More detail on Hoagland's jail time

        Jason Colavito, who does for pseudo-history what I do for pseudoscience, evidently tortured himself by listening to the whole three hours of last Sunday's Other Side of Midnight — Richard Hoagland's podcast on blogtalkradio.

        Colavito made his review into yesterday's blog, and I enjoyed his digs at pseudo-historian Scott Wolter — Hoagland's Sunday night guest and one of Colavito's perenniel punching bags. I enjoyed reading that Hoagland called the Utah monolith (now disappeared) a “hyperdimensional tetrahedron” because it's SO HOAGLAND to be that wrong about a current event.

        Perhaps most of all I enjoyed a comment from someone who labels himself "HOAGLAND HOKUM" but can only be Richard Grossman, publisher of Hoagland's 1987 book The Monuments of Mars. I reproduce Grossman's comment in full:

« Here is another little secret about Monuments: the only way the damn thing ever got written was that Hoagland went to prison for one of his inexplicable and weird scams (ostensibly something about a stolen rental car and New York Planetarium credit card)—whether it really happend or not as reported, whether it was really a scam or not, and whether he was really guilty or sentenced fairly or not (the answer to the latter is definitely “not,” as he had an attorney involved in his own weird paranoid cosmic conspiracy theories, including Hoagland). In the end he was incarcerated over a New York State warrant that he chose to flee (to the Golden State) rather than defend in situ; he was apprehended in Berkeley when stopped for having a cardboard rear license plate; refused to plea-bargain; and so got housed in L.A. County jail for over a year. Admittedly my version of the story is cobbled out of hearsay from a variety of semi-reliable sources, but it roughly tracks some event that actually happened. He was in jail; that’s where I addressed my mail to him regarding the book; and he did write much of the book there.»

Richard Hoagland and Keith Laney hate NASA

"Why is NASA lying about a major volcanic eruption on Mars?"

        The above is the headline for next Saturday's edition of Richard Hoagland's blogtalk show "Other Side of Midnight." Meanwhile, over on The Hidden Mission forum, Keith Laney posted as follows:

"Arsia Mons has been erupting since about Sept 20th. So far science hasn't said doodly squat about it. Figures, seems heads are so far up asses^{note 1} that they can't even see the f'in Millennium Falcon sitting plainly on top of Ryugu."

These two clowns are so obsessed with NASA hatred that they haven't noticed that:

1. This is not an eruption
2. The image comes from ESA's Mars Express, not NASA
3. Dr. Tanya Harrison, one of the "drivers" of the Mars rover Opportunity (and of course a JPL employee) has commented. I see no evidence that Dr. Harrison's head is anywhere close to her ass.

Harrison's comment was as follows:

"It's not a plume of smoke, but rather water ice clouds condensing out over the summit of the Arsia Mons volcano. We see these clouds hang out over the summit of Arsia for weeks at a time during this time of year, every year."

        Dr. Harrison is trained in planetary science. Neither Hoagland nor Laney has any such training, yet they think they know better just from having a look at a rather intriguing image. The guest on next Saturday's blogtalk show (if it happens—Hoagland's technical skills have been failing again lately) is John Brandenburg. Brandenburg has no expertise in this area either—he's a plasma physicist with very strange ideas about Xenon isotope ratios. That show may plumb new depths of NASA-hating ignorance. I will not be listening.

        P.S. The image above is just one of a whole series from the Mars Express Webcam. Check 'em out.

Update 1:
        This page from MSSS dated 20 September 2005 ascribes these seasonal plumes to dust rather than vapor. I'm not qualified to arbitrate between Tanya Harrison and her former employer—the point is, it ain't an eruption.

Update 2:
        Trekker provides this excellent update, direct from ESA. I don't think Keith Laney will be whining about science saying doodly squat any more.

Update 3:
        OSOM was aborted after about six minutes due to technical problems. Hoagland said he had no music and no commercials. "You should never do an amateur program, ever."^{note 2} It's rescheduled for Sunday night.

Update 4:
        The show completed on Sunday night. It's available (for a limited time, I think) at this link.

Update 5:
        Appearing on the News segment of Coast to Coast AM Oct. 30th, Mike Bara incorrectly stated that the plume's origin was the crater, and said "definitely not water vapor." Isn't it time C2C started calling in somebody who knows WTF he's talking about?

====================/ \=====================

[1] Juvenile obscenity is a standard feature of Keith's forum. The members often behave like nasty little schoolboys.

[2] This will bring a smile to the faces of those who remember his radio shows from 2015/16. The squeaking chair, the ringing phone, the barking dog....

Hoagland's radio show goes from bad to worse to FAIL

Back story: In July 2015 Richard Hoagland, the former museum curator who hasn't had a job since the 1970s, launched a two hour, five-nights-a-week radio show The Other Side of Midnight, live on  Dark Matter Digital Network, and archived for members only. This blog commented several times as he first lost his best producer, Ross Campbell, then got kicked off DMDN, went to KCAA-AM for a while and thence to the cheaper WBCQ ($50/hr cf. $150.) In October 2016 the show folded.

        It was back in June this year, on a reduced "weekend only" schedule. In July the membership fee was doubled from $5 to $10 per month. From 15 July until 8 oct there should have been 26 shows, but seven of them were cancelled for various reasons, mostly technical issues. It became obvious that Hoagland was no longer paying a professional engineer.

        A week ago the announcement was made that Hoagland was abandoning the radio medium and falling back on the oh-so-cheap ($99/month) BlogTalk Radio. The announced show for Saturday night 14th October was Barbara Honegger: Historic 9/11 breakthroughs. NB: BlogTalkRadio is supposedly foolproof.

        What follows is a verbatim transcript of the train-wreck that ensued. The "Keith" referred to is not Keith Rowland of DMDN, the original tech. manager of the show,^{note 1}; but Keith Laney, an imaging expert who had guested on the show numerous times. Laney has no known experience at managing radio or even podcasting.

