Bad arguments, tenuous theories, BAD SCIENCE

That was the title of an Amazon reader's review of "Dark Mission" submitted by K. Zoerb on Oct 24th. The following day, Mike Bara refused to accept this post on the dark mission blog:

Have you seen yesterday's review of your book by K.Zoerb in Amazon Customer Reviews?

The review includes some very specific examples of scientific error which you might consider responding to. If you don't, I'll consider the points conceded.

Cheers.

Here's K. Zoerb's main point:

Here is one big inaccuracy that highlights the either misleading or just incompetent nature of Hoagland's arguments: Figure 4-45 on page 198 (also repeated as color Figure 6). The actual graph shows the ABSORBANCE vs. the wavelength of light for a gold film, yet Hoagland just renames the graph as the "Gold Film Spectral TRANSMISSION Curve". Absorbance and transmission are two opposite phenomena (i.e. the higher the absorbance of a material (A), the lower its transmission (T), specifically A = log(1/T) ). Hoagland states that NASA "claims" that a gold coating is used on the astronauts' glass visor on their helmets to protect astronauts from UV light. Well, this is exactly what the gold coating does as it has high absorbance in the UV range (i.e. low transmission of UV light). But because Hoagland incorrectly interpreted the graph as "Transmission", he argues that the gold coating actually "enhances" UV light to allow the astronauts to better see the UV scattered light off of the Moon's "glass ruins". Hoagland can't even get basic scientific terminology right; or he is being deliberately misleading. However, I believe he just doesn't understand, because if he was trying to be misleading he wouldn't be too smart for leaving the absorbance axis labeled that way in the published figure.

Yet another "stunning confirmation" of hyperdimensional physics?

        On the "official" Dark Mission blog yesterday, Mike Bara drew attention to the article in space.com about the strange hexagonal patterns at Saturn's north pole. Continuing the pattern that any astronomical announcement that is at all off-beat is treated falsely as confirmation of Hogland's dotty theories, Bara wrote:

It's important to keep in mind that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in conventional planetary physics or fluid mechanics which can account for this phenomenon. It is however an inherent and specific prediction of the Hoagland\Torun Hyperdimensional physics model.

As moderator of the blog, he refused to accept the following comment:

I've reviewed these explanatory pages:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2a.html
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper3.html

The hexagonal storm on Saturn is mentioned in passing in the last of them, but I cannot find a specific prediction of the phenomenon anywhere.

Perhaps you might point us to where hyperdimensional physics made that prediction, prior to the 26-year old Voyager image. Thanks.

Informed criticism? Yeah — we got that

Mike Bara censored the following post today, disallowing its appearance on the official "Dark Mission" blog in its entirety:

I was recently re-reading your May 1997 essay "Where is the informed criticism of Richard Hoagland?" I note this sentence, toward the end:

"If Hoagland is wrong then let him be proved wrong. Let the critics who doubt the quality of his work repeat the process, and find him in error."

I have now done that, in relation to:

- The mythical anti-gravity boost to Explorer 1. His calculation is totally in error.
- The photo-processing of the rock called "data's head". His processing was found to be fraudulent.
- Neil Armstrong's 25th anniversary speech. Armstrong actually said the OPPOSITE of what Hoagland claims he said. You have conceded this.
- The allegation that Apollo astronauts actually returned artifacts of a lunar civilisation. You have conceded that there is no evidence of that.
- His characterisation of the Brookings Report as "strongly recommending" concealment of evidence of alien life. It did not.


James Oberg has falsified your allegations of sabotage in respect of Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, and Mars Climate Orbiter.

Are you now going to withdraw the 1997 essay?

New calculations even more fatal to Hoagland's latest crackpot theory (Updated 8/29)

The following post to the "Dark Mission" blog was censored today. Bear in mind that, on his horrible web site, Hoagland seeks to prove that the 600 ft/sec velocity surplus at orbit insertion of Explorer 1 was too great to be explained by over-performance of the solid rocket stages. In the equations, g is the acceleration due to gravity in ft/sec², I_sp is the specific impulse of the stage in seconds, and W_i is the initial mass of the stage plus its fuel and whatever else it is carrying. dV is the increase in velocity provided by the stage.

