I just listened to the Richard C. Hoagland interview on the Dennis Miller show. It was actually interesting. RCH made the usual brain dead claims of rocks on Mars shaped like robot heads (I am not making that up, folks; that’s the level he’s at) and Nazi scientists at NASA. Miller was polite — he seemed to enjoy talking to RCH, which is understandable — but in the end was pretty skeptical. He said he would read Hoagland’s book on the "secret NASA history "… but he also came right out and said that he thinks all this stuff from RCH is a "put on" (Miller’s words). In other words, Miller thinks RCH is making it all up.
I’ll add that Hoagland said three things that piqued my interest. One, he said his Enterprise Mission page is a "public policy" website. I almost spat my coffee all over my monitor.
Two, it sure sounded to me like he admitted that he was basing his claims of glass domes and spires on the Moon on third generation pictures — that is, pictures made from pictures made from negatives — which pretty much clinches that what he is saying is ridiculous. When examining data, you need to use the original pictures. If you don’t, you risk getting hair, dust, and artifacts (glare, smudges, etc.)in the prints. And of course, to any rational person this is exactly what is seen in his images. He says this himself on his very own website where he debunks the Moon Hoax (interestingly, I cannot seem to find that debunking on his site anymore; anyone else see it anywhere?), where he shows the famous C-rock is actually due to a hair that got on the negative.
And third, he said that he was a "NASA consultant at Goddard" — that’s an exact quotation from RCH. That’s a very interesting claim! I’ll have to look into that when I get a chance.
Anyway, I was surprised and pleased to see Miller be so rational. Especially after the patently ridiculous political comments Miller made in the segment before. Oh well, I’ll be happy to let the fringe pundits and conspiracy theorists eat their own. Saves me the trouble.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
What’s that Lunar Anomalies website? Boy, that guy sounds a bit happy about RCH uh?
January 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
> Anyway, I was surprised and pleased to see Miller be so rational. Especially after the patently ridiculous political comments Miller made in the segment before.
Do you see how you might be perceived in an exactly analogous manner?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
A NASA consultant he says? He also intimates a connection with JPL. On his report that Saturn’s moon Iapetus is possibly an artificial spaceship (akin to Darth Vader’s Death Star) he says, “Thus, it was with some anticipation that those of us who were lucky enough to be at JPL the night of the first Voyager Iapetus images twenty five years ago, looked forward a few weeks ago to the closest fly-by of Iapetus to date – to be accomplished by the Cassini spacecraft, on New Year’s Eve, 2004.”
In his biography on the Enterprise Mission it says he was a NASA consultant. http://www.enterprisemission.com/hoagland.html
January 14th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Miller is a strange creature indeed. He’s rightwing aplenty and holds tons of opinions that seem to be the peek of cut throat look out for number one. That’s not surprising, but at the same time he shows plenty of evidence that he’s not stupid, insane or both all the time. I’m not a huge follower, really not even a follower, but I assume his fame is based in a large degree due to this – that is a rarity. Sure, the overwhelming majority of wingnuts on every side in every dimention is pretty much underinformed or underbrained, but picking out the ones that aren’t his side is really struggling to be left with any while this side seems to have plenty around. He’s an oddity and if he spoke more about why he thinks what he thinks rather then reverting to the obvious joke when things get uncomfortable, there may even be things to learn from him.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Frank, I base my opinions on the best evidence available. Dennis Miller said things that were clearly not only wrong, but using atrocious logical fallacies.
When I state my case, I use facts and reasonable inferences, not logical fallacies. To answer your question: yes, I can see why some would perceive me that way,but perception is not reality. In reality, those people are wrong.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
PsyberDave, I see that Hoagland is still making claims on that page that I long ago have proven to be wrong. Interesting.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“When I state my case, I use facts and reasonable inferences, not logical fallacies.”
