James Oberg is a NASA historian, space guy, and very knowledgeable source of info on the space program. Like me, he has little tolerance for the nonsensical spewings of people like Richard C. Hoagland, who couldn’t find reality with both hands, an instruction manual, and a pickax.
Jim puts the hurt on RCH in an article about Mars probes for The Space Review. He systematically, and with references, shows exactly why RCH’s writings are so much crank goofiness.
It’s disturbing, actually, that a book by the likes of Hoagland can become so popular. People are all-too willing to believe anything written down, especially if it agrees with their preconceptions, and especially if the author seems like an expert, even when it’s specifically proven that his credentials are more inflated than Pamela Anderson.
Oberg is relentless in his pwning of RCH and his book. It makes you wonder, in my opinion, just what is going on in the head of RCH (and Mike Bara, his coauthor) when he writes that stuff. Can he actually believe in what he is saying?
January 21st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
…even when it’s specifically proven that his credentials are more inflated than Pamela Anderson.
[sigh] Now I am really depressed.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It is quite astonishing to see who gets sucked in by that crap. My dad, who owns a great amature telescope and read astronomy books out of interest, was sucked in by that stupid television show that showed the “evidence” of a moon landing hoax. It was sad to have to go through, point by point, the stupidity they put forth and trash it all. Sadder still that someone educated more than most wouldn’t exercise an iota of skepticism on the subject.
And hey, thanks for stopping by my site!
January 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I know what’d be going through my head if I were writing a book of nonsense that would sell well:
KERCHINGGG!
January 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
People read/write books like RCH’s for the same reason they watch/produce TV shows like “Ghosthunters”. I.e., it’s fun to sound like you know what you’re doing when you’re just some dude with a camera/typewriter and a lot of time on his hands.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Now why insult Pam like that? Her credentials are inflated, but she does use them professionally and makes no outrageous claims outside of her, uh, field.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I think Rob nailed it.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
What’s even funnier than Hoagland’s claims are the Yahoo keyword ads that were on the sidebar for me.
Apparently, 3 million+ Mars properties are availible for sale and I can even book my hotel and flight to Mars online.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
RCH does it for $$$$$$$$$. He probably doesn’t believe a word he writes or says, just like some of the fake evangelical preachers out there.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Ok… he nailed those two conspiracy theories. What about the one I saw last summer with a giant robot stepping on a Mars Rover… there’s footage of that… I saw it with my own eyes!!!! 8-|
Heh… more inflated than Pamela. I nearly spit my water with that one.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
[...] The Bad Astronomer wrote an interesting post today on Oberg lays the smack on HoaglandHere’s a quick excerptJames Oberg is a NASA historian, space guy, and very knowledgeable source of info on the space program. Like me, he has little tolerance for the nonsensical spewings of people like Richard C. Hoagland, who couldn’t find reality with … [...]
January 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Pamela’s assets are far more appealing that Hoagland’s.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I still remember the first piece by Hoagland I ever read — “The Europa Enigma” in the Jan.1980 issue of the now-defunct “Star and Sky”, a calm, carefully reasoned argument for the possible existence of life in Europa’s subsurface ocean that totally opened my own eyes on the subject for the first time. Within 2 years, he was writing that Voyager 2 had uncovered evidence of a possible alien spaceship in Saturn’s B Ring…
This is hearsay twice-removed, but an acquaintance of mine says that an acquaintance of HIS was personally told by a bitter Hoagland that he had decided that there was no money in honest science journalism and that what the rubes really wanted was sensational tabloid drivel, so he cold-bloodedly decided to provide them with it.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
You’re the man to ask, Phil, but didn’t NASA once “say” they couldn’t waste resources debunking moan hoaxers? This post is the reason why I believe that NASA should have a more largely funded educational branch with debunking of disinformation a prime public relations goal.
ego=breast
what would Freud say
heck, what would Pavlov say?
January 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Science and science writers have their own untested assumptions. For example, in the ’smackdown’ article, the author starts off with a gibe against JFK conspiracy theories. Naturally, there is very little chance the author has studied the JFK assassination. So in the space of just a few words, he’s abandoned the rigorous agnosticism that science — if it is a worldview — is supposed to hold.
