Hoagland = lose

By Phil Plait | December 17, 2007 12:12 pm

Richard Hoagland, perhaps long ago sensing failure in his "Face on Mars" scheme, started downplaying it in favor of the ridiculous (and easily debunked) "City" on Mars, which then led to his totally over-the-top dumbosity of hyperdimensional physics. All of this, of course, fits (although "jammed-in-to-make-it-fit" would describe it better) into his over-blown conspiracy theory that NASA is Doing Nefarious Things.

RCH’s latest silliness is a book called Dark Mission. In the book, he and his cohort Mike Bara are making the same tired and painfully silly claims that NASA is hiding evidence of alien bases on the Moon, artifacts on Mars, conspiracies that go All The Way To The Top, yadda yadda. He also has a website describing it. Now, if I were to make a website to promote a book, I would take some of the best bits of the book and put them on the site.

Well, if the stuff on the site indeed represents the best examples from the book, I have to assume the rest of the book should have a toxic waste warning. It’s so profoundly goofy that it’s difficult to know where to start. Happily, Hoagland and Bara give me an excellent place to start debunking their goofiness: right on the very first page of the site.

If you go to the Dark Mission website (WARNING: extreme danger for brain cells!), the first image you see is this one:

This image shows astronaut Al Bean from Apollo 12 carrying the ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package). Hoagland cranked the contrast way up to show fainter features. See the pentagonal-shaped glow around Bean? On his website, Hoagland claims that this is actually "a massive tier of ‘glass-like ruins’", indicating — in his mind — that there is evidence of alien artifacts on the Moon. Bara makes this same ridiculous claim elsewhere.

Ignoring for a moment the overwhelmingly obvious problem of being able to see the lines of the pentagon in front of the astronaut — how massive can it be, if it’s between Bean and Pete Conrad (who took the picture)? — and also ignoring the obvious problem that this claim is bug-nut crazy, there is maybe a simple explanation.

The Hasselblad cameras used on Apollo had an iris inside, much like the one in your eye. It can open and close an aperture to let in more or less light. Guess what shape that aperture was? Yup: pentagonal.

That’s no glass ruin. It’s an internal reflection, inside the camera itself.

Mind you, this is the very first picture on Hoagland and Bara’s Dark Mission website. This gives you an idea of just how ridiculous this stuff is. They literally can’t even get the first thing right.

Note added December 18: Some commenters below have noted that in the book, it’s the vertical streamers in the background of the image that Hoagland and Bara cite as evidence for structures on the Moon (and also they do say the pentagon is an internal reflection). That is not at all clear from the page on RCH’s site to which I link, but that’s fine: the streamers are no more evidence of a structure than the pentagon is. Think of it: any structure bigger than a few hundred meters across is easily visible in a telescope, and it escapes me how a giant structure miles across would not have been seen hundreds of years ago by eager astronomers. Oh wait, it doesn’t escape me: Hoagland and Bara are wrong, and are amplifying defects in the images well beyond what is reasonable. This is their standard MO for such things. I stand corrected on the pentagon, but I still say they are dead wrong on just about everything else. And as I note near the bottom of this page; Hoagland is capable of actual image analysis when it suits his cause, but then turns around and does the most ridiculous image manipulation when it suits him as well. I leave it to the reader to draw their conclusions about him from that.

I could go on (and on and on and on), but why bother? Hoagland and Bara, as usual, never come within a glancing blow of reality. Going through the website (gah, the things I do for you BABloggees) is a seemingly endless mind-numbing journey through antiscience claptrap and truly awful claims. Not that I need to tell anyone here, but reading it is likely to melt your brain. You’d be closer to reality watching a few hours of Jerry Springer.

Did you know Hoagland and Bara actually held a press conference for the book? According to Dwayne Day at The Space Review, not only was it a flop, but it showed just how egregious these guys are. You should read Dwayne’s article; it’s great for a schadenfreude laugh or three.

I’m quite sure Hoagland and Bara will do a tour, going to UFO conventions and psychic fares to peddle their bunkum, just as I am quite sure there will be an eager audience lapping it up. Nonsense never ends, my friends. Happily, though, the truth really is out there.

Comments (99)

  1. Duane

    If the guy was a bit more, well, creative, he could have been the next Bradbury. Why he didn’t channel his energies to fiction is beyond me. Perhaps he knows he doesn’t have the talent….

  2. Michelle

    These glass ruins are great. Afterall, they defy physics so much you can see them right through the astronauts and the moon.

    Sigh.

  3. Michelle

    Hey, okay, I just clicked on the link. You know, would it have been THAT HARD to, I don’t know, put all the images on one page? It’s frickin’ annoying to always have to click on the images to see one line in giganormous text and one picture they have a paranoid streak about.

    They need a website designer. That wouldn’t make their claims better but at least it would leave my fingers alone. Not only do they fail at reality but they also fail at the internet.

  4. Isn’t it Hoagland that started the Moon Landing Hoax thingy ?

    If so, why is he saying the we actually went to the moon to take this picture of that mysterious crystal structure?

  5. Sergeant Zim

    Yeah, Michelle, but they are SOOOOOO good at spinning conspiracy theories. Hoagland is claiming that JFK was assassinated to keep the coverup covered up.

    If I were into illegal substances, I’d want some of whatever Hoagland is smoking…

  6. Michelle

    Phil: Nope, wrong guy. Hoagland always said we went to the moon.

  7. tacitus

    If the guy was a bit more, well, creative, he could have been the next Bradbury. Why he didn’t channel his energies to fiction is beyond me. Perhaps he knows he doesn’t have the talent….

    The sad thing is, “reality fiction” usually pays much better than regular fiction. Unless you are a very successful author, there is little chance of making a good living out of writing fiction, but if you claim your fiction as fact, I’m sure you can make a pretty good living from speaking engagements at conventions and book tours, especially if you are tapping into an industry that is already thriving.

    Becoming the next Ray Bradbury is hard, duping the paying public is a much easier way to make a living.

  8. Sili

    First of all I have to admit how ashamed I am, that the names of those astronauts rang absolutely no bells. Just goes to show how uninformed I am.

    Thank you for the explanation. When I first saw the image, I though it was an artifact of the astronaut’s relative brightness. At a first glance, only the top three sides of the pentagon are obvious and they’re superficially parallel to that big thing on the back of the suit. Good thing I don’t know any moon-hoaxers so I had a chance to spread my wrong explanation (I do know a YEC, but I’m collecting lossa good posts/links and that subject to help me the day I get an opportunity to challenge them on it).

    The last silly poll from Irregular Webcomic is very apropos.

  9. tacitus

    I still remember hearing Hoagland telling Art Bell that NASA would soon announce that they had lost contact with the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft en route to Mars because they did not want the public to see close up photographs of the Face of Mars, and to know the “truth”.