Don’t forget ad hominem attacks. You regularly use those when politics are involved.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Slightly off topic: I searched bout could not seem to find anything to tell me what a “public policy website” is. Could anybody elucidate?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I wouldn’t mind the ad hominem attacks so much if the BA could just stop beating his wife and drowning little kittens.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Wife beating and kitten drowning come later in the 12 step program.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
If only Miller practiced such skepticisml about Saddam and 9/11 and any other claim made by the current administration.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Nazi scientists at NASA
Like the late Werner von Braun?
January 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Michelle, the Lunar Anomalies web-site belongs to Mike Bara, Hoagland’s co-conspirator, I mean co-author of his latest book, I mean work of fiction.
I’ve seem many of the images that Hoagland claims have anomalies in them, and with the exception of one, an image with something known as “The Shard”, (which I am sure has a rational explanation), I have seen nothing remotely like what Hoagland claims. So, why do people believe this stuff? I think one reason is that people want to believe in something bigger then themselves.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Drowning kittens? What a waste! Mmmmm….kittens…
January 14th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Grrr! My “” and ” tags didn’t show. You’ll have to use your imagination.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh! That sound you hear is my brain exploding.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
— Miller is a strange creature indeed. He’s rightwing aplenty and holds tons of opinions that seem to be the peek of cut throat look out for number one.
Compared to what? Read some Ayn Rand and then revisit Miller. He’ll seem positively Bolshevist.
— If only Miller practiced such skepticisml about Saddam and 9/11 and any other claim made by the current administration.
How about skepticism that Bush ever made that claim?
You either have apply you skepticism everywhere or turn in your decoder ring. Remember, we attacked Afghanistan first.
Bush made lots of speeches deliberately muddying the two together (the alleged WMDs could lead to “another 9/11″ and crap like that), but I can’t find any reference where he came out and made a direct, clear link. He *implied* a link by saying Iraq sponsered the same group that carried out 9/11 (also false), but he did so to play on an *already* *existing* perception amongst the American public.
In fact, the source of the original perception is actually kind of hazy. The polls go from a paltry 3% in the months right after the attack to over 40% a year later. It’s bizarre and more than a bit troubling. The only place I can think to lay major portion of the blame is the news media for amplifying any and all weird theories about the attacks. Example: the stories about how Mohammed Atta was *allegedly* trained by Abu Nidal *allegedly* in Baghdad.
And I hate Bush. I’m just sayin’. He seems to have been somewhat of a latecomer to the 9/11=Iraq party. And it wasn’t just Bush. Joe Lieberman and many other Democrats played along.
In conclusion: the world is a giant (bleeping) mess, ideology sucks and I’m going to make some taquitos and try to finish Blue Dragon tonight. and forget about the whole depressing morass.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
On the cover of Hoagland’s NASA book there is this blob that looks like someone gave the face on Mars a bloody nose! Hoagland should really be nicer to his meal ticket.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
QD, the lengths some people will go to defend Bush are staggering. He mentioned 9/11 and Iraq over and over and over again in the same breath. To now say he never actually made the specific claim that they were linked is absurd beyond belief. And more than a little desperate.
Do you really want to make the claim that despite mentioning them both in the same sentence, literally, dozens of times, he didn’t actually mean to link them?
What then? He’s retarded?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I confess that when I saw the new Hoagland book on a table display at my local big box book seller, I covered it with another book.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:05 am
— Do you really want to make the claim that despite mentioning them both in the same sentence, literally, dozens of times, he didn’t actually mean to link them?
Nnnnnnoooo. I quite explicitly said Bush (and others) deliberately muddied the waters. Didn’t I? Lemme look.
(QD scrolls up to look)
Yes, that’s what I said.
I’m just discussing the nature of skepticism, Daffy. I have a pulled back muscle. When I’m not telecommuting this week I’m just laying around on a heating pad so I’m bored. :-\
What I find interesting that gets lost in the discussion is that the perception of 9/11=Iraq was growing on its own, even after we attacked the Taliban, and Bush (and others) used it. But it was there already. If we had any investigative reporters worth their salt left in this country, there’s an interesting story there on the effect of the mass media. Hell, maybe I’ll do it.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:10 am
— What then? He’s retarded?