[JAZZ MUSIC TRACK]
00:05 BH: "I'm hearing music."
RCH: "Yes, yes, you and I should not be going out over the air."
00:20 RCH: "Keith can you hear me?" [MUSIC VOLUME INCREASES]
[..?..] Can you call Keith and tell him..?? I need Skype
00:58 RCH: "OK, well, that's good. ?..?...you should hear it.
01:09 RCH: "OK, Barbara, what are you hearing?
BH: "I keep hearing music."
RCH: "No, I mean, when I called on you, you said you could not hear. What could you not hear?"
BH: "You mean when we were on the air?"
RCH: "Yes, yes, what could you not hear?
BH: "No, I can hear everything but there is a delay. When I spoke..."
RCH: "Ohhh it's..it's...it's a delay. Keith... You.. you're cutting out horribly, I can't hear you.
01:40 BH: "You talking to me?"
RCH: "I'm talking to Keith. My engineer. My temporary engineer. [LOUD THROAT-CLEARING] Keith I cannot hear you.  ... OK. Well obviously we can't solve this so we're gonna have to go to a back-up show, and we will recycle the ?show?, have the proper filters in place by tomorrow night. Guys I am so sorry. .. All right?
BH: "So are we on tomorrow night?"
RCH: "OK, I'm hearing a terrible delay. So this is a technical catastrophe. I guess....?? But, er... yeah, let's try and recycle the ?show? for tomorrow night."
BH: "Yes, that's fine."
RCH: "OK, good. So let me goodnight you, and then goodnight the music. And... good night everyone, and we'll go to a backup show, and tomorrow night same time, same bat-channel. We will try it without the echo. OK?"
BH: "Same time, same place. Tomorrow."
RCH: "Yep, yep.Thank you."
BH: "OK, all right."

==================================
The FB announcement was "OUR APOLOGIES, POSTPONED TO TOMORROW NIGHT DUE TO UNEXPECTED LAST MINUTE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WE HOPE TO RESOLVE BY TOMORROW EVENING…"

After a similar experience the following night we were told "DUE TO CONTINUING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THE PROGRAM WITH BARBARA HONEGGER ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY NIGHT TONIGHT, SUN / MON OCT. 15-16 HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE."

[Insert Homer Simpson D'oh icon]

Update:
        The 21st October show was CANCELLED, Hoagland complaining that after "hours and hours of checking" the settings suddenly changed. Personally I don't find that credible. However, he did get through an entire 3-hour show on 22nd October—Robert Morningstar commenting on the Las Vegas massacre. Now why, I hear you ask, would AM* be considered an expert on the topic, considering that he can't even get the name of the perp right? He first called him Steven Pollack, then half-corrected it to Steven Paddock. The actual name is Stephen Paddock.

Thanks to Bellgab commenters "Nobody" and "Pablo Smash" for info

===========================/ \=============================
[1] The very first three words ever heard on the show were from Rowland. The words were: "I said go!"

Another open letter to Richard Hoagland (re: procrastination)

Dear Mr. Hoagland,

You are fond of saying--especially when you promise something and then don't deliver--"Make no wine before its time." Well, Richard, there's some wine you're supposed to be making that is now SIX MONTHS PAST its time. I refer to your book The Hidden History of Mars: A War In Heaven. Last March you characterized this book as "just recently completed," and you promised a free copy to Club 19.5 members. You also posted this on 24th March:

"Club 19.5 Members!! You've been patient, you've been faithful, and now - the GIFTS will begin! There is a broadcast coming up in the next few days that to even KNOW about you need to be in Club 19.5."

The broadcast you cited was simply another interview with Howard Hughes on talkradio.co.uk. An interview in which you said nothing new at all, but re-iterated the history of the so-called "Face" on Mars, and dropped the names of  Cronkite (3 times,) Roddenberry (twice,) and Sagan (once.) Do you seriously think that knowledge of this up-coming interview was an adequate gift for people who, at that point, had been paying you five bucks a month for NOTHING since October 2016?

It is now August. Where is this book? Where are these gifts? Are you content to be seen as dishonest?

Regards,

The volcanoes of Io: No joy for Richard Hoagland there either

        Io [pron: EYE-o] is a moon of Jupiter, just a little bigger than our own Moon (mean radius 1822 km, cf.1737 km.) Io's orbit is somewhat eccentric (.0041), and this is enough to cause continual flexing in the colossal gravitational field of Jupiter. The heat this generates has created over 400 active volcanoes, making little old Io the most volcanically active object in the solar system.

credit: Sky and Telescope

        On Monday, Space.com reported on some exquisite work by Katherine de Kleer and Imke de Pater of UC Berkeley, tracking volcanic hotspots on Io over more than two years, from 2013 to 2015. The astronomers used two of the world's largest telescopes, the 10-meter Keck II and 8-meter Gemini North, both located on Mauna Kea. The work produced this stunning image:

Credit: Katherine de Kleer and Imke de Pater, UC Berkeley 

        The hotties aren't identified by name, but I bet that biggie is Amirani, at 24.46°N.   A 2001 JPL/Caltech report wrote that Amirani "is responsible for the largest active lava flow in the entire Solar System, with recent flows dwarfing those of even other volcanos on Io."

        Too bad for Richard Hoagland,^{note 1} who regularly includes Io in his erroneous list of solar system objects that support his claim that excess "hyperdimensional" energy is available at 19.5° latitudes on a spinning spheroid. The list is Table 1 of Hoagland's web page The Message of Cydonia, including the Io volcanoes Loki, Maui, Pele and Volund. He says that Loki, Maui and Pele are all at 19°, while Volund is at 22°. In fact the latitudes are 18.22°N, 19.53°N, 18.71°S and 28.62°N respectively.^{note 2} So he gets one right, but this recent work from UC Berkeley puts paid to any idea that the 19.5° latitudes are volcanically special. The Keck observatory happens to be quite close to latitude 19.5°N, but that's no help. Note, too, the biggest volcanic events in Earth's known history:^{note 3}

Yellowstone, three massive events - 44° 24' N

Huaynaputina, 1600 - 16° 36' S

Krakatoa, 1883 - 6° 06' S

Santa Maria, 1902 - 14° 45' N

Novarupta, 1912 - 58° 16' N

Pinatubo, 1991 - 15° 08' N

Ambrym Island, 50 - 16° 15' S

Ilopango, 450 - 13.67° N

Santorini, 1610 BC - 36° 25' N

Tambora, 1815 - 8° 14' S

        None of the top ten earthquakes in Earth's known history has been at 19.5° either. So much for hyperdimensional energy upwellings.

Behind the Black
        I would never have noticed this brilliant report if I wasn't a regular reader of Bob Zimmerman's blog Behind the Black. Zimmerman^{note 4} always keeps it concise and accurate. He's solid on spaceflight history (author of Genesis:The Story of Apollo 8) and he knows more about the commercial space industry than anyone I know. Bob was nominated Science Adviser of Coast to Coast AM after Richard Hoagland drastically overplayed his hand in July 2015.


=============================/ \===========================
[1] A second setback this week for Hoagland. In the early hours (Pacific time) of this morning, he failed to get his radio chat show back on the air as promised. See last blogpost.
[2] ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanic_features_on_Io. There's a list similar to Hoagland's on p. 47 of Mike Bara's book The Choice, but he simply skates over this with a hand-waving "...the erupting volcanoes of Jupiter's moon Io." Useless.
[3] ref: http://www.livescience.com/30507-volcanoes-biggest-history.html
[4] Not the Bob Zimmerman who recently scored a certain Nobel Prize, of course.