    Well, we all know how that went, don’t we?

  10. Val

    I wish there really were cities on the moon. Maybe then space would be more interesting to more people.

  11. Quiet_Desperation

    One test would be to write a fictional novel using these ideas. They can’t sue, right? It supposed to be facts and the way the world is, right? So it’s fair game for a novel. You can’t copyright reality. SO what would they do? They’d have to admit in court that the whole thing was their imaginary creation.

  12. Michael

    It always astonishes me when the people who claim that some photograph is either faked to cover up something, or are not faked and prove something else (make your pick) are also the ones who seem to have the least knowledge of photography. That’s like claiming the world land speed record was faked, based on the experience of driving a tricycle.

    Or maybe it does _not_ astonish me…

  13. Quiet_Desperation

    I wish there really were cities on the moon. Maybe then space would be more interesting to more people.

    I feel your pain. When all we had were the fuzzy Viking images, I was skeptical, but held off any real judgment until better images were taken. I have to admit I did *hope* something turned out to be artificial.

    All we can do now is hope some of the current images show some sort of biological activity.

    Look! Trees on Mars! :-)

    http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/full_jpg_non_map/E07/E0700860.jpg

    Of have fun with the dreaded South Polar Ring Anomaly!

    http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/full_jpg_non_map/E14/E1401276.jpg

  14. > “being able to see the lines of the pentagon in front of the astronaut”

    Photographic overexposure bleed? ;)

    Just kidding, Doctor. Hoagland is… wow. “I CAN UNCOVER THE CONSPIRACY THROUGH THE USE OF PHOTOSHOP FILTERS!” Ah well… we already know that people wedded to their ideas refuse to see reality.

    So, yes, Hoagland is epic fail.

    Which gets me thinking…

    LOLnuts?

    Oooh, now I can’t wait to get home to my Photoshop. >:D

  15. Hangar

    “In the book, he and his cohort Mike Bara…”

    cohort n. Tenth part of Roman LEGION; (in pl., rhet.) troops; league or band of. [F or L]

    I know “cohort” gets pretty widely used these days but using it to describe one person is a bit silly, don’t you think?

    Yours pedantically.

  16. andy

    …and there I was thinking Photoshop was used to put tacky lens flares in images, when really it’s there to turn lens flares into giant glass edifices. My bad.

  17. Ad Hominid

    On another front in the GWOF (Global War on Foolishness), the Dallas Morning News has a very good article on the upcoming showdown with creationists:

    Teaching of evolution set to go under microscope

    It includes this telling quote from arch-huckster Don McLeroy:

    “I’m a Christian, and I think about how this impacts everything,” Dr. McLeroy said. “Religion is not just something you put on the side. It’s everything. I see us all created in the image of God. I don’t believe nature is all there is.”

    Out the other sides of their collective mouth, of course, the creationists are claiming that ID is not about religion at all.

  18. [click] [click] [click] Damn, that’s a few zillion synapses I’ll never get back.

    Anyway, see those grainy vertical lines in the image? Squint really hard; they’re really this image, of course. I wonder how Hoagland missed those!

  19. Gareth (bujin)

    Well, since the site is full of pseudoscience crap and everyone’s already covered that, I’ll just say this:

    OMG!!!! He’s even using FRAMES on his website! How 1997!!!

    ;o)

  20. Edward C

    Did the Mars Explorers go to the “face”?

  21. Michael Lonergan

    I must say that I am extremely disappointed with the BA. To challenge the credibility of a man with the experience, knowledge and integrity of Richard Hoagland is beyond understanding. After all, this man was a science adviser to Walter Cronkite! Doesn’t that mean anything!

  22. tacitus

    Don’t forget the Angstrom Medal, too!

  23. CleveDan

    Phil,
    next time Richard H. is on coast to coast am………you need to stay up late with your friends…..have a few beers and call in to the show and ruin some of his foolishness

  24. Dan

    So that’s what an invisible barrier looks like?

  25. Troy

    A recent article in Skeptical Inquirer mentions that by mentioning a spurious fact by name, such as “Saddam Hussein was the cause of the 9/11 attacks”, even if you’re discounting a statement or disproving an erroneous factoid, it tends to ingrain itself in people’s minds. Just a heads up to the fact that by mentioning Hoagland again and again you may well be some of the secret of his success.

  26. eddie

    *Phil,
    next time Richard H. is on coast to coast am………you need to stay up late with your friends…..have a few beers and call in to the show and ruin some of his foolishness*

    The good doctor’s been there and done that already. But there is no keeping RCH’s foolishness down. Logic just ain’t his game.

  27. Joff

    Far be it for me to defend Hoagland (he’s as daft as they come), but the structure around Bean is *not* what he’s talking about. In the book the caption with this image says, “Bean is surrounded by vertical ‘stringers’ supporting studded remains of glass-like lunar ruins. Hexagonal halo around Bean is Hasselblad camera internal lens flare.” He’s talking about the structure he perceives in the black in the top half of the image, not the structure immediately around Bean.

  28. DLC

    For Hangar: you found one of seven definitions of cohort.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cohort

    For Joff : The web page does not include that caption.
    it does show a closeup of “A city of light”
    which is nothing but a Hoagland-induced visual phenomenon.
    If any publicly available photo editor program would produce similar effects if you simply click the right combination of buttons.

  29. Snoober

    In all fairness to Hoagland – and the criticisms in this post and the messages following it, in “Dark Mission” (color insert #7) he does describe the halo effect around Bean as an internal lens flare. Don’t want to get flamed here – it’s just (as much as I may agree with you on most things) – you are pretty wrong on this one. Not that there’s evidence of alien ruins or intentional faking on/of the image – just that you are citing improper sources and riding Hoagland’s already ill-repute to drive another nail into his coffin. In the first image you cite the description has nothing to do with the halo around the astronaut but more with the pattern that may be in the sky around him. The second link you use has nothing to do with the above image. I love the debate – that’s about the only reason I keep visiting a variety of forums, but make sure next time that you use better arguments than the people that you’re going up against. Don’t use their tactics (that includes you too RH) and you’ll make a better impression to those of us that try to read both sides of a controversial story. And really, why ride on somebody ’cause they have a crappy web-site design or use frames? It’s supposed to be about the message right?

    -S

  30. John

    I bet the Chinese are going to cover this up as well. They wouldn’t want NASA to look stupid, no way.

  31. tacitus

    Sorry Snoob, but there is no “Hoagland’s side” to the story. It’s not controversial in the slightest — he’s simply making the whole thing up.

    The only question left is whether he actually believes the junk he’s selling. I would tend to think he does, at least on some level, but I can’t be 100% sure about that.