Somebody with more skill at rocket-science than me has provided an even more ferocious condemnation of Richard Hoagland's faulty mathematics in attempting to calculate the velocity addition of Stages 2,3 and 4 of Explorer 1.

He points out that, using Hoagland's notation, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation is normally written as:

dV = g x I_sp x ln(W_i/W_f)

where W_f is the final mass at burnout (but before discarding the burnt-out stage)

He then points out that it's not permissible to aggregate the stages and evaluate the equation once. You are obliged to take it stage by stage, and this is his result:

STAGE 2
----------
W_i = 1020+280+80
        = 1380
W_f = 1380 - 530 (weight of the burned fuel)
        = 850

dV = 32.2 x 220 x ln(1380/850)
        = 7084 x 0.482
        = 3,414 ft/sec

STAGE 3
------------
W_i = 280+80
        = 360
W_f = 360 - 140 (weight of the burned fuel)
        = 220

dV = 32.2 x 235 x ln(360/220)
        = 7567 x 0.492
        = 3,723 ft/sec

STAGE 4
-----------
W_i = 80
W_f = 80 - 48.5 (weight of the burned fuel)
        = 31.5

dV = 32.2 x 235 x ln(80/31.5)
        = 7567 x 0.932
        = 7,052 ft/sec

TOTAL delta-V
---------------------
3414 + 3723 + 7052 = 14,189 ft/sec

An additional 600 ft/sec represents 4.2% over-performance.

There is no need to resort to an anti-gravity field to account for this. Hoagland's entire thesis is therefore falsified. Cheers.

There's another, possibly simpler, way of looking at this. Since the parameters of the elliptical orbit are precisely known, the orbit velocity can be calculated from a reliable equation. Deduct the burnout velocity of the first stage -- also known, but with less precision -- and what's left is the dV of the solid upper stages. Calculations done this way were offered to the "Dark Mission" blog, but blocked. Hoagland and Bara accept nothing that challenges their ridiculous and misguided ideas.

Richard Hoagland writes that the solid upper stages of the Juno 1 rocket that launched Explorer 1 only contributed 3,520 ft/sec of the total orbital injection velocity. Well, let's see now...

DATA:
Planned orbit 220 x 1,000 miles (352 x 1,600 kM)
Actual orbit 223 x 1,592 miles (357 x 2,547 kM)
Radius of Earth 6,375 kM
Gravitational constant, µ, of Earth 398,660 kM³/s²
Cut-off velocity of Jupiter-C rocket (Juno's liquid first stage) 9,020 mph = 13,229 ft/sec [1]

CALCULATION:
semi-major axis of actual orbit, L_smaj, (357+6375+6375+2547)/2 = 7827 kM
distance from center of Earth to orbit point, R, 6375+357 = 6732 kM

velocity at orbit injection, V_orb = √(µ(2/R - 1/L_smaj)) [2]
2/R - 1/L_smaj = 0.000169
V_orb = √67.493 = 8.215 kM/sec = 27,111 ft/sec (actually only 2.5% greater than planned)
less the velocity achieved by the first stage: 13,229 ft/sec

Ladies and gentlemen, get out your calculators! In about 3 seonds you will falsify Hoagland's entire theory.

[1] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jupiter.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_velocity

There's a small discrepancy between the two calculations, to be sure -- due to uncertainty about the velocity at first-stage burnout, perhaps.

Other factors that would be considered in a really accurate calculation:
* Correction to the value of g as the rocket ascends away from Earth -- a small positive vertical increment
* Boost given by rotation of Earth -- separately calculated as 1100 ft/sec horizontal
* Gravity drag -- perhaps negative 1000 ft/sec vertical

However, the discrepancy is nothing to compare with the difference between 14,000 and 3,520.

