" logical sins but perhaps it's the biggest most persistent one! And I've seen it being used by some of this supporters in discussions just the same. A winning formula in online backwaters of the Internet?

Chris said...

"NO ONE'S listening." That's easy enough to falsify.

- Your blog extensively debunks Hoagland's and Bara's inane rubbish, and receives a wide readership and a lot of commenters.

- There are extensive RationalWiki pages for both Hoagland and Bara which sum them up as a pair of charlatans.

- There are entries for both Hoagland and Bara on The Encylopedia of America Loons (#176 and #469 respectively).

- Dr Robbins has extensively demolished Hoagland's and Bara's more brazenly stupid ideas for nearly ten years.

- There are various other posts which take apart Hoagland's and Bara's fairy stories, eg http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=3768 and http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/11/mike-baras-false-claims-about-alien-moon-miles.html

- These and more appear in the top ten google results when searching for Mike Bara or Richard Hoagland.

Much as Hoagland would like it to be true that "NO ONE'S listening", the fact is that enough people with a scientific approach ARE listening and that he and Bara will continue to be called out on their make-believe stories and simpleton numerology, and that's the way it's going to be for them.

No amount of insults from Hoagland or death threats from wannabe gangster Bara will change that.

jourget said...

Chris, nice note on the anger in his reply; I noticed that too. Someone hit a little close to home, I think.

It's fun that he made such a point about expat missing the minor detail about New York. I wonder how he would react if someone pointed out a similar error during his breathless dissection on Art Bell's 9/19 show of the ritualistic undertones of a frog appearing in a LADEE launch photo. There are frogs all over the place in Florida, declares RCH. I've been there! And NOT ONE has appeared in any previous launch photo! Except...LADEE was launched from Wallops Island. In Virginia. What was that about careful research?

Misti Phowyu said...

Recent Posts By Others

Theadora Minsk

People are listening, Dick. Maybe not as many as in the audience of Art Bell Dark Matter or even Coast to Coast AM, but enough so that if you respond, you ought to consider that you are going on the record. Having condescended to answering a barrage of challenging emails from a faintly frenetic, aspiring, debunker, you underestimate the potential damage to your position by dismissing his questions.

He cited some examples, perhaps, out of context. If so, I for one would be interested to please read how his exclusions of your evidence might be factually relevant, his criticisms notwithstanding.

Like · · 5 minutes ago


https://www.facebook.com/RichardC.Hoagland

expat said...

"Theadora" posted the wrong e-mail, I think. I wish "she" would post the entire list of 20 errors.

James Concannon said...

If Hoagland had any integrity at all he would now withdraw both Von Braun's Secret and the Table of Coincience.

Chris Lopes said...

If Hoagland had any integrity, he'd be a greeter at Wallmart instead of a purveyor of nonsense.

Misti Phowyu said...

Recent Posts By Others

Theadora Minsk

ExPat was wondering about tolerances with regard to the NASA Ritual Alignment Hypothesis. Would it be fair to compare them to degrees of Orb in Astrology? If so, then +/- 10 degrees would be the maximum variable for distance and time.

If there is anything to Astrology, then might it not hypothetically be possible for the coincidental landing times and locations to be naturally occurring as opposed to being conspiratorial?

Like · · 5 minutes ago


https://www.facebook.com/RichardC.Hoagland

expat said...

Another update of interest...

Trained Observer said...

Will the buffoonery ever stop? Well, we hope not. I'm waiting for the next great "reveal." Will it be a Mayan temple office complex with a cell tower and a one-hour-photo booth on the moon? "Make it so!" and "Energize" ...whoo-hoo! "Run that sandpaper over the scanner again! I need more alien artifacts!"

FlightSuit said...

It's so funny seeing Hoagland squirm.