It might be worth mentioning here that there is a difference between so-called skepticism and true scientific agnosticism, again bearing in mind that the effort of scientists to turn empirical science into a worldview can only really be done in the way of a rigorous agnosticism. Skepticism, for its part, is merely the attitude that whatever that fits with the way of life and current beliefs of credentialed scientists is also true.
The sense that common uncredentialed people have as outsiders is that the culture of science is not in fact wholly committed to true scientific agnosticism. If it were so, you wouldn’t have the staggered upheavals in science described by Kuhn. Scientists, academic and research and otherwise, have a way of life and that way of life has its own blind-spots. *This* is the real reason why people buy trash like Hoagland’s book. Not just because they believe anything in print, but because they sense the tendency toward complacency and institutional thinking in science.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
the pam comment must have been a hit with the google ad. i took a snapshot of the ad to send, but then saw you won’t open attachments. but the youtube video of “sxephil” fits the theme…
January 21st, 2008 at 9:11 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?”
January 21st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Anyone interested in moon hoaxes should see the movie “Dark Side of the Moon”, made by William Karel (original title “Opération Lune”). It’s an absolutely brilliant spoof, and utterly hilarious. When I saw it, for the first 15 minutes it seemed reasonable, what with a paranoid Richard Nixon trying to come up with a plan B in case the moon shot fizzed. After that it just became weirder and weirder. It includes Buzz Aldrin, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld and others playing themselves in fake inteviews.
Interestingly, while I was laughing most of the way through it, some people apparently considered it a real documentary.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
My dad, who owns a great amature telescope and read astronomy books out of interest, was sucked in by that stupid television show that showed the “evidence” of a moon landing hoax.
At least that’s easy to debunk. My dad is all atwitter about the mythical NAFTA Superhighway, which, depending on the source, can be anything from 2000 feet to 870 miles wide; will extend from Mexico to Canada, or pole to pole and will displace anywhere betwwen several thousand homeowners or some number greater than the entire population of the United States.
The problem is that there *is* a controversial project (or collection of projects) called the Trans Texas Corridor which is completely different, but it muddies up the debunking. It doesn;t help that some politicians have applied the “NAFTA Superhighway” label to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_texas_corridor
And a good article overview
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes
January 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
I’m glad to see people ripping into Hoagland the way that idiot deserves. As evidenced by the nonsense in the article referenced and criticized on http://btripp.livejournal.com/824416.html, and exemplified in http://www.enterprisemission.com/sensor.htm (there’s plenty more where that last came from, but we all know about Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission site), Hoagland is long overdue for a nice tar-and-feather party ending in the 12:15 rail out of town, or at least the strictly social analog thereof. Good for you, Phil! We’re very fortunate to have you to catch the fraudulent and lunatic touting the sort of [expletive deleted] for which Hoagland is famous. Go get ‘em!
January 24th, 2008 at 4:40 am
[...] Oberg lays the smack on Hoagland [...]
January 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
if one inhales enough jenkem, you will believe anything….
excusses meeee, i going to take a hit….got some pepper burger jenkem brewing now….
July 24th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Yea, lets focus on Hoagland and forget about all the CIA, Astronauts, Military intelligences, Physicists, Rocket Scientists, Archeologist’s, Governors, Generals, and the Billion other perfectly competent and credible sources that are trying to come forward with the information being kept from the public.
I am sure that anyone who has spent 40 years in the military would gladly become the family punch line and a disgrace to the country for a few bucks. Or anyone that went to school to become a Physicist or rocket engineer for most their life would give all that up, just to sell a book.
So lets look at Hoagland, because he is the one we entrusted our country in for the last 50 years, right.
Real Smart people.
Ever heard of the term, Fall Guy?
You talk about his credentials, well check the list of peoples credentials in the national press clubs UFO disclosure.
Looks to me like there exists no credential sufficient for this topic unless your god.
In other words, why bring up credentials when you wouldn’t believe even the most qualified? Grabbing Straws if you ask me.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Why do you care, Phil? Heck, my whole freshman astronomy class could care less about science. Especially the nonsense astrophysicists pump out every year.