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"?

Hoagland on SiriusXM with Art Bell, last night

        As I noted in a comment yesterday, I'm not willing to subscribe to SiriusXM so I didn't hear the show. I combed through the 25-page discussion thread on BellGab, and gleaned a pretty good idea of what went on.

        The BellGab thread consists of comments and reactions from Art Bell fans as they listened to the show. What stands out a mile is that 100% of them think Art Bell is God, and 90% of them think Hoagland has no credibility whatsoever.One opinion was "Art's fine; I just object to Hoagland as a guest, ever. The man's a fraud" (Sardondi.)

The images that never got discussed

        A page of images was provided for listeners to follow along with.  I loved the captions to the Inaccutron images -- presumably written by RCH himself.

image credit: Richard C. Hoagland

CAPTION: Enterprise Mission Torsion Field measurements of the Annular Solar Eclipse, May 20, 2012. Contrary to ALL “current physics” expectations, just before “first contact” the modified Accutron tuning fork detector “went nuts” — exhibiting ranges of frequency deviation from the standard ~360 hertz vibration rate exceeding 1000%!
The theoretical explanation behind these “extraordinary frequency changes” — when the Accutron readings should have maintained a simple “flat line” throughout the entire Eclipse, according to all current Physics models — is currently under intense investigation.

MY COMMENT: There's a little note in red letters at the bottom: "Frequency decreases vertically in this display." Well, it clearly does not, since a down-spike is labeled as 361.61 Hz and an up-spike is labeled 326.25 Hz.  So Hoagland presents a data trace that is obviously mis-labeled, and in which all the potentially interesting parts go off-scale, and he calls this science??? As for " currently under intense investigation" -- yeah right. Intense since May 2012?

image credit: Richard C. Hoagland

CAPTION: Enterprise Mission Torsion Field measurements of the striking “Hyperdimensional Effect” on Earth from Venus “transiting the Sun” — June 8, 2004.
Note the striking asymmetry in the detector response — with ALL the sudden frequency deviations taking place as Venus “moved off the Sun” — in striking contrast to the “zero changes” that occurred when Venus began its Solar Transit, several hours before

MY COMMENT: Note the fact that the most pronounced frequency excursions happened when the transit was all over. Also that, once again, his data is off-scale and would be rejected at peer review. He has no right to comment on "zero changes" at the start of transit, since the sun had not risen at Coral Castle then. It did not rise until about an hour before third contact. This is junk.

        There was a third image -- the data from Teotihuacan 2009 -- but this was so badly botched that the caption was the same as the 2012 solar eclipse one.

        Reading the BellGab thread, it seems that Art Bell never got around to asking about these pathetic examples of Hoagland's incompetence. Perhaps it's just as well -- it's obvious that Art didn't give Hoagland the free ride that he's been used to from that rhetorical lightweight George Noory.

Update
        Commenter Dee has helpfully pointed me to a Youtube version of last night, which I've now (mostly) reviewed. I fell off my chair at this one:

00:58:01  "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data."

        I might say I'm sick to death of stupid Hoagland saying his critics won't look at the data because he won't look at the criticism.

        Regarding the Surveyor 6 images, which occupied most  of hour 1, I invite everyone to look at this image, which shows the original orientation of the "dome" picture. Hoagland, of course, didn't show it that way because it explains what we all see. Bear in mind that the image was transmitted as a vertical scan at very low bandwidth. THE DOME DOES NOT EXIST.

        And by the way, Image #1 in Hoagland's set absolutely does show contamination on his scanner glass. It's as plain as day.

Richard Hoagland's homework in the dog bowl again

        This week I thought it was time to tweak Hoagland again about his evasive replies or non-replies to scientific questions about his Accutron "experiments."^{note 1} Derek "binaryspellbook" Eunson has made an offer of professional peer review of Hoagland's data set, and been met with... nothing. I sent this:

=================^^^^==================

From: expat
To: RCH
Date: 9/9/13
Subj: Your published Accutron data

Greetings...

I've been reviewing your Accutron data and this is a summary:

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 1. Max. 364.474 Hz, but some off-scale when the event was over. Min. 360 Hz.

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 2. Max. 364.474 Hz. Min. 360 Hz.

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 3. Max. 366.782 Hz. (after the transit) Min. 360 Hz.

Dawn 4-22-09, Teotihuacan. Max. 465.192 Hz. Min. 360 Hz.

4-26-09, Tikal. Max. 949.586 Hz. Min. 14.531 Hz.

Solar eclipse 5-20-12, High Finance restaurant. Max. off-scale. Min. off-scale.