  32. The Adept

    Phil Plait is just as dogmatic as the people at whom he wags his finger. I don’t defend Hoagland for a second, as his veneer and his shtick is so thin anyone can see through it. Phil Plait is FAR more insidious as he hides himself in the cloak of the new religion, SCIENCE. People like Phil never come up with innovations, because people like him only can mentally process the things directly in front of him, things that he can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Innovations come from the realm of pure thought, and that’s something you can’t see. The realm of pure thought, being the source of all activity, is driven by the unknown, and only pompous hucksters like Phil would be so arrogant as to think that all of creation was able to be comprehended by the likes of them. Phil’s tag line is perfect “I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way.” Does Phil even know what reality is? If so, I wish he would tell and win a few Nobel prizes while he’s at it.

  33. Wow. Axe to grind, much, Adept?

    I think Doctor Plait tends a bit towards the ideologue myself, but that’s just human nature and is easily forgivable. Basically saying he’s a head-in-the-mud wrecker of human progress, well, that’s decidedly a bit much. Skeptics serve an imporant role in complementing dreamers by maintaining a connection to reality, lest we all run around tying geese to baskets so they can fly us to the Moon.

  34. tacitus

    The realm of pure thought, being the source of all activity, is driven by the unknown

    Well, that’s a load of bunk. Thoughts are driven by the brain and its interaction with the world around us (i.e. our senses). It’s as simple as that. Just because we don’t understand the inner workings of the brain doesn’t mean we have to assign its operation to some sort of magical thinking.

    People like Phil never come up with innovations, because people like him only can mentally process the things directly in front of him, things that he can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste.

    More bunk, and the common cry of pseudoscientists everywhere. You forgot to accuse him of being closed-minded. Phil does not do scientific research. He is a communicator. He writes books for a living and communicates the wonderful world of astronomy to the public at large. What innovations is he supposed to come up with in his present job?

    If science wasn’t firmly rooted in reality then people would go off any waste years of time and billions of dollars on all kinds of flights of fancy. Hoagland and thousands of others want NASA to send a lander to the Face on Mars. Should scientists keep an open mind and consider investing colossal amounts of resources chasing some deluded dreams from people who barely know one end of a telescope form the other?

  35. > Should scientists keep an open mind and consider investing colossal amounts of resources chasing some deluded dreams from people who barely know one end of a telescope form the other?

    Of course! We need to find the end of the rainbow so we can catch the leprechaun and use his gold to pay for socialized healthcare and attack helicopters!

  36. Hoagland and Bara may not be correct about every conclusion that they make, but they are much closer to the truth than Phil Plait will ever be. Hoagland offered to do a live show with Phil Plait or any other critic, on Larry King or any other major venue. He would have utterly destroyed Plait. The bad astronomy website is the waste of webspace.

  37. Oh dear. I do believe we’re being boarded. *puts on his campaign hat* Stand by to repel boarders! Call up the Marines! Load the cannon with grapeshot and prepare a musket volley!

    BTW, hasn’t Hoagland, well, failed miserably in any debate venue he didn’t control utterly?

  38. tacitus

    Hoagland and Bara may not be correct about every conclusion that they make…

    Now that’s a major league understatement if I ever saw one! When have they ever been right? You do know that the very premise of Hoagland’s new book is based on a lie? The Brookings Report merely has a few vague speculations about what might happen if evidence of an advanced alien civilization is discovered–basically that some people might be a little upset–and yet time and again he claims this is the basis for a cover up that spans continents and decades. Utter nonsense.

    …but they are much closer to the truth than Phil Plait will ever be.

    Ah yes, the Face on Mars, the City in Cydonia, fossils in Gusev Crater, Pathfinder’s pyramids, hyperdimensional physics, the Iapetus Death Star, glass pyramids on the Moon, NASA conspiracies…

    Sooo much closer to the truth than all that pesky astronomy data reported in science and astronomy journals.

    That’s quite some storybook world you guys are living in.

  39. tacitus

    Ugh — messed up the formatting in the previous comment — the second quote should just be the first sentence.

    Does WordPress have a preview capability yet?

  40. Eyaj

    I think troy said it best, why even mentioned anything about hoagland period? I mean why does Phil even go through the website of hoagland,… for the bloggers? If a skeptics job is to keep us connected to reality (ala the centipede) is it necessary to dive into what is termed as fiction? Do we really need evil to experience good…come on now. Look does nasa comment on Hoagland, does it stop them from doing their jobs, why should it affect anyone elses sense of reality unless they want it to? There is a disticntion, between what we see as reality and what actually is, and nasa is no more able to capture that then any percieve crackpot. How can anyone claim to actually KNOW what reality is let alone say what it isn’t.

  41. The Adept

    From Tacitus “Well, that’s a load of bunk. Thoughts are driven by the brain and its interaction with the world around us (i.e. our senses). It’s as simple as that. Just because we don’t understand the inner workings of the brain doesn’t mean we have to assign its operation to some sort of magical thinking.”

    I say Unknown, you say magical thinking. Try it again . . . Unknown: meaning, you do not know, as in “Just because we don’t understand”. You exhibit the same pompous behavior as Phil Plait, you know what something is, you state it, and it’s as simple as that.

    You exist in linear space-time and all our materialized though takes place in a linear fashion. As such, it is impossible that you ‘Know’ many things, and can only approximate, speculate, and theorize. That you can launch satellites with approximations is a testament to how refined we’ve become in some areas, but it is not exact.

    All fields have room for innovation; it only requires an open mind and a willingness to proceed with fresh thinking. These are qualities Tacitus obviously lacks, so of course I can see how he defends lack of same in Phil.

    Most major discoveries occurred as visions that took effort to turn concrete; just refer to the work of Nicola Tesla, Alexander Bell, Neils Bohr, or Albert Einstein (just a few among a myriad).

    If Tacitus wants to “Know” bunk, he need only look in a mirror, as even his name sake; the Roman Senator Tacitus innovated in his oration.

  42. tacitus

    Eyaj,

    Well, to be fair, this web site is called “Bad Astronomy”, and if there is anything that Hoagland does well, it’s bad astronomy. I guess if he started another site called “Terrible Astronomy” or “Mind-Bogglingly Stupid Astronomy” then he could shift all that stuff from here to there!

  43. tacitus

    You exist in linear space-time and all our materialized though takes place in a linear fashion. As such, it is impossible that you ‘Know’ many things, and can only approximate, speculate, and theorize. That you can launch satellites with approximations is a testament to how refined we’ve become in some areas, but it is not exact.

    So far, so good. I agree with what you say here wholeheartedly.

    All fields have room for innovation; it only requires an open mind and a willingness to proceed with fresh thinking.