The Great Hoagland/Wickramasinghe Disaster 0f 2016

        Kudos to whoever managed to book Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe onto Richard Hoagland's Other Side of Midnight chat-show, which is hanging onto the Dark Matter Digital Radio Network by its metaphorical fingernails, due to move to an as-yet unannounced new net-home at the end of next week. Wickramasinghe is exactly the right kind of guest for RCH: A respected but highly controversial scientist, working in an area (cosmology) that Hoagland has a nodding acquaintance with, and so ought to be able to ask some of the right questions.

        Booking decent guests has been this show's Achilles heel right from the start. Not a lot of interesting people are willing to be interviewed from midnight to 2 a.m. Pacific, or -- even worse -- 3-5 a.m. East. Keith Laney, in the EDT zone, may be always willing, but that kind-of proves my point about "not a lot of interesting people." Of course it greatly helps if, like Wickramasinghe, you're in the UK where it's 8-10 a.m. and you're fully awake. That also applied to another recently successful guest, my former colleague James Burke.

        Note that I did NOT say "my good friend James Burke," although I might have been justified in so doing. Richard Hoagland is, famously, not shy about name-dropping at all, and once he'd got over some connection problems and ascertained that he really was talking to the right cosmologist, he lit right in with (02:02) "Well an old friend of mine and yours, Arthur C. Clarke..."  (04:35) "...In addition to Arthur C. Clarke, who was a very good friend of mine, going back to my days at CBS when I was advising Walter Cronkite during the Apollo missions..." Oh Lordy, it never stops.

        Anyway, as I said, Wickramasinghe was a very promising guest. Such a pity that this turned into an unmitigated, cringe-worthy disaster after only 14 minutes. Wickramasinghe was filling us in on his relationship with Fred Hoyle, and the history of the Steady-State cosmological model, when he just dropped out. Went away. Vanished. Hoagland said "Did I lose you? Dr. Wickramasinghe? Hello? I'm really getting very unhappy with Skype. I think we're going to go to a different system, because Skype is not reliable...So... let me see what I can do here... Sorry, folks, this happens with unfortunate regularity because we're using this technology...We'll obviously have to explore another technology... ummm... in the future, and we will do that. But not tonight. So... let me get rid of this particular... er... item ... I think we might have to go to some music before I can connect up with Dr. Wickramasinghe again... So, Keith, if we can do that? Put a little something on while I'm connecting my switches here... and then we will be back momentarily..." However, he was not back momentarily, or even at all that night. Not having an engineer in his "studio," the simple task of re-connecting was beyond Hoagland's skills.^{note 1} After eight minutes of music, we were back to the Intro and the October 24th show with Seimion and Matloff re-ran until off-air time. The Wickramasinghe show was simply purged from the show's web-site and Farcebook page. As Khruschev was declared a non-person by the Kremlin in 1964, so this was declared a non-show by Keith Rowland (owner of DMDN) and Richard Hoagland. Oh. My. God.

        Well, what future for Hoagland and his chat-show? He's been dropping hints (at least it makes a change from dropping names) that "some Big Players" are interested in giving the show a home. After this fiasco, I imagine Big Players will be having Big Second Thoughts.

Thanks to Dr. Stuart Robbins for providing the audio. 

Update 3 May
        Well, now we know. The show moved to KCAA, an AM/FM station in the Inland Empire area east of L.A. The station rents its chat-show facilities to anyone who can pay. "Big players" my ass.

========================================
[1] Of course, it's always possible that he actually did reconnect, only to hear the professor say he was tired of this amateur bullshit and wanted no further part in it. That would jive with the purging of the show's online archive. We will never know.

Richard Hoagland declares that he's "The Big Man"

James Concannon writes...

        I was browsing my Faceboo archives the other day, as you do, and was struck by how much fun we had back in 2011, before Richard Hoagland figured out that it was possible to ban people from commenting his page.The best part by far arose from the monster 9.0 earthquake that hit off the coast of Fukushima on 11 March that year. Hoagland's commentary was pure Texas sharpshooter, and I commented:

JC: I notice you want to force the Sendai earthquake into confirming your nonsensical theories by falsifying its longitude, just as you falsified the latitude of the Port-au-Prince event.

FYI, 120° east of the Great Pyramid is the 151° 08' longitude -- a full 8° 46' out into the Pacific Ocean away from the epicenter.

I notice also that you cover yourself by writing, on this page, "we are NOT talking about precise longitude and latitude "lines" ... but "bands of activity" -- as with any physical process." I remind you that the junctions of the major tectonic plates are known with far more precision than one degree of latitude or longitude.

JC: I also notice that you attach significance to the 38° 19' latitude of the Sendai earthquake as double 19.5. Your theory as published predicts energy upwelling at 19.5°, NOT twice that or three times that or any other multiple of it. What you're doing here is the equivalent of shooting an arrow into the side of a barn, then painting a target round it. About as far removed from science as can be imagined.

Well, eventually, Hoagland protested — with this piece of smasheroo peacockery:

27 mar 2011 05:30 EST
RCH: I"m somewhat surprised that this is seen as ANY kind of "legitimate" discussion point; this is, so Facebook has informed me (by putting MY name at the top of the page)--

My "room."
...
The idea that I should then have to put up with "repeated, malcious [sic] assaults on my own character -- in "my room" -- or suffer even more outlandish attacks on my decades-long, demonstrated scientific competence [just how many of these "critics" have consulted for a major television network (and a "living legend" at that network at same time) -- both, BEFORE they were even 23?]--

And then, went on to consult for NASA!

That I should NOT simply "throw these bums out of my 'house' " ... is simply cracked.

I also will NOT argue"with "fake people" -- whose SOLE reason for coming here ... and then, " hiding under a deliberately false identity," is to AVOID the normal social ACCOUNTABILITY that comes with "face-to-face communication"-- while getting the vicarious thrill of attacking "the Big Man" ... in front of countless thousands of his "fans."

It's the ultimate "ego trip" ... for very warped minds.

I mean, what kind of an "honest, intellectual discussion" can one possibly have ... when one participant is publicly known, but the other is "a shadowy, ANONYMOUS figure ..." -- obviously AFRAID to reveal even his identity, yet spring-loaded to attack the slightest perception of "weakness" in his opponent?

The pretense that, somehow, a "serious, SCIENTIFIC discussion" could be carried out under these bizarre circumstances--

Is a farce!