The following questions occur:

- For the Venus transit data, why would greater frequency excursions occur after the transit than during it? Does this not violate Bruce DePalma's theory?

- Why are the published traces incompatible?

- Why would the greatest frequency excursions of all happen at Tikal, when no eclipse or transit was in progress?

- Why do you show negative excursions for Tikal and Sandia, but none at Coral Castle and Teotihuacan?

- Do you consider the Sandia trace to have any scientific value in spite of the fact that all frequency excursions are off-scale?

- When do you plan to publish data from Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, the 2012 Venus transit, and Mauna Kea?

- What was the orientation of the tuning fork in relation to the spin axis, in all cases?

Thanks and regards,
[expat]

===============^^^^===================

 
From:RCH
To: expat
Date: 9/9/13
Subj: Your published Accutron data

This is why it is best to WAIT for the formally published paper on all this.

All these "mysteries" ultimately do have a scientific (and really neat!) explanation ....

As I told your friend Derek, it would be very useful for you to read the history of "Gravity Probe B."

Stay tuned.


RCH

=================^^^^==================

        As far as I'm concerned, that's just an updated version of "The dog ate my homework."  The chance of getting this sorry excuse for science data published in a proper journal is absolute zero. So the evasion continues...

Update June 2016
Two and a half years later, we're still waiting....

[1] New readers who have NFI what this is about can get a backgrounder here.

Ken Johnston, Thornton Page and Tsiolkovsky

        Ken^{note 1} was on "Coast" last night, plugging his application to be one of the first crew members on the "slow suicide" mission to Mars in 2022. Since he'll be 80 by then I don't reckon his chances much, but I wish him well. He lobbed a verbal grenade in James Oberg's direction -- once he remembered Oberg's name, which took several seconds. It seems to be Down With Oberg week, what with that and snarking on this blog from Misti/Jaq. I doubt if JimO cares, but he's well able to riposte without any help from me.

        Ken trotted out his standard story about how he was once showing Apollo14 lunar backside pass film to Thornton Page and other miscellaneous scientists — some "meaningful looks" were exchanged, and they remarked on what looked like a manned base in Tsiolkovsky, complete with a flashing light. Which was later "covered up". Oh yeah. Just like those "glass skyscrapers" which were really crap on Hoagland's scanner.

        Here's the followup question a well-briefed host would have asked: "Very interesting, Ken. Now, the resolution of those Apollo images would have been -- what? 200m per pixel? Since that time Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has covered the entire Moon at 77m and most of it at 0.8m resolution, 200x better than what you saw that night. Have you checked the LRO image library to see if there's a manned base?" Do I need add that that's NOT what George Noory asked? I thought not.

Here's the link.


        By the way, at the time of Apollo 14 Tsiolkovsky was under serious consideration as a future landing site, despite being out of contact with Planet Earth (the plan was to do comms via a lunar satellite). So there would have been nothing unusual about Page et al. showing special interest.

        As for the "flashing light"... is he sure Page didn't have a laser pointer?

Update 1: I'm wrong
        The resolution of those images was most likely much better than 200m. See comment #7. It does remain true that the LRO images are the best, and certainly the most accessible.

        Also, if the frames were from the Topographic Camera, they would not have been in the form of a movie. So it's a mystery how a flashing light could have been seen. I sure wish Ken would respond to my e-mails.

Update 2: James Oberg sets the record straight
Partial transcript from last night:

24:15 GN: You’re a whistle-blower, aren’t you?

KJ: Well (laugh), you know, that’s funny. I don’t usually go on and look up myself, [but] a person said, you need to check this out, and I went and did google on a name, and up pops, um, (laugh) my old nemesis (laugh..draws breath) help me out here, will you? What’s his name? Um ..

GN: Give me a hint.

KJ: James Oberg

GN: OK. All right.

KJ: He always pops up again and starts chipping away at my credentials and my background, and things like that. You know, he never was … He and I used to sit in the same room talking stories about his Master’s thesis which was “Mass Media Indoctrination” having to do with space, and all. For some reason he’s the hatchet man, he’s trying his best to do a number on me, I just sorta blow it off and don’t pay any attention to it, 'cause the people themselves can filter through and find out what the truth is. 

JimO: Needless to say, there is NO 'Master's thesis in mass media indoctrination' I ever wrote, nor ever talked to anyone about. My MS degrees are in "Computational Methods in Astrodynamics for Space mission Planning" [applied mathematics], and "New Developments in Compiler Theory"  [computer sciences]

        The deets of the dispute over Johnston's credentials are still here, on the Unexplained Mysteries forum.