    I agree with this too. That is exactly how discoveries are made, though I would add that many new innovations and discoveries are driven through the desire to understand some prior finding that doesn’t quite add up, (e.g. the missing mass in the Universe and string theory).

    So, what’s the beef? Well, it’s in that slippery little phrase “keeping an open mind”. In scientific terms, it means being willing to listen to the ideas of other scientists in the field even if what they propose seems to be from out of left-field, especially in areas like cosmology where many of the big questions are as yet unanswered.

    What it doesn’t mean is that you’ve got to listen to every idea that amateur cranks like Hoagland (who has no training in the sciences at all) have to offer. It also doesn’t mean that you should leave your BS detector at the door.

    It never ceases to amaze me that so many of the legions of rank amateurs (of which I am one, BTW) believe that they have stumbled across some holy grail of physics, astronomy, or SETI that the pros, with their years of experience and work in the field have somehow singularly failed to notice. The thing about “Nicola Tesla, Alexander Bell, Neils Bohr, or Albert Einstein” is that they were real experts in their fields, real geniuses who studied hard and worked hard to come by the knowledge they used to make their breakthroughs. Comparing them with amateurs like Hoagland and Bara is simply ludicrous and an insult to their memory.

    I was once accused of being closed minded because I refused to believe that a baby could utter comprehensible words in “reverse speech” (another pseudoscience that has done the rounds on the Internet). I mean, am I supposed to really keep an open mind about the possibility that a child too young to speak a single word forwards can be speaking meaningful phrases if only we play a tape of their gurgling backwards?
    Come on.

    About 99.9% of science discoveries today are about nibbling away at the edges of the unknown — reducing the margin of error, additional confirmation of what we already thought to be the case given the mountains of evidence supporting it. The vast majority of scientists labor away in obscurity their whole careers in the hope that their work will make some small contribution to the vast array of knowledge we already possess. Paradigm-shifting discoveries are extremely rare, and may happen only a few times in a generation, and are built upon the back of work of those obscure thousands who came before. Even then, the major discoveries usually boil down to improving our approximation to reality (e.g. Einstein over Newton) and not overturning it. That is why Intelligent Design will fail. Evolution may still have some unanswered questions, but the evidence for it is simply too great, too compelling to be utterly wrong.

    Anyway, the point I am getting at is that the sort of open mind you need as a scientist is not the sort of open mind that will credulously consider the latest and greatest theories from the ranks of amateurs like Bara and Hoagland. Their lack of qualifications and dismal track record (and it’s hard to overestimate how dismal it’s been) simply disqualifies them from serious consideration. The are not innovators. They are cranks, pseudoscientists and muckrakers. What they do is an insult to the real scientists whose work they attack and impugn.

    It certainly is magical thinking to dream up a theory like “hyperdimensional physics” based on little more than some bizarre idea of numerology that’s so obviously wrong that even a child could see through it. In mean, they really think that NASA sets launch dates and times to align with 19.5 degrees of something or other because of hyperdimensional physics? Are we really supposed to be open minded about such things?

  44. The Adept writes:

    [[People like Phil never come up with innovations, because people like him only can mentally process the things directly in front of him, things that he can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. ]]

    The Bad Astronomy site is an innovation.

    And since Dr. Plait has an advanced degree in a physical science, I’d venture to guess he has at least a couple of papers in peer-reviewed science journals. To get into those journals you have to have something new to say.

  45. The Adept writes:

    [[You exist in linear space-time ]]

    Actually, we all exist in curved space-time. Just thought I’d mention that.

  46. The Adept

    Barton, you cannot see the curve . . . which just goes to show how far believing only your senses will get you. As for your assertion that space-time is curved, well, only on paper and in equations, which come from the realms of pure thought..and all you literalists out there (which seem to be legion) please don’t throw gravity lens effect in my face because that doesn’t prove space time is curved, it only proves gravity affects light/energy waves.

    Your assertion that space-time is curved as a hard correction to my metaphor that you think thoughts in linear succession is therefore flawed, especially when taken in the context of this conversation.

    I’ll give you points for Chutzpah though.

  47. From David Hudgins, above:

    Hoagland and Bara may not be correct about every conclusion that they make, but they are much closer to the truth than Phil Plait will ever be. Hoagland offered to do a live show with Phil Plait or any other critic, on Larry King or any other major venue. He would have utterly destroyed Plait. The bad astronomy website is the waste of webspace.

    Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh ha ha ha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oh, man! Nice one, Mr. Hudgins. At first I thought you were serious, but of course it’s entirely impossible that anyone who teaches an econ class could say things so utterly devoid of logic and analysis.

    You had me going there!

  48. The Adept

    And here is exactly the sort of character assassination that I was waiting for. Case closed.

  49. Incidentally, I have updated the entry about the pentagon shape and the streamers. I searched RCH’s and Bara’s sites, and it’s still not clear what they were talking about in that photo. The streamers aren’t mentioned (I searched on Bean, glass, ruin, ruins, pentagon) — so if it’s in the book, fine, but from the Dark Mission website, and their own websites, it appears as if they were talking about the pentagon. And as I said in the update, the streamers are most likely a simple defect in the film, as they both have a tendency — obsession, more like — to overmagnify and overcolor the images and claim every little thing in the image is a sign of alien ruins.

  50. Martin Blaise

    Just an additional note: The very first sentence of “Dark Mission” is “The NASA that we’ve known for over 50 years has been a lie”. That statement is itself a lie. Hoagland cites, in the Space Act of 1958, the phrase “[NASA] shall be considered a defense agency of the US for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the US Code….”. He then feels able to write that NASA is “a direct adjunct of the DoD”. Apparently he’s unable to read Title 35, which is exclusively concerned with policy in respect of patent applications by US government employees. All it means is that, whatever current DoD policy is in effect, NASA will also go along with.

  51. tacitus

    And here is exactly the sort of character assassination that I was waiting for. Case closed.

    Oh, come now. Pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

    I have addressed your argument twice now without attacking you personally (calling your argument bunk is not character assassination), yet you attacked me and not my argument in return.

    How about answering my last response to you?

    (And yes, I know the quoted comment was not aimed at me.)

  52. Hey maybe we haven’t gone back to the moon in more than 30 years because of the glass ruins: those darn things are so incredibly transparent the astronauts kept bumping into them.

  53. Oh man! If they’re going to play with Photoshop why don’t they do some better work on it?

    Oh wait… because that would be BLATANT fraud. Never mind.

  54. Wait!

    Hoggie’s onto something, and I’ve proved it!

  55. Rota

    I wouldn’t write Hoagland off just yet. This latest work won’t be remembered as his finest moment but I believe it all comes with the territory. With fame people tend to surround themselves with yes people. Well meaning people but maybe not the people who can help you make the best decisions.