No. I hate the man, but I still think he’s probably sharper than most people think, at least in certain specific things. That’s why I posed the original question. Bush and his folks were always very careful how they worded the claims. It’s a sad game of smoke and mirrors, and sometimes makes me want to liquidate all my assets and move to the Australian outback to live with the abos.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:28 am
The BA said:
“RCH made the usual brain dead claims of rocks on Mars shaped like robot heads …”
But, but, but …. robot heads can be any shape you wanna make ‘em. So what shape does RCH think robot heads are, such that the rocks on Mars look uncannily like robot heads?
I mean, I could build a robot with a head shaped like a rock, and then claim that the rocks on Mars are uncannily shaped like robot heads, couldn’t I?
January 15th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Pedantic bitching follows.
Ad hominem attacks are when you try to discredit someone’s argument by attacking them.
This is not what BA actually does. It has become trendy to call any personal attack ‘ad hominem’. This is not necessarily true.
BA has been pretty consistent about discrediting RCH and demonstrating that he is a nutter by attacking his arguments and remarks.
‘RCH’s arguments should not be believed, because RCH is a crazy stupid liar.’ is an Ad hominem attack.
‘RCH is a crazy stupid liar because he argues these[many examples given] things that are crazy, stupid and he know to be disingenuous’ is not.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Okay, the thing i don’t get about Hoagland…
Says we faked the moon landings, but the Nazi’s got howitzers on Mars somehow?
I mean I know his claims are all silly, but isn’t that just really silly to think? Maybe he really has a chemical imbalance in his brain, or some actual problem thinking rationally. I’m serious! I’m not trying to be funny! Someone get the guy to a doctor for a checkup!
-Tundra
January 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don’t believe he claims that the moon landing was faked. IIRC, he claims that while we were there we covered up the existence of magical glass palaces and such.
His discussions are not quite that inconsistent.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
*delusions
January 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
He claimed that Iapetus was artificial because it has a huge ridge (RCH called it a wall) running around its equator. Cassini recently recorded a series of images in a very close flyby of Iapetus that clearly shows the natural form of the ridge. This was assembled into a rather cool video by the Cassini imaging team. He just sets himself up to be shown to be wrong.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“What I find interesting that gets lost in the discussion is that the perception of 9/11=Iraq was growing on its own,”
NOT on it’s own. The administration was, within hours of the attacks, telling its people (specifically Richard Clarke) to look for evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I always thought that RCH qualified as being metally ill.
After all, aren’t his claims delusional.
Especially so, as he actually believes them himself.
Folcrom.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I’m reading Dark Mission right now. Great read. Just as good as Hoagland’s first book.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hello Phil,
Have you seen the madness on Bara’s blog in which he seems to think that it was you using the name “Professor Fulcanelli” to write a review of Dark Mission on Amazon?
He does not mention your name, but then in the comments he slips and says “But what do Dr. Phil’s mendacious and very personal attacks on Richard have to do with the “norms of scientific debate?”
June 19th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Oh, thank you lord for finding other people who ALSO think Richard C. Hoagland is nuts. The face on Mars, the Cydonia region…everytime there would be a more refined photo he would find an excuse to say that it’s not the true information, we need an even BETTER photo. And those ,bad, bad, NASA people… spies, I tell ya…. they are faking it! The whole space program is bunk!!
I love to listen to late night radio, a dalliance that is sometimes informative and inspirational, if you can stand the commercials. Most of the stuff is bunk…I tell ya!
But Hoagland has brought a whiney, cheesy element to an already dubious source of information, preying on all the issues Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society has brought forth recently. Although I think Shermer takes all the fun out of a grayish life we live these days, Hoagland moves in reverse, seeking the great universal source of Velveeta. Or is that dark matter? I digress.