In setting up the Constitution, the Framers recognized that the SOLE deterrent to the old abuses of Europe, the "whispered innuendo in dark" -- where you could be accused of ANYTHING and (literally) dragged away  ... and then, had to PROVE your innocence -- was backwards; that free men (and women) are INNOCENT 'til  PROVEN guilty; that the "burden of proof" was NOT on the "accused" ... but on the "accuser"--

Who is impossible to fight ... when your accuser is, by calculated design, "anonymous ....

Shades of "hooded men and secret star chambers ..." -- from our own sad history ... where the "anonymous accuser" is the judge, the jury ... and ... the executioner.

Is someone NUTS?!

So, no, I have absolutely NOTHING to "apologize" for ... on my own page (!) -- and I will continue to eliminate ALL "agent provocateurs" ... whose REAL agenda is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the overwhelming majority of honest folks (*sopme, ~15,000 now) who come here to have a serious, OPEN discussion ... in these increasingly critical and uncertain times!

        Read that again and you'll grasp the idea that he refuses to accept any review of his work unless the reviewer has had a career path identical to his own. And what evidence did he have for asserting that "James Concannon" is a false identity? None at all.

And then this happened
        On 7 April, the same area was rocked by another 7.1 earthquake, causing more damage on land and killing three people. Hoagland commented:

RCH: That "Fukushima" was a Planned Event -- by "someone" -- is almost a certainty now; I mean, what are the odds of ANOTHER major quake (the 7.1 a couple days ago) -- complete with similar tsunami warnings -- with an epicenter (and depth!) only a few miles different from the earlier, devestating [sic] 9.0 quake ... and all, by "acident?!"

JC: I think it's called "aftershock," Richard. Look it up.

The fact that he didn't realize then that he could simply ban me was made obvious a bit later:

5 june
RCH: What "JC" and all the OTHER trolls don't seem to realize, is that with ~17,000 people on this site on a regular basis, I have a team of "moderators all around the world, 24/7" -- whose ONLY instruction is to delete EVERYTHING these idiots have to say ... unless I give specific instructions to the contrary .... :) I will NOT have this site disrupted by obvious "agents."

Then finally the penny dropped, as they say:

31 july
RCH: We quietly "took care of" the trolls ... several days ago.

Proposal for an experiment to test "hyperdimensional physics"

Open letter to Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara, cc: Derek Eunson

Greetings...

        As I wrote to you on 13th March, the theory of what you have called "hyperdimensional physics" is now falsified because of the definitive failure of the WISE mission to find the large trans-Neptunian solar system bodies that you have written^{note 1} are an essential prediction of the theory.

        I commiserate. It must be hard to be so comprehensively proved wrong—especially in light of the fact that I have also falsified Von Braun's Secret and The Table of Coincidence. You boys don't really have a whole lot left to pontificate about, do you?

Proposal for an experiment
        Let us, however, be optimistic. It is still possible that some truth may be sifted from the ashes of your work over the years. I hereby propose a test of your (MB's) expository statement^{note 2} about the theory:

"There is overwhelming proof of a new, little understood theory of physics, Hyperdimensional physics ... [I]f you take a sphere—like ... a planet—and you rotate it, then you will pull energy from the higher state of the planet (the hyper-sphere) and that energy will preferentially upwell from inside the planet according to the geometry of a tetrahedron encased in a sphere, and appear at or around 19.5 degrees."

Equipment:
Solid aluminum sphere, diameter 50cm. Mounted on robust bearings and capable of being rotated at up to 1,000 rpm about a vertical axis by a rheostat-controlled electric motor.

volume 4/3 π x 25³ = 65,449 cm³
density of Al 2.70 g cm^-3
mass 176.7 kg

NOTE: This equipment will need very careful balancing, lest it become a missile.

360 sensitive thermocouples are to be embedded in this sphere at intervals of 0.5° latitude between its poles, the signals from these to be led to a display/recording rack via a commutator. A tachometer continuously records the rotation rate.

Protocol:
Ambient temperature of the laboratory to be controlled at 20°C ± 1°.
Baseline recording to be obtained for a period of two hours without rotation.
Active recordings to be obtained as the equipment is spun up in steps of 200rpm, n minutes at each step.
Experiment to be repeated 24h later.

Prediction:
Per your written text, we expect to detect a significant rise in temperature over bands of latitude centered on 19.5° N and S, as the hyperdimensional energy dissipates as heat.

NOTE: In your other writings on this topic you have cited Olympus Mons (18.5°N) and the Giant Red Spot on Jupiter (22°S) as manifestations of hyperdimensional energy upwelling, therefore we should presumably anticipate bands of energy spreading over at least 3.5°.

Questions for you:
1] Is this a fair test of your theory?
2] What should the value of n be? How long do you estimate we need to wait for hyperdimensional energy to appear?
3] Please provide an equation, using Maxwell's quaternions^{note 3}, describing the mathematical relationship between speed of rotation  and energy access from the "higher state".

Funding:
I will happily participate in such an experiment but I regret that I am unable to contribute to its (considerable) cost. Perhaps you might allocate some portion of the royalties from your published works promoting this idea to the public?

I have copied this to Dr Derek Eunson, a systems engineer in Scotland. Not only would his comments on the protocol be obviously welcome, but he is also in touch with Irene Gardner who may possibly agree to sponsor all or part of the cost. As you will recall, in May 2012 Ms. Gardner made a generous offer to sponsor Hoagland & Falkov's proposed expedition to Egypt for the Venus transit that year.^{note 4}

Please respond.

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

1] Dark Mission chapter 2
2] The Choice chapter 3
3] You have written (Dark Mission chapter 2) that Maxwell's quaternions are the basis of "hyperdimensional physics".
4] An offer you (RCH) surprisingly refused, on the grounds that it would require handing over  "totally unreasonable quantities of raw, propriority [sic] data to turned over to TOTAL styrangers [sic], and far ahead of its planned formal publication." By the way, when will that data be published?

Hoagland: A (fake) psych. eval.

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:01:41
From: enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified
To: [expat]
CC: mikebara33@gmail.com


You REALLY need psychological help for your (obvious) continuing pathological obsession;


[...redacted...]

RCH

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013
From: [expat]
Subject: Re: Your Ritual Alignment Model falsified
To: enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com
CC: mikebara33@gmail.com

Greetings....

I took your advice and sought psychological help for my "(obvious) continuing pathological obsession" (your words). I was referred to Eunice Rufe Snow, MD, PA, of the Institute for Advanced Psychiatry, 6015 Harris Parkway, Suite 110, Fort Worth, TX 76132. Dr Rufe Snow's report, somewhat redacted, is attached.

General
Mr Martin Blaise was referred for suspected Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (OCD). I evaluated this pt over the course of four sessions in November 2013.