    I think this adventure to the moon will be short lived and you’ll next see him back to Mars where he has some unfinished business. I predict his next effort will blow some socks off. He now has the information he needs to move the Cydonia face question to a whole new level.

  56. Martin Blaise

    You must mean, now that the “face” has been imaged at 0.3m resolution by the HiRISE camera, he’s going to cease his fantasies about nostrils and tear ducts?
    http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003234_2210

  57. Rota

    “You must mean, now that the “face” has been imaged at 0.3m resolution by the HiRISE camera, he’s going to cease his fantasies about nostrils and tear ducts?”

    Ah…..lets not go jump too far overboard here. The cycdonia face is sacred territory for many and I don’t see that happening. Its too easy to mess with those images so the debate is still open.

    Hoagland just needs some new and better images of other things to back up his claim that there are artifical structures built by an ancient civilization up there. What I had in mind is that Hoagland will take a look at images of other things on Mars that have recently been found that are much clearer, and cannot be debunked by you heathen naysayers as easily as the cydonia face. So yes, set the Cydonia face aside for the time being and and give the public some new things that they can think about.

  58. L Fuller

    “What I had in mind is that Hoagland will take a look at images of other things on Mars that have recently been found that are much clearer, and cannot be debunked by you heathen naysayers”

    Nothing comes to mind… so I rather doubt he has any more than he did before. :)

  59. “What I had in mind is that Hoagland will take a look at images of other things on Mars that have recently been found that are much clearer, and cannot be debunked by you heathen naysayers as easily as the cydonia face.”

    So more evidence of Late World War I French-built Renault tankettes in overcontrasted JPEG compression artifacts.

    I suppose we can’t debunk them so easily because we’ll be too busy laughing and possibly passing out from a mixture of humor and incredulity to offer a reasonable counterargument until someone posts a lolcat (or, maybe, a lolHoggie) with the caption “DIS R SEERIUS BIZNISS HERE.”

  60. Ed in CO

    I thought the best page on the site was a link entitled “Errata”. In it, it says:

    “All books contain some errors, and Dark Mission is no exception.”

    Of course, it just lists typos and grammar errors and such.

  61. Rota

    The Centipedeon 19 Dec 2007 at 2:46 pm
    “So more evidence of Late World War I French-built Renault tankettes in overcontrasted JPEG compression artifacts”.

    Actually I saw that picture somewhere a long time ago and was also a little underwhelmed by it. Just what kind of image from Mars would impress you? I get the feeling you are the type that could explain away anything presented to you that your mind couldn’t handle. Describe something and I’ll see if I can’t find it for you.

    .

  62. John Phillips

    Rota: simple, show me something in a high res image from any of the latest images taken by the newer cameras on and around Mars that are not the result of the imagination getting to work on crudely manipulated images and that can’t be explained by geological processes or similar. After all, that is all Hoagland seems to do, i.e. crudely manipulate the image and without actually understanding anything about photography or film emulsions or what happens when you push jpegs beyond their native resolution, or anything about science too apparently. BTW, I used to be a semi-pro photographer, both a taker and developer so understand very well about film and its processing as well as its limitations. People are very good at seeing patterns where there are none. Many have postulated that this is an evolutionary adaptation, i.e. better to react to a perceived danger in the undergrowth and worry later about whether you were right or wrong than to possibly miss a real danger. We see this all the time with all the images of Mary or Jesus people claim to see in this or that, i.e. pareidolia. Hoagland is no different except that he then devises a fantastical conspiracy to explain his examples of pareidolia.

    You know, I often wish we had a lie detector that really worked. Then we could put people like Hoagland on it and ask them whether they truly believed what they say or are they simply using it as an easy way to make money off the gullible. Hoagland I don’t know enough about to form an opinion one way or the other. But there are others who I am pretty sure are out and out crooks. In the sense that they have found a ready audience for the rubbish they knowingly spout but it makes them a sackload of money, is easier than working and they are not good eneough to make a living as genuine fiction writers.

  63. Michael Lonergan

    Tacitus,, do you honestly think Hoagland believes any of this stuff? There is no way! This is his shtick. It is all he knows how to do. He reminds me of a certain TV Evangelist that has a very scary hair-do, that loves to blow people over…..know that one? Claims God is healing through him. Yet cannot provide proof of even one healing. He knows he’s a fraud. Hoagland knows he’s a fraud. These type of people could not get a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart! Hoagland has not provided a shred of tangible evidence for his outrageous claims. And no, grainy, out of focus. blurred prints do not count.

    BA, Mr. Hudgins looks simply mahhhvalous in his fahbulous dahnce cohstume as well!

  64. Martin Blaise

    I don’t know whether Hoagland believes his own fantasies, but it’s obvious that his publisher thinks he does. In the reader reviews/comments section on amazon.com, the publisher Adam Parfrey writes:

    “I’ve spent a couple years now in contact with Hoagland and Bara, and I can vouch for their honesty in the search for the truth. ”

    That’s scary in a whole new way. In that same forum, five important factual errors in the book have been drawn to Parfrey’s attention. He has not responded other than to quip that “this is like arguing WMD with the Bush administration”. Sad, sad.

  65. Rota

    John Phillipson 20 Dec 2007 at 12:36 am
    “Rota: simple, show me something in a high res image from any of the latest images taken by the newer cameras on and around Mars that are not the result of the imagination getting to work on crudely manipulated images and that can’t be explained by geological processes or similar”.
    Actually I wouldn’t know how to seperate the newer images from the ilder images. The prob;em I have run into is I could show you a lot of images which are linked back to the original sources. Any naysayer then lumps all the images together and throws out some kind of heberic debunking like, “you put your own interpretaions on the images”.

    Now if the Cydonia Face can be judged on its own over many years then I expect each image I would present from mulitple sources…..Rover images and the Mars orbiters to be judged seperatly. Blanket debunking just rubs me the wrong way. Even I would not claim that every image I would present would be the real deal but others just might be. Are you the trustwprthy sort to give a fair and balanced seperate critic?

  66. And now we get to hear the bleat of the martyr.

    You got evidence? Fess it up and we’ll see if it sticks. If it’s just some more oddly shaped natural rocks, well, we’ve plenty of those here on good old Terra without any need for space probes or people with photoshop.

  67. Martin Blaise

    Rota: >”Its too easy to mess with those images so the debate is still open.”<

    OK then, debate me this: Are you saying that the University of Arizona might have faked the HiRISE image? If not, do you consider that there’s the slightest remaining possibility that this is not a natural landform?