 ====================

[1] For newbies, this is who Ken Johnston is.

Mike Bara's "new scientific truths"

Today Mike Bara officially endorsed this statement:

"A new scientific truth does not win by convincing the skeptics and making them see the light, but rather because the skeptics eventually die."

A memorandum of Mike's candidates for new scientific truths...

1. Additional centrifugal  force due to Earth's faster rotation would "flatten us all like pancakes" (The Choice, p. 32.)

2. If the orbit of Mars was perfectly circular, Mars and Earth would remain at the same distance from each other for ever. (Explaining his error on p.34.)

3.   Newton's laws of motion only work if the object being measured doesn't rotate (The Choice, p. 60)

4. An annular eclipse happens when the Moon is unusually close to Earth (The Choice, p. 214.)

5. Nobody really knows much about the Moon (AAotM, p. 5.)

6. Lunar construction glass would be twice as strong as steel (AAotM, p. 51-2.)

7. The lunar craters Asada and Proclus A are in fact satellite dishes (AAotM, p. 108.)

8. Clouds look white in images of Earth in space because light comes off them faster. Oceans look dark because the light has to travel all the way to the ocean bed and back (AAotM, p. 125.)

9. There's a one mile square ziggurat at 174.31°E, 8.95°S on the Moon (AAotM, ch. 9.)

10. Oh, and there's also a gun emplacement, a beach house, a crane and a spaceship (ibid.)

I'd say the entire population of the planet would die before any of those became truthy.

An engineer accuses Hoagland & Bara

        Derek Eunson Ph.D., who comments here as binaryspellbook, believes in calling a spade a spade. Better still, a fucking spade, if the adjective seems appropriate. Derek totally shares my contempt for Hoagland's faulty mathematics and Bara's "insult as a substitute for rebuttal," and he laid into those two fawlty boys by e-mail this week. Nothing back from Bara or his sweetly passive manager, but a little fantasy back from Hoagland. Since both of them are keen to see this material disseminated as widely as possible, it's my pleasure to republish here, unedited except for one teensy copy-edit.

==========^^^===========

Subj: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: RCH, Mike Bara
Cc: Henrik Palmgren, Richard Dolan, Mike Bara Mgmt
From: derek james eunson 8/21/13

Dear Richard and Mike,

This is an open letter which will be plastered all over every piece of social media myself my colleagues, and our children can find. Isn't it truly amazing how many people you can reach on social media when you get teenagers and young adults involved. Don't you find it astonishing how our children have taken to such things.

Now on to the truth. I realize that this is something that both of you are unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, shall we press on regardless.

To document the bare faced lies you two bandits have been perpetrating over the years would require a ridiculous amount of time. However, since I actually have a real job as a real engineer I will have to cherry pick. And oh my, how big the cherry tree is.

Hoagland's preposterous lies about Von Braun and Explorer1 have been exposed because he couldn't even fill in the numbers and crank the handle on one of the most well known (and simple) rocket equations. I refer of course to the equation derived by K.Tsiolkovsky. Yet this utter garbage is still on his utterly shambolic 1990's style webpage after all these years. Even after multiple instances of Hoagland's atrocious mathematical skills being pointed out. The man has no shame. You couldn't even paint a red nose on this clown. His hubris knows no bounds.

The torsion waves Hoagland pretends to measure with a 40 year old wristwatch and a laptop computer don't exist. Even if they did exist Hoagland has done nothing to prove it. In fact his method is so far short of the scientific method that it is simply laughable. No baselines, no controls, no calibration and no fucking data. Hoagland even refuses to share his data with what he calls "complete strangers." This is what we real engineers and scientists do all the time you dimwit. It is called peer review.

Hoagland told us that comet Elenin was a spacecraft with a hyperdimensional shield generator on board. He attempted to prove this by faking yet another image. First by legitimately stacking frames and then using photoshop to manipulate the final image. True to form Hoagland refuses to tell anyone what frames and in what order he used them.

 He also told us that Elenin had a message for humanity sent from 13,000 years ago by our highly advanced ancestors the Shem Su Hor (the followers of Horus) who apparently had something important to tell us. I must have missed it. Although Hoagland tried to tell the world that the Arab spring was due to Elenin's influence.Yes he really did say all that stuff, and he calls himself a scientist. Stop laughing, he really did say that.

 Comet Elenin disintegrated, everyone with an interest in comets saw it. Hoagland lied about this too, and tried to show an earlier picture as "proof" that Elenin was still intact. He milked that one big time, before being caught rotten on Facebook by many critics. He was caught so rotten that he had to abandon his facebook account (although it still exists he hasn't posted there in well over a year) as he was being made a laughing stock. Not that he already wasn't.

The whole disgrace is catalogued in a wiki page dedicated to Hoagland's spunk-trumpetry.

Hoagland insists that the wiki page is invalid because NASA edits it and are out to get him. Yes he really did say that too. Fucking clownhat.

Mikey boy Bara is simply a thoroughly disagreeable little man. He has no flair for mathematics, lies uncontrollably, and likes to refer to his critics as homosexuals or douchebags. Unless you are female in which case he will ask you not to reproduce because you are too ugly.
I will simply refer you to this rational-wiki page dedicated to the one and only Mike 'Homophobe' Bara.

DJE

 ==========^^^===========

From: RCH
Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: ....


Derek,

Now, now ... temper ... temper ....             :)

And please ... DO post this as far and wide as possible -- gratuitous obscenities included (of course)!

It will ONLY drive more folks to read what you (literally) are "raving about" ... and, to find out what we ACTUALLY have said (and written) ....

And, thanks to YOU, to finally "open their eyes."


 RCH

==========^^^===========

Subj: Lunar anomalies, lies, and disgraceful mendacity.
To: RCH, Mike Bara
Cc: Henrik Palmgren, Richard Dolan, Mike Bara Mgmt
From: derek james eunson
Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:46 PM 

Hi Richard 

Obscenities are a favourite of your former co-author. I have the screenshots to prove it. Mikey boy likes to call female critics "cunts."

Both you and I know this is unacceptable as a man. We may have our differences Richard, but you will agree that speaking to a lassie in such terms is not the actions of a man. Bara would do well to stick with the rudimentary grunts and gestures he was obviously taught as a fledgling.

Moving on. Please respond to specifics. For example Von Braun's secret. You can't, can you. Because you have been proved wrong. Big time. 

Yes the teenagers have been unleashed. Bad for you mate,  good for the sheeple rednecks you plan to fleece.

Please delete the thoroughly discredited Von Braun's secret. It makes a respected scientist like yourself look like a tit.

Oh and can you please state what units torsion waves are measured in. And hows about some data for we real engineers to discredit. 

You know, baselines and stuff like that. Bring it on man, you v me on C2C. You can make it happen. But Noory must not be allowed to moderate since he is under your spell, and therefore biased as well as a dunce.

Kindest Regards
DJE.

==========^^^===========

Editorial comment:
        I can't imagine what Hoagland means by "what we ACTUALLY have said (and written)". Does he think there's SOME OTHER VERSION of Von Braun's Secret that does not contain unpardonable errors? Does he think all his writings about the Inaccutron will magically yield some actual science, if you just look hard enough? I don't think that's how it works, Richard. I join with Dr. Eunson in asking you to retract. Demanding it, actually.

Mike Bara gets lost following a link

        In e-mail last week, I was taking issue with Richard Hoagland & Mike Bara, this time over the Apollo 10 Lunar Module, "Snoopy." In May 1969, just two months before the Apollo 11 triumph, Snoopy paved the way with a brilliant dress rehearsal, separating from the Command Module and flying within 16 km of the lunar surface before backing off.

        On p. 280 of Dark Mission, discussing the Apollo 10 mission, Hoagland & Bara wrote:

"While the spacecraft was theoretically fully capable of landing on the moon, inexplicably, it was not given the capability to do so."

        There is, in fact, nothing inexplicable about this. Snoopy was too heavy -- or, to be strictly accurate, would have been too heavy if it had been fully fueled.

        The purpose of  my argumentative e-mail was to point that out, and I included a link to the online  version of the Apollo 10 Press Kit. On p. 44 the dry weight of Snoopy is listed as 9,484 lb—almost 200lb heavier than Eagle, the eventual lander.


http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a410/A10_PressKit.pdf

        By some feat of misadventure, Mike only followed a partial link, and got a surprise.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a410/A10_

        Mike sent me the screen capture above, with the sarcastic message "Gee, when I click on your link, I get the attached warning from NASA to the effect that this information can only be accessed from inside a NASA facility. That must be where you found this link.  So how long have you worked at NASA?"

        How do I know he followed an incomplete link? Easy—I can see it in his browser tab, and when I follow the same link I get exactly the same warning message that he does. Thus proving that I'm not on a NASA network.

NASA Pride
        I might add that if I did work for NASA it would be a matter of pride, and not something I would be diffident about revealing. Not at all. The notion that everyone in NASA, and everyone funded by NASA, is corrupt and deceptive is one of the most toxic aspects of the Hoagland/Bara thesis. They should be ashamed.