Mr Blaise is a [redacted] year old engineering consultant living at [redacted]. A former television documentary producer/writer, he is an expert on the history of spaceflight. He has a bachelor's degree in physics and electrical engineering from [redacted]. He is the author or co-author of the following seven books: [redacted].

Report of pt
Pt reported a persistent desire to point out, in the most emphatic way possible, errors in the work of Richard C. Hoagland. To this end he has maintained a blog since April 2008, and has also engaged in several e-mail exchanges with Hoagland. He reports, however, that this activity is spare-time only and never interferes with his professional life.

Psych. eval.
The standard Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was unremarkable, with low psychasthenia.

The Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (AGQ) showed low hostility (0.19) and very low anger (0.04).

Score on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale was 7. I consider that sub-clinical, although some workers would regard it as borderline.

Casework
Richard C. Hoagland is a low-achieving media personality. Since concluding a NASA contract in 1983, his professional activity has been restricted to authorship of just one book and co-authorship of a second. He has made professional appearances at several conferences whose general topic has been paranormal phenomena. In addition, he has contributed hundreds of articles to an amateur web site, many of which have been in the form of never-completed series. I have reviewed all this work.

Hoagland's written work does indeed contain very many technical errors. Pt discussed three of these at length.

1. Von Braun's Secret. This article is invalidated by mathematical error.

2. Ritual Alignment Model. Pt has falsified this proposition comprehensively. The published Table of Coincidence contains 19 errors, per Hoagland's own stated rules.

3. Accutron measurement of the torsion field resulting from planetary alignments. Pt has pointed out that, in all the voluminous work Hoagland has devoted to the topic, not once has an actual measurement been cited. The units in which the torsion field would be measured have not even been stated. Pt has pointed out several other fatal problems with Hoagland's experimental protocol.

Conclusions, recommendations
As a result of my review of Hoagland's work, I detect very strong indications of narcissism and paranoia. Hoagland's description of himself as a scientist, which he patently is not, is highly problematic. Many passages in his book Dark Mission identify him quite positively as paranoid.

I believe Martin Blaise should continue to draw attention to Hoagland's errors, as a public service, as long as this activity does not interfere with his professional duties or family commitments.

Eunice Rufe Snow, MD, PA
12.2.2013



PS. The above is an imaginary scenario whose sole intent is to mock Richard C. Hoagland. There is no such person as Eunice Rufe Snow, MD, PA.

Expat strikes back

        I was a little miffed when Richard Hoagland said on Art Bell's radio show last Thursday "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data." 

        OK, I was a lot miffed. I sent a rather comprehensive message to Hoagland, rebutting the accusation. If he replies to my e-mails at all it's generally the same day, so I guess he has nothing to say. Therefore I'm now making it public.

        It's important to understand that this is not an attack on RCH. The attack was his original statement, heard by millions of Art Bell fans and Einstein-only-knows how many more on Youtube. This is a defensive riposte, and I'll be lucky if 1,000 people ever see it.

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

To: Richard Hoagland

Date: 9/22/13

Subj: "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data."

From: Expat

Greetings...

I'm one of your critics, but I'm not stupid. I have more education than you, I've authored or co-authored more than twice as many books as you, plus I've produced, written and directed fourfive major broadcast TV documentaries about spaceflight.

Dr Stuart Robbins is another of your critics and he is not stupid either. He is an actual working scientist, which is more than either you or I have ever achieved. Dr Robbins' specialty is lunar and planetary surfaces, do you understand that? He's an expert and he knows a lot more than you do.

Dr Derek Eunson is not stupid either. He's a highly educated working design engineer.

Now to your data...

I have looked at your data on the skull-like rock in crater Shorty and I have shown that your image is fraudulent.

I have looked at your data on the orbit of Explorer 1 and I have shown that your calculation is so catastrophically wrong that there is no hope of resurrecting your proposition. IT'S DEAD. Please withdraw it. Dr Derek Eunson also concurs.

I have looked at your data on the Ritual Alignment Model. Many times. I have told you that I would like to try and confirm or falsify this idea. I asked you two key questions and you refuse to answer.

I have looked at your data on glass domes on the Moon. As you know, I falsified your proposition yesterday. Other similar claims of yours are easily attributable to contamination of your scanner glass.

I have looked at your data on what you call prisms showing in Apollo 17 images. I have already told you you are mistaken. The gnomon patches are not red/green/blue but orange/green/blue.

I have looked at your statement about the latitude of the Port-au-Prince earthquake, and I have shown that it was a lie.

I have looked at your data on the Gulf Oil tragedy of 2010 and I have shown that you lied again.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of Phobos and I showed that your proposition was highly improbable. People with much more expertise than either of us then falsified it.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of comet Hartley-2 and found it has no credibility.

Likewise Tempel-1.

I have looked at what you humorously call your "data" (actually Judy Wood's "data") on the dustification of the WTC and found it is so far from credible it wouldn't even make a decent Sci-Fi story. It's pathetic, Richard.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of Vesta and I showed that your proposition was highly improbable.

I have looked at your pseudo-statistical analysis of C/2010 X1 (Elenin) and showed beyond doubt that your analysis was seriously flawed, leading to divide-by-zero errors and other absurdities. Dr Stuart Robbins has also falsified your reasoning. Dr Derek Eunson also concurs.

I have looked at your data on YU55 and shown that it is mistaken.

I have reviewed your prediction for Phobos-Grunt and found it to be worthless.

I have looked at your data on lunar atmospheric pressure and found that you totally misunderstood your sources.

I have looked at your data on the 40-year-old Accutron. Many times. Seeking to confirm or falsify your "results," I have asked you a number of questions about this. You have refused to answer. Dr Robbins has also reviewed your protocol critically.

I have looked at your data (such as it is) on the so-called ziggurat on the Moon and I find your proposition has no credibility. Dr Robbins has criticized your work and that of Mike Bara in exhaustive detail.

I have looked at your data on the strength of lunar construction glass, and found that you committed the cardinal sin of citing a paper in a science journal that does not in fact support your proposition. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY BE ASHAMED OF, RICHARD.

Will you please consider going on the radio and apologizing for your slur?

Regards,

[expat]

Hoagland self-falsifies

        Richard Hoagland the pseudo-scientist devoted much of the first hour of his marathon radio appearance with Art bell to this image, taken on the Moon in 1967 by the unmanned lander Surveyor 6.

image credit: NASA (scanner contamination by RC Hoagland)

        He announced that the glow in the lunar sky was clear evidence of a glass dome, and the linearity was further evidence that it was artificial. He talked about a "stairway."

        I wrote  pointing out that the original orientation of the image was thus:

image credit: NASA

        The linearity is parallel to the original vertical. The image was produced by vertical scan of a vidicon and transmitted at low bandwidth. It stands to reason that we are seeing scan lines.

        Hoagland wrote back: "Then  I guess these guys presengted[sic] it "wrong" too ....                :)" And he provided a link to a paper in J. Aerospace Engg. by Colwell et al. He means Fig. 1, showing the lunar horizon horizontal, but also clearly showing parts of the original margins.

        The truly hilarious part is that he evidently didn't notice the caption -- the highlighted sentence in particular.

        Was it too childish of me to write back that he was pwned, adding "ALL YOUR GLASS DOME ARE BELONG TO US"?

No, Neil Armstrong did not liken himself to a parrot‏

        In comments to the previous post here, I metaphorically rolled my eyes at the fact that Richard Hoagland, after all these years, is still repeating the canard that Neil Armstrong likened himself to a parrot in his 25th anniversary speech at the White House.

        Hoagland said this during the panel discussion at last weekend's Awake & Aware conference in Glendale. I decided to chide Hoagland in e-mail, and it led to this exchange, which is only informative in that it testifies to how utterly obtuse the man is.

Reminder: What Armstrong actually said was "Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that can talk is the parrot, and he doesn't fly very well, so I'll be brief".

EXPAT
I can't believe you trotted out that falsehood yet again at the A&A panel discussion. Armstrong was possibly the greatest pilot in history, and also famously poor at public speaking. You are saying he likened himself to a bird whose talents are THE EXACT OPPOSITE???

Please think before you speak and write.

HOAGLAND
The first responsibility of a real scientist/engineer is to OBSERVE.

Please watch and listen CAREFULLY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQriZqkKIk

Neil Armstrong, at the opening of this famous White House speech, on the 25th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Landing, DOES directly compare himself to ... a parrot!
The real meaning of this astonishing, personal comparison (given your obvious point -- that Neil was, demonstrably, the unparalled pilot of all time), is equally obvious--

He was (in this, and in all his public speeches re Apollo ...) merely repeating "a carefully-sanctioned script" ... which (as a guy obviously wrestling with his own integrity in all of this) he wanted all Americans to know--Even if he couldn't "tell it straight."

EXPAT
It is YOU who should be watching and listening CAREFULLY. I can't believe you are really this obtuse. He is saying "My talent is for flying, not talking, SO I'LL BE BRIEF". In other words, THE OPPOSITE of a parrot. Dear me, dear me....

HOAGLAND
I hope you're a better engineer than writer!

You really missed the entire point of his remarkable, carefully-chosen opening ....

EXPAT
If, as you claim, he was likening himself to a parrot, WHY WOULD HE SAY "SO I'LL BE BRIEF"???

Parrots are GOOD AT TALKING. Surely you can understand that!!!!!

HOAGLAND

Why bring up "parrots" at all ...?                 :)

What is the ONE THING parrots are universally known for?

Not "talking" ....

But REPEATING ... what other people say.

Neil knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that opening ....          :)

EXPAT
>>Why bring up "parrots" at all ...?    <<

Because Wilbur Wright did.

Now look -- Parrots are a) Good at talking, b) Bad at flying.
Armstrong, by his own admission, is a) Bad at talking, b) Good at flying.

THE OPPOSITE of a parrot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOAGLAND 

No, he QUOTED Wilbur ....

Why?

He didn't HAVE to.             :)

Because--

He needed the "parrot/repeating" METAPHOR ... and, quoting Wright deftly deflected the responsibility of choosing THAT metaphor (for thos paying attention) from HIMSELF.

Stick with engineering ....             :)

EXPAT
What you write here has no credibility whatsoever. You are totally wrong. 

======================================
Hoagland's e-mail address is enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com

Hoagland's unlikely propositions

        Curiosity's A-side computer took a hit last Thursday, probably a flash memory glitch. JPL mission controllers switched to the B-side at 2:30 pm PST, placing the system in safe mode. The press release stated:

"We switched computers to get to a standard state from which to begin restoring routine operations," said Richard Cook of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ... The spacecraft remained in communications at all scheduled communication windows on Wednesday, but it did not send recorded data, only current status information. The status information revealed that the computer had not switched to the usual daily "sleep" mode when planned. 

        In other words, a setback but not a particularly scary one, and one for which the systems were well prepared. However, it happened just as analysis of the first subsurface sample—of a type of mudstone or soapstone—was in process. Data had already been taken from the 'Sample Analysis at Mars' (SAM) organic chemistry instrument and the 'CheMin' X-ray system, but there is more to come once the A-side computer is fixed.

        Richard Hoagland, of course, could not resist interpreting this as another example of a "convenient" malfunction allowing the masonic/nazi/magician elements within NASA to do their fell¹ business in the dark. He turned up on Coast to Coast AM last night, misreporting the facts in important respects and mispronouncing the name of his "friend"² Craig Covault (Covault is the doyen of aerospace journalism. The amazing depth of his reporting on this issue can be sampled here.)

        Hoagland then said that several hints had been dropped in public recently indicating that a space age sleight-of-computer was imminent. Among these were:

• William Shatner's appearance in the Oscar telecast on 24th February, with a "time travel" theme.
• Use of the term sequestration (meaning hidden)³ for the mandatory US budget cuts that took effect on 1st March
• President Obama's use of the term Jedi mind-meld as he bemoaned the fact that the sequestration could not be averted.

        Words almost fail me as I contemplate how utterly illogical these propositions are. The Oscar show would have been conceived and scripted over the period October 2012 - January 2013 (the announcement of Seth MacFarlane as host was made on 11th October). You'd have to imagine a phone call from Charles Bolden to Anne Sweeney, President of Disney-ABC, around about 15th October.

-- Please hold for the NASA Administrator."

-- Good morning Mr. Bolden, to what do I owe the pleasure?"

--Good morning Ms Sweeney, or may I call you Anne?"

--That'd be fine, Chuck."

--Congratulations on your choice of Seth MacFarlane to host the Oscars. Fine idea. We here at HQ have been following that young man's career with interest. Now that we have no manned spaceflight program, we're turning our attention increasingly to showbiz."

--Well, thank you. We expect to have some fun with Seth."

--Yes, well, actually, fun is what I'm calling about. See, we expect that one of our computers on the Mars rover will fail along about next March, and we'd like to use the opportunity to carry out some highly secret operations. We thought it'd be a great idea to use the Oscar telecast to drop a public hint about that."

--Er... maybe I'm not following you. If these operations are highly secret, why would you want to drop hints about them?"

--We here at NASA love to play games with the public, Anne. We particularly love playing mind-fuck games with pseudo-scientists like Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara. What we have in mind is for Bill Shatner to come on your show and fool around with the idea of time travel. That should be enough of a tease, and Bill doesn't have to know he's doing it for us."

--Do you think people would get it?"

--Sure. Nobody could fail to understand the connection between a not very funny comedy routine and a computer failure that hasn't happened yet. I mean, everyone got the idea when we inserted all that code into John Carter of Mars. Right?"

--Y'know, Chuck, you may be batshit crazy but that isn't such a bad idea. I'll have my people get back to your people about this later."

(and similar calls to the White House)

============
1. "fell" in the Shakespearean adjectival sense: "Sinister, malevolent". I love using surprising words.
2. My guess is that Craig Covault is Hoagland's "friend" only in the limited sense of "I've seen him at NASA press conferences." I could be wrong. In that sense, he's just as much my friend, come to think of it.
3. Read about sequestrations here. The term was first used in 1985.

The zombie ziggy: Hoagland writes

        I'm glad to say (OK, write) that this week I did get some responses from Hoagland on the question of the ziggy. I  mean that "glad" sincerely—such an exchange is a lot better than asking Mike Bara why he writes what he writes and says what he says, and getting nothing but douchebags in return.

        Enjoy the contrast in our styles: Hoagland with his weird attempts to make the keyboard look and sound like him, me with my theatrical snootiness. Both of us sure of ourselves to the point of arrogance.

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: That ziggurat


As I understand it, you're interested in a feature on a 43-year old photo with motion smear, whose resolution is AT BEST 65 m/px. Am I right so far?

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, am I also right?

If that is the case, WHY WOULD YOU NOT go immediately to the NAC strip showing that exact area in the LRO image library and examine it? The resolution is about 0.8 m/px, Richard, that's EIGHTY TIMES BETTER, RICHARD.

If you do do that, Richard, guess what you'll find? That's right -- NOTHING OF INTEREST.

Now will you please apologize for misleading the C2C audience and calling the criticism of you "vitriol."

Regards,
expat

========================================
From: richard hoagland   
To: [expat]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat

And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... what?

Their WORD?

Really, if that's the case ... I have this "REALLY neat bridge ...."                       :)

The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."


Keep going; you're only building more public interest as well.


Eventually, with THEIR help, we'll truly get to the bottom of this decades-long "game" that NASA has been playing with ALL of us ....

RCH

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 
Subject: That ziggurat

If you know of specific evidence that that NAC strip has been altered, let's hear it. Otherwise, Richard, your allegation is an attempt by you to create an unfalsifiable proposition and as such has no place in an organized discussion.

I, on the other hand CAN show you specific evidence that your ziggy-pic has been shopped. The evidence is here summarized by Dr Stuart Robbins, a trained and competent astronomer. Please read it.

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/podcast-episode-45-the-moons-changing-recession-rate/


Regards,    
expat 

======================================== 
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012  
Subject: That ziggurat  

>>And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... 

 ...is based on the fact that LRO is a scientific enterprise managed by people who would have NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE, RICHARD, for concealing features of interest.

It really is time you let go of the fantasy that Brookings mandated secrecy. The report, Richard, DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER the question of suppressing information. It merely recommended that the question should be asked.

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, and yet your approach to anything that seems interesting is ANYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC, RICHARD. Stop it, please, and apologize to your audience.

Regards, 
expat 

======================================== 
From:richard hoagland  
To: [expat] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat 

The "motive" IS in "Brookings" -- as reported in its December, 1961 edition, by no less a world-class news agency than The New York Times--

"... prevention of the destruction of the world ...."

Not my "opinion," but their reporting of their professional assessment of the "message" o an official, government report on official "confirmation of intelligent extraterrrstrial life ... or artifacts."

NASA has had, therefore, and for more than fifty years -- half a century -- the THREE key elements required by ANY jury ... for conviction of ANY crime--

"Means ... MOTIVE ... opportunity."

By contrast, you are continuing to live in "delusion land" -- obviously not wanting to even consider such political (not "scientific") possibiities ....

Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :)

Fortunately, it's coming to an end ....


RCH

P.S.  And, please ... continue  making all this public fuss; "where's there's smoke ...."            :)

========================================
From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat


I would submit that a 50 year old article in NYT has as much relevance to a post-doc processing data at LROC in Arizona as the price of coconuts in the market in Jamaica. Possibly less. You make two classic errors here, errors that have permeated your work for as long as I've been giving myself the agony of reading and hearing it.

1. You persist in willfully misreading Brookings in order to make a totally spurious case. Never mind the newspaper reports, read the text. I don't need to quote it here because you probably know it by heart. Here's what you wrote about it:

"So here we had the proverbial smoking gun. Not only was NASA advised--almost from its inception--to withhold any data that supported the reality of Cydonia or any other discovery like it, they were told to do so for the good of human society as a whole." (Dark Mission, p.163 2nd edn)

That sentence is mendacious, Richard. It's Simply. Not. True. Not only did Brookings never "advise NASA to withhold data," nothing it did advise was ever taken seriously in any case. I very much doubt that those post-docs massaging data at LROC have even heard of it, or heard of you and your daft unscientific theories.

2. You also persist in regarding purely science-driven activities as under the control of some evil power intent on covering up information. In the case of the LRO cameras, I would remind you that data processing is carried out, not by a secret cabal of NASA masonic elders, but by skilled people from fourteen academic institutions including Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins.... bla bla bla. The notion that all of these people could be collaborating to keep data from appearing has NO CREDIBILITY WHATEVER. Over the last few days we have learned that the proximate source of the ziggy-pic was Mike Bara, and that Bara has no idea where it originally came from or who "enhanced" it. It would be hard to imagine anything carrying less weight of evidence of what you wish to allege.

You should be ashamed of misleading your readers with such lies. You should be ashamed of going on C2C and marking the anniversary of a heroic achievement with a piece of self-promotional flim-flam that was an attack on the very agency that was responsible for the heroism. You said

"[T]his is only a tip of the iceberg, George, as to what they've been hiding for 43 years, that we have got to take control of now."

A few days later you wrote

"it seemed appropriate to remind everyone -- on the 43rd Apollo 11 Anniversary -- how MUCH NASA has been hiding, all these years"

It was not appropriate, Richard, not appropriate at all. It was SHAMEFUL.

Now, in the present exchange of views, you write

"Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :) Fortunately, it's coming to an end" ....

In 2010 you said disclosure was imminent. You declared 2011 "the year we make contact." Pardon me if I ignore your admonitions about what is about to happen to my "state."

Regards,
expat

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

         Caution: Just because I had the last word (for now) it would not be correct to score a win for me. A win would be if he actually did apologize. Preferably not just to me but to all his listeners and disciples.