  68. Derek

    I’m a little late on this thread but I do have one observation to make with regards to Hoagland’s image analysis. Anyone and I do mean ANYONE who takes a photograph of any kind taken anywhere and adjusts the exposure and contrast to the extremes will eventually find artifacts. Period. It’s not my opinion it is pure, easily tested, fact. I can and do get the exact same artifacts in astronomy images I take of every object in the sky. I get the same artifacts if I take an image in the dark. It’s called bias. Astrophotographers know about it and must take special exposures to remove it. Apparently everything, everywhere, is held up by crystals and wires. Neat.

    This image may not be an electronic exposure but for nearly every artifact in an electronic exposure there is an equivalent in a film exposure. In this case if it’s film then the way the grain was laid down, the way it was processed, the way it was scanned can all leave traces just like the artifacts on hoagland’s photo. No scientist or rational thinker anywhere would take one picture without controls and make extraordinary claims about it after adjusting the image to bring out artifacts on the very edge of the medium’s capabilities. If you do that then you are a huckster. It requires many exposures from different angles and in different conditions to make any reasonable guesses as to the reality of the claim. Are there other images that show the same artifacts in the same positions in the sky to help prove that the artifacts aren’t on the film? Doubt it.

    This won’t make any difference to several commenters on this thread. They are clearly too far gone. I think we spend too much effort on them. Let them waste their time and money on shysters, they get what they deserve. The shysters know they are shysters, they aren’t likely to be stopped by us. Hoagland doesn’t print what he believes, he prints what he believes will sell.

  69. Rook

    When I stumbled on Hoagland’s site, I saw picture after picture of photo defects, yet he made them out to be some hidden structures.

    The glass pentagon is in several pictures, in different locations, yet he doesn’t comment on that, just that it is there. (Funny, how the sun angle and the lens placement is perfect for that sort of error).

    I’ve spent 100’s of hours looking at the moon through my telescope, watched the sunlight rise up over the peaks of the mountains, and not once did I spot a reflection off any “magical glass structures”.

    go figure…

  70. Oh I must have STUMBLED onto the Anti-Hoagland Brothel blog.

    Hoagland may have some elements that are kooky with his imagery, I agree, and I wouldn’t be suprised if he’s part of the whole conspiracy as a result. But his 19.5 degrees analysis of Mar’s Olympus Mons volcano and Mona Kea (sp?) Hawaii’s/and Earths most continuously active volcano is also at 19.5 degrees, Jupiter’s storm, Neputunes dark spot, also. 19.5 degrees being the “power point” on celestial bodies. Place a Tetrahedron into a sphere where the point of the pyramid is at either one or the other pole, and the bottom/or top depending on it’s orientation, touch at 19.5 degrees north or south latitude.

    ANd if you blithering denial junkies ever pull your head’s our of your you know what’s, maybe you too will smell the reality that indeed, NASA is a front. SOrry if I don’t back that up with a bunch of “facts”.

    “Blessed is the state that hides it’s most egregious crimes behind a smokescreen of incompetance.” Jeff Wells

  71. Rota

    The Centipedeon 20 Dec 2007 at 11:58 am
    “You got evidence? Fess it up and we’ll see if it sticks. If it’s just some more oddly shaped natural rocks, well, we’ve plenty of those here on good old Terra without any need for space probes or people with photoshop”.
    Hold on here. Yes I have my own images I have come up with. They are much different than anything you have seen from others. I havent messed with most of them . One of them I did lighten up. I show them the way they were on the full images and cut some out to show you what i see in the image to make it easiar for you. All of them are linked to the original images.

    I don’t expect you to look at them and say “yes I now believe there was people on Mars”.

    I refuse to take on the resonsibility of having you declared insane and losing your job.

    The most I expect someone to say is “I find your images interesting and worthy of further investigation”. It’s sort of code for….”yeah you might be on to something”. “might” being the key word.

    Here you go, Just try to be honest.

    http://secretofmars.blogspot.com/

    .

  72. Martin Blaise

    twas brillig: >”But his 19.5 degrees analysis of Mar’s Olympus Mons volcano and Mona Kea (sp?) Hawaii’s/and Earths most continuously active volcano is also at 19.5 degrees, Jupiter’s storm,…”<

    The only “data point” that’s at all valid is Mauna Loa, at 19.5°N within an acceptable margin of error. There’s nothing at all on planet Earth at 19.5°S unless you count some godforsaken beer bar in the Ozzie outback. Olympus Mons is at 18.3°N. Nothing on Mars at 19.5°S either. Jupiter’s red spot is at 22°S.

    There’s nothing to it. Go back to your slithy toves….

  73. …and gyre and gimble in the wabe.

    Okay, Rota, I’m looking at your blog (and the others, correct me if I’m wrong) and I’m seeing… rocks.

    For example, the Poseidon Monument is well, ah, really really small compared to the rover and, despite peering as hard as I can, I don’t see anything other than some broken and wind-polished rocks.

    The second series of pictures shows what appears to me to be a large rocky outcropping with no sense of scale. I see no evidence of a cavern entrance.

    In the big picture I see a areological depression which may have been caused by water erosion, subsidence of soil, or tectonics back when they were still active. In the isolated view I see nothing but various hills; what kind of look like what you may be calling stairs (I can’t say, as there’s no labels) looks more akin to debris deposits due to river deltas or rocks falling down hills.

    In Another huge comples I see what looks to be a prominent sinkhole or crater with what’s either a mesa or a relatively squarish plain in the middle. Odd, I’ll grand you, but not otherworldly-odd (please excuse the pun).

    In stone carvings I see cracked rocks not entirely unlike those at the bottom of more than one river I’ve waded through.

    In the panoramic montage your closeups (of the bull especially) are interesting cases of swans-in-clouds but when left in contest they look no more than perfectly natural rock formations. The bull especially shows no signs of being a sort of bas-relief sculpture nor a sculpture in the round, both of which we have plenty of Terrestrial examples of what they look like when they weather and decay. The “lion” is the lumpy top of a rock mixed with some convenient loose debris. The “sarcophagus” (as I don’t know what else to call it) looks somewhat out of place, admittedly, but the patterns on it do appear on volcanic rocks such as pumice and other various ‘large-grained’ rocks.

    And on and on and on.

    I see the serpent too, but it’s still not a Nazsca-line construction or anything like that. The rest seems to be more swans-in-clouds with nothing indicating “look, Martians made this!” Admittedly, the Easter Island Head is an uncanny resemblence, but that’s what happens from simple geometric abstractions of human faces.

  74. *checks Twas Brillig’s link*

    Alex Jones.

    No New World Order Conspiracy Theory Too Inane To Print!