Hoagland's new crackpot theory defeated by his lousy math

The latest buffoonery from Richard Hoagland is a treatise in three laborious parts on an anti-gravity field allegedly discovered at the launch of Explorer 1 fifty years ago, and then kept secret until now. Mike Bara posted on the topic recently, somewhat lamenting the fact that, in an error-filled four-hour marathon on "Coast to Coast AM", Hoagland had pre-empted their plan to reveal this deep-dark-secret in a future edition of "Dark Mission". My response was censored and not permitted to appear:

>>Oh well. It is truly amazing stuff. You guys' heads will explode.<<

Explode with laughter, possibly. Hardly for Hoagland's logic or for his mathematical skill.

Turning first to his logic, what he alleges happened to the Explorer and Vanguard series must obviously have also happened to any spin-stabilised satellite launch. Now, I don't exactly know how many spin-stabilised satellites have been launched in the last 50 years, but it's a lot. Hoagland wants us to believe that an important factor affecting the final orbit insertion velocity of these satellites remained unknown to the engineers whose responsibility it was to calculate rocket ascent profiles. Unknown because it was declared secret "at the highest levels of government".

I say.... Nonsense.

Now to the math.

The equation Hoagland presents for deriving dV, the velocity added to the rocket by stages 2,3,4, in ft/sec, is as follows:

dV = -g*ISP*ln(1- W_p/W_i)

where

g = accel. due to gravity (ft sec^-2)
ISP = specific impulse (sec)
W_p = weight of propellant burnt (lb)
W_i = initial weight of vehicle (lb)

He then inserts figures to get:

dV = -32.2 x 228 x (662lb/1380lb) = 3520 ft/sec

If I were his mathematics tutor, I'd give him an F for that.
By his own figures, from the Smithsonian, total weight of the three stages = 1020 + 280 + 80 = 1380, correct
Empty weight = 490 + 140 + 31.5 = 661.5
Therefore weight of propellant burnt = 1380 - 661.5 = 718.5, NOT 662.

If we accept his equation, the value of dV is 5389, not 3520. Hoagland appears to have forgotten to derive the natural logarithm.
[calculations re-done correctly in aug 25th post on this blog]

Maybe you guys should think again about using this garbage in a future edition of "Dark Mission".

If Hoagland/Bara do decide to publish this stuff, despite the elementary mathematical errors, it's a safe bet the publisher, Adam Parfrey, won't notice. He doesn't understand simple everyday logic, certainly not complicated stuff like arithmetic.

In his radio appearance Hoagland triumphantly declared victory over his critics, noting that none of them has e-mailed messages along the lines of "Hoagland Blows It Again". Richard, you may now eat them words.

Hoagland & Bara wrong as usual

The destruction, last February 21st, of the crippled military satellite USA193, was the occasion for more errors by H&B. Ever alert for the appearance of what they call the "ritual numbers" 19.5 and 33 in space affairs, Mike Bara posted on that day a totally erroneous claim that the navy ship that launched the fatal missile was at 19.5°N latitude, as was Sec. Def. Robert Gates when he made the announcement that the mission was going ahead. Similar erroneous material appeared on Hoagland's unreadable web site. As I pointed out at the time, the exact location of the ship was not known but it was announced as north of Hawaii, and therefore above 22°13'. Gates was in Honolulu, at 21°18'. Overall control of the operation was from Omaha, at 41°15' N.

A commenter on the official "Dark Mission" blog returned to this topic on August 10th, posting links to some new comments (also some not-so-new, like James Oberg's analysis in "Spectrum"). My additional comment was, of course, censored and not permitted to appear on the blog.

LEST WE FORGET:

Richard Hoagland, commenting on the destruction of USA193 on 'Coast to Coast AM' stated that he was sceptical, because the Columbia space shuttle contained more hydrazine than the spy satellite when it disintegrated, and no concern about toxicity was expressed at that time.

This, of course, was completely wrong on both counts. A typical performance from the program's so-called 'science advisor' who makes errors every time he appears on that wretched radio show. Its producers are evidently too clueless to know the difference between a scientist and a buffoon.

Another "stunning confirmation"?

        Undoubtedly Richard Hoagland's favorite adjective is "stunning", and one of his very favorite uses of it is in the phrase "In a stunning confirmation of [insert one of his crackpot theories], newly published results... bla bla bla".

        A classic example was the 25th June post on the darkmission blog, headed "New Study Confirms More Aspects of Mars Tidal Model". This referred to computer modelling at UC Santa Cruz, suggesting that historically Mars suffered a colossal impact with an asteroid about half the size of the moon. Mike Bara claimed confirmation of the so-called "tidal model" despite the fact that:

• The collision was in the opposite hemisphere
• It happened, according to the computer model, 4 billion years ago, cf. 65 million for the tidal theory
• It was a single object, whereas the tidal theory involves "splattering" of the southern hemisphere by the products of a planetary explosion.

        Mike Bara did, in fact, allow a blog-comment along those lines, responding with his usual substitute for rational argument -- "You're an idiot".

        Now comes the latest of these hilariously false claims: "New Research Reinforces Key Aspects of Hyperdimensional Physics", posted on 6th August. The peg was a paper in a journal of the Astronomical Society of Australia suggesting a spin-orbit coupling between the sun and the giant planets, accounting for some features of the sunspot cycle.

        Bara wrote that this is "a flat-out, indisputable confirmation of the Hoagland\Torun Hyperdimensional Physics model", although, of course, it is nothing of the kind. He also wrote that, at solar max, " sunspots, solar flares and coronal mass ejections, ... tend to cluster around the tetrahedral 19.5° latitude".

The following blog-comment was censored, and not allowed to appear:

From the wikipedia article on Spörer's Law: "At the start of a sunspot cycle, sunspots tend to appear around 30° to 45° latitude on the Sun's surface. As the cycle progresses, sunspots appear at lower and lower latitudes, until they average 15° at solar maximum. The average latitude of sunspots then continues to drift lower, down to about 7° and then while the old sunspot cycle fades, sunspots of the new cycle start appearing at high latitudes."

 19.5° is, as usual, in Hoagland's imagination only.

Testimony of the 12 moonwalkers (updated)

        Very little has been heard from the 12 moonwalkers in response to Richard Hoagland's unsupported and plainly ridiculous assertions about artifacts of dead lunar civilizations, vast glass structures, and other such flim-flam. Hoagland, of course, claims -- again with no evidence whatsoever -- that they've been deliberately deprived of their memories (he doesn't say HOW). The truth is that they have nothing to say since most of the Apollo astronauts haven't even heard of Richard Hoagland, who has no reputation at all in the world of lunar science. It's a safe bet that none of them has heard of Mike Bara, who is also devoid of reputation in any field that matters.

        There are a couple of exceptions, however. Buzz Aldrin knows who Hoagland is, and once devoted some of his valuable time explaining to a group of reporters that Hoagland's ideas are hogwash. Ed Mitchell once went so far as to agree to appear on 'Coast to Coast AM' with Hoagland and listen to Hoagland's reasons for believing in the vast glass domes. To nobody's surprise, Mitchell listened and then dismissed the idea as "green cheese and baloney".

        Ed's been in the news this week because he flatly asserted that UFOs (or at least some of them) really are intelligent alien visitors, that the US Govt knows it and has been covering it up. That should not be news -- he said the same thing to George Noory on 'Coast to Coast AM' in September 07 (Noory replayed that interview last night, 25/26 July).

        However, Mike Bara treated it as though it was news and posted on it July 24th, together with a link to a transcript of the twelve-year-old so-called Hoagland/Mitchell "debate". Fighting back the nausea, I re-read that transcript and posted four comments to the darkmission blog. Mike Bara added a few insults, as he usually does in lieu of reasoned rebuttal, and then exercised his privilege as moderator to suppress any further discussion. The full dialog was as follows:

EXPAT: Several points occur to me on re-reading that so-called "debate". I won't expound on all of them, just the most important.

1. Art Bell was a dismally poor moderator, permitting Hoagland to interrupt on numerous occasions and generally dominate the conversation.

BARA: Since it was Hoagland’s data that was the subject of the debate, his responses obviously were more extensive.

EXPAT: 2. In segment 2, Mitchell made the good point that there were "dozens" of photo-panoramas like the one Hoagland considers anomalous, and that to be at all rigorous all of them should be examined. Hoagland replies "We have two or three of those pans right now, but we don't have all of them, but we want all of them and want to do the same thing." OK -- 12 years later, I'd love to know what the result of that research has been, but I strongly doubt I'm going to find out.

BARA: The only pans that were in question were the first generation prints that Ken Johnston had. There were not “dozens” of pans on Apollo 14, and not all the missions landed in areas where there might be such ruins. What we do know is the same structures are evident on NASA’s newly published versions of these same pans, although in a degraded form, putting the lie to the idea that the ruins are a product of our enhancement processes.

EXPAT: 3. In segment 4, Hoagland's mind-boggling dishonesty strikes me, as he partially quotes from the Space Act "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." It drew a response from Mitchell that I'm sure Hoagland relished. "I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language." But of course, if Hoagland had been at all honest he would have completed the clause with "....for the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 35 of the US Code". As we have discussed on this blog previously, Title 35 is exclusively concerned with patent law, and Chapter 7 concerns patent applications by employees. This legal language emphatically does not mean that NASA is "a direct adjunct of DoD", and the book ("Dark Mission") should be corrected. In particular, the very first sentence in the book should be struck. It's a lie.

BARA: It’s not a lie, you’re an idiot. As we’ve discussed before, this specific language gives NASA and the DOD carte blanche to classify any “discoveries” made by NASA. They do not have to be patentable.

EXPAT: Of course they do, if they're covered by this clause. How many times do I have to type these words? TITLE 35 IS EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH PATENTS. Chapter 17 (sorry, 17 not 7) can be read here:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/35C17.txt. I direct your attention to Sect. 181 in particular. All readers of this blog will, I think, understand the point.

Notwithstanding this, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if you are correct in writing that NASA has other ways of classifying anything it chooses. That does not make it a "direct adjunct of DoD", neither does it mean that "The NASA we have known for 50 years has been a lie". If Richard Hoagland was not aware of NASA's classified activities when he was consultant to CBS, he was negligent -- it's as simple as that.

BARA: The book will not be corrected, because it is correct as it is now written. Your inability to comprehend the meaning of the US Code does NOT make it a “lie” on our part.

And if Hoagland is so dishonest, why did he include the specific language you cite in the introduction to Dark Mission?

EXPAT: He was totally dishonest in the context of the Mitchell "debate", a hair less so in the Intro to "Dark Mission". The Intro nevertheless contains quite enough distortions and outright lies.

BARA: You remind me of one of my favorite U2 lyrics "It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else."

EXPAT: 4. In segment 2, Hoagland makes the astonishing suggestion that some in NASA management were aware of the mile-high glass domes. He says "Well, maybe you didn't [know about them], but maybe the guys that sent you there and picked the landing sites did." Just think about that. He's saying that mission planners were aware of a mile-high physical hazard in the vicinity of the landing site AND SAID NOTHING TO THE CREW??? That's so utterly preposterous, revealing such utter ignorance of mission planning, that if I were Art Bell I'd have concluded the discussion right there and said "Go to bed, Richard. We'll call if we ever need your opinions again."

BARA: Again, all you prove here is what a fool you are and how desperate you are to try and “catch” us at something.

He’s not talking about the Mission planners. He’s talking about Farouk El-Baz. The Mission planners did not pick the landing sites. Dr. El-Baz did.

EXPAT: Is that why he used the plural word "guys"?

BARA: Given that we had consulted on all this with Marvin Czarnik, a 35 year NASA veteran and mission planner, we were hardly “ignorant” of mission planning requirements.

EXPAT: I've never heard of Czarnik. Did he advise you that Apollo crews could be kept in ignorance of major hazards in the vicinity of their landing sites? If so, he's worthless.

BARA: ....But apparently you are.

EXPAT: Have you ever attended a NASA landing site review meeting? I have, although not for Apollo. I can personally assure you that hazards are a subject of discussion.