Hoagland-heist: Pseudo-scientist bamboozled, left twisting in the wind

        Maximum kudos this week to Irene Gardner, for a brilliant and high-risk maneuver that exposed Richard Hoagland for the unprincipled fraud he is, in front of all his craven disciples.

        As regular readers of this blog know well, ever since his birthday on April 25th Hoagland has been begging the Branch Hoaglandians for cash to fund an expedition to Egypt on the occasion of the Venus transit, due on 5th/6th June. There he intended to repeat what he calls an "experiment" involving an Accutron watch. This blog, among others, has been strident in its criticism of the so-called experiment, citing the lack of baselines, controls and full hypothesis.

The trap set

        Here's how Irene's scam-bait went down. On 26th May at 10:00 she posted this to Hoagland's FB page (re-posted by permission):

Dear Mr Hoagland,
As a long time coast insider, and follower of your research I was most disappointed to hear that the planned mission to Giza had to be cancelled due to lack of funding. I have been a long time lurker on your Facebook page, and, of course on Enterprise. But, have been too overwhelmed by the technical content and scientific research that you present, to ask the many questions I have.

Therein lies the problem. I wanted to make a substantial contribution to your planned expedition to Giza. I could not afford the $80k envisaged cost, but perhaps only half of that. Without causing a huge argument with my partner. Here we strike the root of the argument. I maintain that a man who had been a curator, scientist, and, for heavens sake, a scientific advisor to a broadcasting legend. All before hitting 30 years of age. A man who has had his very life threatened because of his work. Must be on to something. That something, we, as a species need. Immediately.

My partner however completes the dichotomy. We discuss long and even longer the vaildity and veracity of your reasearch. He is an electronics engineer of some standing within the world of what I have heard he and his colleagues refer to as "negentropy." I am merely an IT consultant with a passion for your work, and, perhaps more honestly. Your enthusiasm. He challenged me to provide evidence of hyperdimensional physics. The prize being me being allowed to help fund your research. With some gusto I compiled a list of links to Enterprise, citing various papers on the subject. With particular emphasis on of your magnificent Cydonia work. I "MADE" him watch your presentation at the United Nations. He squirmed in his chair as you read out a letter from Dr Ghali to the audience. Nice moment for me.

To my dismay he called your work "junk science." Citing the fact that during earlier work at Coral Castle, and other significant locations you failed to provide a baseline and control before conducting your experiments. Please, please Richard can you categorically refute these allegations, and provide me proof positive of baseline and control. In return I will happily make up the shortfall on the Giza research mission. I apologise unreservedly should I have insulted a man of your standing in requiring such assurances. But, I made an agreement with my partner and I will abide by it.

I also realise that many people may think I am insencere. Therefore, should you require it. I will give you my cellphone number, place of employment and any other information you may require to substantiate the veracity of my offer.

Kindest regards
Irene Gardner.

        Hoagland's immediate reply was "If this is a serious offer, we should do this via a PM and private e-mail."

        The pseudo-scientist then engaged in internal debate for two days. The dilemma: He wants the dosh, but at what price? The baselines and controls for the Venus transit of 2004, the farce at Teotihuacan, the joke at Stonehenge, the recent solar eclipse—these things don't exist, of course, because he has no clue how to design a proper scientific experiment. So could he fake them up convincingly enough? Hmmmm....

The trap sprung

        On May 29th he made his decision. Too risky. His message to Irene (re-posted by permission):

Irene,

You know that can't happen in a "timely fashion," certainly not before the Venus Transit; have you ever dealt with "university review committees?" :)

However, thanks for your kind offer.

But, if you REALLY have been following our work as closely as you stated on Facebook (all the way back to my "Cronkite Days," if not my UN presentation on Cydonia in 1992, with the warm endorsement of the Secretary General of the UN himself!), to say nothing of my recent New York Times bestseller, "Dark Mission" (with Mike Bara), then you already know what we are doing and both its importance ... and its veracity.

If all that can't convince your partner that we're at least "worth a shot," then, sadly, no amount of additional information at this point can convince such an individual "who had to be made" to even watch my UN speech .... :)

The fact that you are allowing your partner to dictate "who" and "what" YOU can support, in ANY amount ... raises all kinds of additional issues; others have already given large donations to further this research, based SOLELY on what's on the public record. The fact that you cannot (or, will not ...) do the same, again, in any AMOUNT -- without demanding totally unreasonable quantities of raw, propriority [sic] data to turned over to TOTAL styrangers, and far ahead of its planned formal publication -- tells me you're NOT serious.

Again, if I'm misjudging you, or your situation, I'm sorry.

        Yesterday, Irene cross-posted that entire text to Hoagland's FB. He deleted it in about ten minutes, but we can assume some of the cult members saw it.
        
        Many of us already commented. I acknowledge ideas from Chris Lopes, Trekker, FlightSuit, Jourget et al.

* He does have a point that time would have been tight for a proper investigation of whatever flim-flam he might have come up with. But that might have been negotiable, we'll never know. It's a safe bet that Hoagland himself has never dealt with a university review committee, so how would he know how much time would have been needed? Irene posted to this blog "The Hoagland data would have been examined at the Dept of Electronics and Electrical Engineering at Glasgow."

* That "If you had been following our work..." is an absolutely standard Hoagland debating tactic. He uses it over and over again. It's simply a set-up for him to boast of achievements that are of almost Jurassic antiquity. Cronkite 40 years ago. The UN speech 20 years ago. Then comes the non sequitur. Irene is asked to believe that these achievements testify to the "importance and veracity" of the current effort to send him on a jaunt, with his girlfriend, to Egypt. What utter balderdash.

* Next he tries to undermine Irene's relationship with her partner. Classic cult tactics.

* Why does he consider the quantity of data requested "totally unreasonable"? It's simply what any real scientist would quite naturally supply without having to be asked.

* Turning over data to  "TOTAL styrangers" [sic] is what real scientists know as peer review. This part of the text is perhaps the most brilliant of all, exposing Hoagland's frequently-expressed wish to be taken seriously as a scientist as a gossamer-thin veil over the mentality of a fairground con-man.

* "far ahead of its planned formal publication"— WHAT????? In her original post, Irene cited "earlier work at Coral Castle, and other significant locations," not the recent solar eclipse. The Coral Castle farce was eight years ago, and of course totally ineligible for "formal publication" in any case, since it lacked any semblance of rigor and was broadcast to the millions of Coast-to-Coast AM listeners as it happened.

        Round-trip ticket for two, ABQ-CAI: $3,600. Six nights at the Hilton Pyramids, with special "Great Getaway" offer: $990. Exposing a pseudo-scientist in full sight of his fans: PRICELESS. Thank you so much, Irene.