    *sigh*

    Okay, I’m going to go get my bucket of hush-money from the Freemasons now. And I don’t even have my smock yet! :D

  75. Rota

    # The Centipedeon 21 Dec 2007 at 8:32 am
    …and gyre and gimble in the wabe.

    “Okay, Rota, I’m looking at your blog (and the others, correct me if I’m wrong) and I’m seeing… rocks.

    For example, the Poseidon Monument is well, ah, really really small compared to the rover and, despite peering as hard as I can, I don’t see anything other than some broken and wind-polished rocks”.

    Well I agree that the monument appears small but then you are assuming that these martians were average sized people. Who is to say they were not midgets? LOL

    “Wind Polished rocks”? So you are saying that Mars has more of an athmosphere than has been admiited to? I mean if the wind can polish rocks then that is one heck of an athmoshere.

    “The Centipedeon 21 Dec 2007 at 8:32 am
    The second series of pictures shows what appears to me to be a large rocky outcropping with no sense of scale. I see no evidence of a cavern entrance”.

    Hummmm……..I never said anything about an “entrance” related to that image. At my blog all I did was post the image with absolutly no comment about it. You brought up an “Entrance” without me hinting at anything of the sort. What is it you think you don’t see? An Entrance? Yeah I think you are right….I don’t see that clearly defined entrance either….LOL

    .

  76. >Well I agree that the monument appears small but then you are assuming that these martians were average sized people. Who is to say they were not midgets? LOL

    I think you missed the part where I said it looked like broken rocks and not a monument at all. Plus, there’s no reason for theoretical Oompa-Loompa Martians to be worshipping Poseidon, of all people.

    > “Wind Polished rocks”? So you are saying that Mars has more of an athmosphere than has been admiited to? I mean if the wind can polish rocks then that is one heck of an athmoshere.

    1) Mars’ atmosphere is not tenuous. It is much thinner than Earth’s, but it is not non-negligible.
    2) What else do you think is the medium for those hemisphere-covering sandstorms?
    3) For that matter, low density high-velocity sandstorms would be perfect for polishing. Reference sandblasting.

    > Hummmm……..I never said anything about an “entrance” related to that image.

    You posted something about an entrance under it. In all fairness, your blog is not exactly the most ordered nor best explained collection of pictures in the known universe. A lot of times I had to guess what you were talking about.

  77. Overall, you have a very nice collection of rock pictures but that’s all they are. Pictures of rocks.

    Sorry.

  78. Rota

    Am I banned from commenting now? This sucks, i feel I was just bonding with my new found debunker friends.

  79. Ok, let’s just say for the argument, Hoagland is a complete fraud. Fine. But someone please explain to me after reading the following article that the government, NAYSAY and other powers that be, have nothing to hide.

    Mystery Space Machines Overhead – Part 2
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx2.htm

    “It contradicts what you’ll hear told to you by your rulers and the propaganda media they control, and I know that makes you uncomfortable. So uncomfortable, in fact, that many of you are unable to face the true monstrosity of the reality of your rulers and your only recourse is to retreat back to what makes you the most comfortable, the cozy lies spun around you by those who couldn’t care less if you live or die.”

    Keep blithering away.

  80. > Actually not all the images at my site are rocks. You seemed to ignore this object.

    Blown up to the point where pixelation is becoming dominant. If I had to bet my life, it would be a rock sticking partway out of the soil.

    > And possibly this thing.

    The foreground object looks like plenty of broken sedimentary rocks I’ve seen here on Earth. The thing in the background looks like plenty of squarish rocks I’ve seen here on Earth. I see no evidence of intelligent design (phrasing intentional) in either.

    > But I am curious how you explain away this? Do you actually think wind could have made this face?

    What face? I see a broken slab-like rock, like limestone or something. If you go down to the deserts in the Southwestern USA you can see a lot of things like that. Given that I grew up around them, I’m pretty good at saying “yup, that there’s a rock.”

    > Mystery Space Machines Overhead – Part 2

    Doctor Plait would be better at commenting at me, but this guy is mistaking the ventral navigation light on helicopters for a camera flash, of all things, so I don’t think his grasp on science is too keen. Camera flashes are for illuminating whatever’s getting its photograph taken, and I know for a fact aeronautical cameras don’t use flashbulbs because the targets are simply too damn far away for them to be any sort of useful.

    Still, don’t shoot the messenger. No, I don’t know what those objects are. Immediately blaming the government or the New World Order or space aliens is a matter of pure conjecture. If you can give patterns of their movement so professional astronomers can analyze them with better tools, then that may help.

  81. Rota

    Centipede, if there are nothing but rocks up there then what the hell are we doing up there? You have made the perfect argument as to why we should just de-fund all space projects and spend the money on the many pressing matters down here on earth.

    Listening to you, we can’t even believe anything we see on the images that we spent tons of money on. So why did we waste all that money taking blurred inferior pictures of rocks? Hell, how can we even be sure they are rocks by your reasoning? Actually if we listen to you we can’t believe anything in those images. By your reasoning the whole Mars misson has been a total waste of time, effort and money becayse as you yourself admitted we can find similar rocks anywhere on this planet. No need to go to Mars to see them.

    Of course it has been proven that NASA has been tampering with the images that they release to public. Many people have proven that. Even a peon like myself can put one of those red images in an image program and tell it to show the real colors and a whole new image emerges.

    So there is no question they are trying to hide something. What is it you think they are trying to keep from us? It has to be something besides plain ordinary rocks.

    Where do you stand on this issue? Do you advocate that we stop all space funding? If not then please explain just what it is you think we should be looking for up there on Mars? Rocks?

    .

    .

  82. blf

    “if there are nothing but rocks up there then what the hell are we doing up there?”

    curiosity. exploration. science.

    “we can’t even believe anything we see on the images that we spent tons of money on.”

    huh? i rather suspect most readers of phil’s blog recognise a rock.

    “Of course it has been proven that NASA has been tampering with the images that they release to public.”

    where is this proof? in hoagload’s kilometres-high and -wide invisible glass whatevers?

    “So there is no question they are trying to hide something.”

    batboy?

    “please explain just what it is you think we should be looking for up there on Mars? Rocks?”

    got it in one. rocks are fine. water would be nice too. dust is ok. I would like to see some samples returned. and boreholes drilled. and more samples.

  83. “curiosity. exploration. science.”

    Maybe there was a time you could sell that to a public who made a decent living. Now with people being thrown out on the streets I bet spending billions on “curiosity”, “exploration” and “science” is not going to sell very good unless you can come up with something better than that. But then that would mean sharing what they already came up with and are hiding from us.

    Of course you will say nothing is being hid from us but answer me this. We have hundreds if not thousands of satielites in orbit with cameras. Why have they never put one live streaming feed on the internet? How about a live feed from the hubble telescope? Every piece of information from space is held back and not released until it has been looked at and censored. You can spin it any way you like but until we have a live feed then we will never know if we are being fed garbage. Do you see any problems with allowing a live feed from space?

