"I'm gratified that NASA has finally admitted that Hoagland and me were correct all those years ago."Stuart Robbins points out that a search of the literature reveals prior work on this going back to 1988. Robbins covers this so well that he's saved me the effort of writing today.
Read this please.
The only thing I would add is the hilarious fact that the 2001 "paper" by Hoagland & Bara is the one that looks like this in Firefox and Chrome:
They've now made a pdf version, dressed up to look like a real science paper, identifying Bara as "Executive Director, Formal Action Committee on Extraterrestrial Studies."
Oh, LOL - that Enterprisemission page is a mess! How did that happen??
I've tried to analyze it, but although I'm adept with html I can't figure it out.
Perhaps the fact that the page was generated by Microsoft Frontpage is a sufficient explanation.
Well, here's a clue. In the html tag:
Then further down, several tags like this:
< o:p > < / o:p >
(This might not display properly on the page. I don't know what HTML tags work in blogger. Spaces added)
So he used some Microsoft specific tags that no other browser recognizes. That's probably why CSS doesn't work in "real" browsers.
That all rendered ok, and I agree.
I also love the 1200 lines of useless font definitions, and the fact that one table is defined outside the < body > tags.
What's NASA hiding now?
The crazy formatting is caused by saving "as webpage" in Microsoft Word 2000/Word 9 (released in 1999, for Windows 95). The extra non-standard XML elements enabled to retain formatting when loading back again in Word (so-called "round-tripping").
Better would have been to employ the separate "Microsoft Office HTML Filter" or any other tool to clean-up. The question is if that really would have mattered much though as the main problem seems to be the stack of fixed height "div" section stuffed into one "td" cell of a table. Removing the fixed heights here fixes the overlapping. Probably it was fine in older browsers and HTML specs as I cannot remember the problem at the time in 2001.
And I'm not going to mention the dysfunctional PHP code in the source files, put there by someone else for sure. It's amazing nobody in his fan base could ever organize this a bit for compatibility and safety sake!
I swear it used to render OK in MSIE, but I just re-checked and it's just as fucked-up.
Dee, thx for your analysis.
The fact that Hoagland didn't get the precise coordinates of the ocean correct, is no different than estimations by NASA have often been off.
It's too bad that Stuart Robbins didn't preDICKt an ocean on Mars, and that Richrd C Hoagland, in fact, did.
Poor sportsmanship is as unbecoming, in bad losers as it is in bad winners.
Capt. Novvak, I suggest you actually read what I wrote. Richard claimed it would be at the equator. Not centered on the north pole. That's a pretty big difference. As for me predicting it, I wasn't even born when real scientists were actually predicting an ancient Martian ocean. Check the timeline that I pointed out. It has nothing to do with sour grapes, it has to do with basic honesty.
The fact is that Hoagland did in fact preDICKt an ocean on Mars, your mischaracterization of him as not being a real scientist, notwithstanding.
How about the supposed "amateur" astronomers who declared that they had discovered the missing X-37B on it's maiden voyage? Neither the Air Force nor NAZA would either confirm nor deny, and during the nine months lost in Space, the X-37B could have been to Mars and back, if the classified Spacecraft is actually in fact Project Prometheus, despite the non-classified, civilian propaganda about how the X-37B is ostensibly powered? Why have you not been vocal about the bogus claims about the whereabouts of the X-37B after the Air Force had announced it's disappearance?
Just as laws are only selectively enforced against those whom we are prejudiced, you pick on Hoagland like a school yard bully. If Hoagland isn't a real scientist, then why make him more significant than he would otherwise be, if you would simply ignore him?
Bullies are cowards and they only pick on people whom they think they can beat.
To say that an assertion has not been made scientifically is one thing. To imply that someone is not a real scientist is a snide remark, which does nothing to further intelligent discourse, and only creates diversionary paths down dead ends. Because Richard C Hoagland predicted an ocean on Mars at a time when few others did so, and that his hypothesis differed from those in the co-opted mainstream, does not make him not a real scientist.
Richard C Hoagalnd predicted an ocean on Mars, against the tide, and he has been vindicated.
Richard Hoagland IS NOT A SCIENTIST. This is proven by the fact that he has said and written many times that he has "measured" the torsion field with his Accutron watch. This without having shown any baselines or controls, without controlling the orientation of the watch, without stating any mathematical relationship between the strength of the torsion field and the frequency of the tuning fork, without even stating what units the field in measured in.
I'm not a bully. I'm someone who believes in objective truth.
A scientist can do two things. For one, they can form hypotheses which ought to lead to testable theories, and then conduct the experiments to see if the results conform to predicted outcomes. For another, they can conduct experiments which have been purported to prove specific theories, in order to either validate of disqualify the researchers claims.
What scientists do not do, is go to conferences in pleasant tropical locations, in order to vote on what proposed hypotheses are most likely to be able to be proven as predicted, and then accepting the majority rule as if the accepted theory were as good as if proven.
Those guys, like Stewart Robbins, and James Oberg, are the ones who are not scientists. Hoagland hasn't always been the most disciplined researcher, and many of his experiments haven't necessarily adhered entirely to the Scientific Method, and yes, he does make assertion as to facts not in evidence, but that doesn't mean that every experiment he's conducted has been improper, or that he isn't capable of better work, or that he is not a real scientist. Nevertheless, I think ExPat, who is merely a blogger, and self admittedly not a scientist, is entitled to a certain amount of editorialist leeway, even though he has stated that he does believe in the politicization of science, with no need to prove a theory, as being valid.
You still clearly did not read my post. Your statement, "Richard C Hoagalnd predicted an ocean on Mars, against the tide, and he has been vindicated" is testament to that fact. As I pointed out, a massive ocean on mars was the general scientific consensus at the time that Richard wrote his stuff about the ocean. For him to "predict" something that most people believe is true should not be considered much evidence for anything other than playing the odds.
Hoagland predicted an ocean on Mars after a number of scientists (and even more science fiction writers) predicted it. It'd be like me predicting the existence of dark matter and physicists finding it tomorrow. Just because I said it was there, doesn't mean I discovered it.
« many of his experiments haven't necessarily adhered.... etc »
He hasn't done ANY experiments. I defy you to cite anything Hoagland has ever done that can legitimately be called an experiment.
Well, at least nobody has contraDICKted me, by trying to assert that Oberg, Robbins and Expat are not scientists, but rather are political pundits
Hoagland doesn't announce his experiments and he doesn't submit to peer review. Sure, he studied nuclear physics at UC Berkeley, but he is really more a science media specialist. Every time he appears in public, he puts out stimuli which alters human consciousness. It makes no difference whether what he seems to be saying is factual, or opinion, or pure malarkey.
"Don't think of a pink elephant!"
You have no choice but to think of it. Even what you think of it can be shaped without your realizing it. Hoagland still serves NASA (Never A Straight Answer), same as ExPat, Robbins, and Oberg do.
The medium is the message. The medium is the same, even if the messengers appear to be divergent in their individual messages. The Medium is the Massage.
« he studied nuclear physics at UC Berkeley »
Richard C Hoagland told me, personally, that he studied at UC Berkeley. He was quite familiar with the nuclear power generating plant which is sited there on Campus. I didn't ask him what his major was, nor did I ask him if he had obtained a degree.
You tell me then, ExPat, what did Hoagland study at UC Berkeley, and how supposedly, do you know, one way or another?
That's non-responsive, ExPat.
I guess you didn't read as far as this bit, then:
Hoagland did not graduate from college. "I didn't actually get a degree," he said last week.
I read that part. Did you read where I wrote before that, that Hoagland told me personally, that he studied at UC Berkeley? He didn't say that he obtained a degree. I didn't ask him if he had a degree, and I didn't tell you that he told me that he had a degree. Get it? Now, where do you get your information that Hoagland supposedly didn't study at UC Berkeley?
I hold a doctorate. All I had to do was answer twenty, open book questions, 70% correct. The degree is perfectly legal. The founder of the school set a precedent in Federal court, which confirmed the legality of his institution to issue graduate degrees, but not bachelors.
I also have more that 200 combined credits issued from various colleges and universities, but I have never petitioned for an undergraduate degree.
Therefore, I find Richard C Hoagland entirely credible when he tells me that he attended UC Berkeley. Especially, as he spontaneously elaborated about the Campus layout and nuclear facilities there, in response to my making mention of it, after hanging out there from time to time, myself.
"Hoagland did not graduate from college. "I didn't actually get a degree," he said last week."
autch...I guess the Alien Hogie finally bit Ripley in the tush :-)
on that note a serious to Ripley;
why do you "defend" the Hoagie?
« I hold a doctorate. ... I also have more that 200 combined credits »
No boasting please. Leave that to Mike Bara.
and on a critical note:
having or getting a scientific degree is in no way a guarantee for conducting scientific work. So there really is no need to use science and a scientific degree as a sort of standard or benchmark for the truth. In that respect it even is unjustified to do so
a few examples of the cuff out of a countless list, really
- Jan Henrik Schön- scientist and scientific fraud
- Harold Cook - scientist and scientific fraud
- Albert Einstein - scientist and scientific fraud
- Alan Sokal - scientist and scientific fraud
- Charles Dawson - scientist and scientific fraud
- Joseph Hafele - scientist and scientific fraud
- Richard Keating - scientist and scientific fraud
Thanks for the list. There are more examples in Bill Bryson's excellent book A Short History of Nearly Everything.
Richard Hoagland a) doesn't have a degree, and ALSO b) isn't a real scientist.
Here's another one: In a caption in his book Dark Mission, he says NASA has a "relentless, obsessive" urge to time mission events when any of 5 stars are at any of 5 specific elevations, right?
Now, there were 135 Shuttle missions, and sadly two fewer landings. How many of these does Hoagland claim conform to his theory?
ONE - and even that one is disqualified per his own stated rules.
Science? Don;t make me laugh.
I believe you missed the point...If I read you correctly that is
I am not in defense of Hoagy or Mike Cartman Bara et alii....and their idea of science, far from it. My point is that somehow indirectly you use the terms science and scientist's and having a degree as some sort of benchmark for the truth in arguing against Hoagy and the lot for having none or that they do not adhere to the aforementioned benchmark. The record shows that most "real" scientist's are fraudulent by default.
Repetitious comment from Novvak disallowed
Not having a degree isn't what keeps Hoagie from being a scientist. It's his insistence on running away from the scientific method (with its reproducible experiments and falsifiable hypothesis) that does that. The lack of degree just shows he's never had to follow those standards, which might explain why he doesn't now.
< They've now made a pdf version, dressed up to look like a real science paper, identifying Bara as "Executive Director, Formal Action Committee on Extraterrestrial Studies." >
Does that mean there is a position of Non-Executive Assistant Director, In-Formal Action Commitee on ET Studies available???
Probably. An English friend noted that Bara's acronym is EDFACES. He suggested the whole organization might be called Formal Action Executive Committee on Extraterrestrial Studies.
I remember Hoagland stating in that ever increasing pitch that he uses when he's trying to convince people of his credibility - something along the lines of... "Australia is a huge country with a population of only what 30 million or so, and most of them are Aborigines. Where better for the secret space program to have bases."
Scientist my arse. The Aboriginal comment and all it's inferences is disgusting. He is of course utterly wrong. Australia has a population of around 23 million of which 70 thousand are indigenous Aborigine.
Dr. Novvak: "I hold a doctorate. All I had to do was answer twenty, open book questions, 70% correct. The degree is perfectly legal."
Sounds more like how they used do it with the "doctoral" program in Acupuncture and Oriental medicine. Which had not much to do with academic titles whatsoever. There aren't any formal degrees based on answering "20 questions" -- that could be called a "certification" perhaps but the term 'doctor' only appeared during a limited period in the certification of some alternative medical programs.
Novvak posts to the Book of Faces -- in similar obtuse style -- as Theadora, using as avatar the face of a blow-up sex doll. Charming, eh?
Hoagland actually hit on Theodora Minsk. He can't tell the picture of a mannequin from jailbait, bur he can see there's a face on Mars.
James, ad hominem attacks aren't articulate. You would be better served, to specify what you mean by "obtuse".
My unmasking of you as Theadora was in no sense an attack, merely a point of information.
In context, "obtuse" means failing, or pretending to fail, to understand the point at issue.
A splendid example would be Thea's contention, on Farcebook this week, that the death of the Apollo 1 astronauts could be attributed to the risky procedure of "all-up testing."
The concept of all-up testing is specifically associated with the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 1 sat atop a Saturn 1B that, moreover, was unfueled.
Using the word obtuse in the context which you initially, used it, James, is an ad hominem attack.
I am neither Captain Novvak nor Theadora, but you make that assertion with facts not in evidence, which is another issue, entirely.
It was very interesting to read about the "new book". Maybe you'll be interested in reading about satellite image interpretation in here http://www.imagesatintl.com/services/satellite-image-analysis/
Post a Comment