    .

  84. Martin Blaise

    Every bit of lunar exploration in Apollo days was shown live — audio only, at times when video wasn’t available. Nothing to hide there — notwithstanding Hoagland’s ludicrous fantasy that either Cernan or Schmitt descended a steep slope into Shorty crater and retrieved a large rock that is actually a robot head, then somehow climbed back out, with nothing to hold such a large object except two hands.

    Poor Richard. He simply.doesn’t.think.

  85. blf

    The Voyager flybys of Jupiter and Saturn were shown live on “The NASA Channel” (or something like that, can’t quite recall the name now). I know they were because I spent many hours watching them.

    In any case, the idea that “Every piece of information from space is held back and not released until it has been looked at and censored” is ludicrious. That’s a fantasy; a claim so extraordinary it’s not believable. What evidence is there such a thing happens? (Excluding spy and commerical satellites, of course.)

    And as far as saving money et al., stop slaughtering people in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’ll help considerably more lives and save vastly more funds.

  86. Quote: # blf
    “In any case, the idea that “Every piece of information from space is held back and not released until it has been looked at and censored” is ludicrious. That’s a fantasy; a claim so extraordinary it’s not believable.
    What evidence is there such a thing happens? (Excluding spy and commerical satellites, of course.)”

    I suppose you can provide me with a link to go to, that has some live streaming video from space then. It soesn’t matter to me if it is a camera looking at earth or out into space. I’d be glad to come back and stand corrected if you would do that. I have had no luck in my search but maybe I just don’t know where to look. I look forwad to admitting I’m wrong as I would love to see some live shots from space.

  87. Martin Blaise

    Both these metsat pics are “live”, but discontinuous. Meaning that you’ll see a live pic only if you display the frame at the same moment that it’s rendered. I’m not sure what the refresh interval is but that’d be a piece of cake to find out.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/satpics/latest_IR.html

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/satellite/?wfo=sgx

  88. Martin Blaise thats all well and good but I don’t consder that live. Do you actually think in 2008 that something like those links is the best they can do? If it is then the trillions they spend on that stuff has been totaly wasted. Admit it, that crap is nothing more than spoon feeding us garbage.

  89. Martin Blaise

    Well no, I can’t say that metsat images are “garbage”, not at all. What is it that you crave? A live feed from the surface of the moon, perhaps? Pretty boring….

  90. Martin….I think football is boring but its my personnal preference.

    A live webcam on the moon? That would be fine. I don’t care if its live coming from the moon, Mars, a satellite or the space station. I don’t even care what it is pointed at, empty space, the moon, Mars or even earth. Just anything live and uncensored.

  91. Chup@Cabra

    You know, I love Richard Hoagland and his site, but for a reason I’m sure he would not appreciate :-)

    You see, I am a HUGE geek, and love shows like the X-Files, and stories about U.F.O.s, cryptozoology, etc. (and strangely enough, stuff like this is popping up more and more on the History Channel, of all places).

    Primarily, though, Hoagland’s ‘findings’ have made great fodder for a game I and my friends play called Dark Matter (kind of like “Dungeons and Dragons” meets the ‘X-Files’ [told you I was a geek ^_^] ).

    Hope he never closes down his site, then I’ll have to start thinking up stuff for myself :-)

  92. saltamonte

    Hoagland is a con man pure and simple and a disgrace to the true tenets of scientific inquiry. Ironically, he has provided us with something valuable. He’s shown us just how many among us are fooled by his nonsense. The shear number of people out there that are ready to believe things that have no factual basis is disturbing. Just where has critical thinking and skepticism gone? Its almost as if the mindset that existed during the witch hunting medieval period has persisted into the present for some.

  93. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    (And misspell too much too.)

  94. Mauro

    Dear Phil Plait,
    i think you’re a little closer to write on a blog called ‘DISCOVER’..
    maybe you can now change your work in GREENGROCER.

    NASA: the truth is out there. (but we don’t tell you about it ) ahahahaha … it’s a SHAME

    Too often, the arrogance and narrow-mindedness as a substitute for serious research …
    I believe that these theories are worth much more groundbreaking than the usual lies repeated a thousand times… even if no glass city are existing on the Moon.

    Lie gracefully is an art, telling the truth and act according to nature. [O Wilde]

    The progress of science is littered like an old path in the desert, skeletons disposed of abandoned theories that once seemed to possess eternal life. [A. Koestler]

  95. I have a Question for you… Here we go:

    Do you think that in the ’50s,’60s and ’70s that there where Aliens on the moon and buildings,bones,Spaceships and Worms and hovering Spheres,Structures and even a Blacl Round Moondragon where on the moon??? Do you believe that it is possible or did NASA have incredible artists on their payrole who not only airbrushed a lot of things out that I had to get back to the surface with a simple iPhone and a laptop, or do you also believe the pictures from the NASA websites aren’t tempered with??? Oooh and btw, Yes Richard C.Hoalgland hvae lost his mind and has gone way beyound reality. He is officially a nutcase now yes. Anyway,what is y0ur answer on my question??? Greetings,from THE…
    De-DeBunker Mark-Vincent.
    Ps,I am starting to believe that I am quite a unique guy,cos nowhere on the entire internet anyone have done what I have done and made pictures that way I did. I know for a fact that if I only would publish even one picture on the YOUTUBE,that I will get millions of hits,knowing the fact all the lousy pictures everybody have placed or CGI or out of focus or short. But Never NASA pictures like I have. STRANGE !!!!!!! I have about 35.0000 pics. of the moon wich are about 95% all clear footage. NASA’s gona hate my guts if I would go public btw!!! I’m stil in doubt and hey,do you know how an ALien looks like on the moon. I have 3 different spiecies on film.(Besides the deceased ones ofcourse,because in the Apollo days the Aliens where possibly the 3rd dominant species ever to have lived on the moon.The mon is not a dead planet at all and anyone who wants to proof me wrong will proof NASA is a nutty crazy freaky strange organisation for putting all those Aliens and Buildings etc etc etc in their pictures!!!

  96. Man, Screw MARS…MARS is a dead planet 100% !!! It wil take hounreds if not thousands of years to make MARS habittable for humans!!! The Moon is the place to be man!!! I also think it is strange,but the moon has got these strange Aliens on it who have builded things like crazy !!! I wonder why these Aliens are so sneaky and why they build in such a sneaky way also btw.(very artistic and intelligent btw,but still…SNEAKY) What are they doing up there that Humans are not allowed to be part of or know about??? Strange and bizar!!!

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »