PDA

View Full Version : Hoagland is going to have a field day with this one!



The Rat
2002-Mar-16, 03:08 AM
I see city blocks of a Martian metropolis, wide avenues, tree-lined boulevards,

And another book!

http://www.astronomy.com/photogallery/gallery_large.asp?idObjectLibraryGUID={68B022B8-1E1C-4DE7-A2A9-C7DE396D276F}

Ian R
2002-Mar-16, 03:31 AM
Too late...

http://enterprisemission.com/right.htm

The Rat
2002-Mar-16, 03:36 AM
On 2002-03-15 22:31, Ian R wrote:
Too late...

Wow, he's fast.

Ridiculous,... but fast!

Cloudy
2002-Jun-11, 06:12 AM
Hoagland is behaving like most other kooks -
When he is shown to be correct on one point, he presents it as evidence that his whole theory must be true. On the other hand, when the evidence goes against him, he blames some convenient NASA conspiracy.

When we first discovered that some radio waves can be recieved a thousand miles away despite the earth being round, we did not immediatly join the flat earth society.We did some more experiments and found out that the ionosphere reflects the good ole Art Bell show right back to our eager ears.

I suspect that Mars also has some wonderful
surprises for us. That Hoagland is full of **, however, is not going to one of them /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

beskeptical
2002-Jun-11, 07:02 PM
I love it! It is a very creative extrapolation from a foto. I think the Hoagland guy needs to get out of the city. He might find Martian civilizations right out there in the wilderness.

I myself find the possible explanations for this landscape so fascinating there is certainly no reason to invent more.

The Rat
2002-Jun-12, 01:38 AM
On 2002-06-11 15:02, beskeptical wrote:
I myself find the possible explanations for this landscape so fascinating there is certainly no reason to invent more.


Close your eyes and repeat after me; money, Money, MONEY!!!

Espritch
2002-Jun-12, 01:55 AM
When he is shown to be correct on one point, he presents it as evidence that his whole theory must be true.

Umm...did I miss something? When has Hogland ever been shown to be correct on anything?

p9107
2002-Jun-12, 05:00 PM
Um- I think you guys may be missing the point. What if this is real. No hoax. Real.


Just dwell on that for a while...

The Rat
2002-Jun-12, 08:59 PM
On 2002-06-12 13:00, p9107 wrote:
Um- I think you guys may be missing the point. What if this is real. No hoax. Real.


Just dwell on that for a while...


Missing the point? I made the point in the first post of the thread. And it was that hoaxland will probably see yet another opportunity to fleece the stupid and gullible with more manufactured stories.

It appears that I was correct.

Conrad
2002-Jun-13, 08:56 AM
On 2002-06-12 13:00, p9107 wrote:
Um- I think you guys may be missing the point. What if this is real. No hoax. Real.


Just dwell on that for a while...


"Hoax"?
The photograph is real, no question about that. What is open to question is Hoagie's interpretation of said photograph. He calls the channels consistent and yet I can see variations in them. The mesa's are described as "frighteningly" geometric, when they're not (at least, not to me). He goes into inordinate detail about a crater sitting in a rectangle - that may only be an image artefact.
I gather Mr Hoagie could see a NASA conspiracy in limestone pavement (O Level Geography reference!).
"Welcome to our world" he boldly states; sorry, does he personally have dibs on Mars or is he just rather arrogant?

Phobos
2002-Jun-13, 10:09 AM
On 2002-06-13 04:56, Conrad wrote:
"Hoax"?
The photograph is real, no question about that. What is open to question is Hoagie's interpretation of said photograph. He calls the channels consistent and yet I can see variations in them. The mesa's are described as "frighteningly" geometric, when they're not (at least, not to me). He goes into inordinate detail about a crater sitting in a rectangle - that may only be an image artefact.
I gather Mr Hoagie could see a NASA conspiracy in limestone pavement (O Level Geography reference!).
"Welcome to our world" he boldly states; sorry, does he personally have dibs on Mars or is he just rather arrogant?


Mr Hoagland is somewhat pleased with current events because they seem to confirm some of his "Mars is a young wet ex-moon" theory. His submissions are long and contentious, but you do yourself no favours by misrepresenting his arguments.

For example, based on the content of his submissions "Welcome to our world" is probably a reference to how he sees NASA's position over the amount of water on Mars has changed to one which is closer to his "Mars is a young ex-moon with sub-surface water" theories.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-13 06:10 ]</font>

Conrad
2002-Jun-13, 12:58 PM
On 2002-06-13 06:09, Phobos wrote:


On 2002-06-13 04:56, Conrad wrote:
"Hoax"?
The photograph is real, no question about that. What is open to question is Hoagie's interpretation of said photograph. He calls the channels consistent and yet I can see variations in them. The mesa's are described as "frighteningly" geometric, when they're not (at least, not to me). He goes into inordinate detail about a crater sitting in a rectangle - that may only be an image artefact.
I gather Mr Hoagie could see a NASA conspiracy in limestone pavement (O Level Geography reference!).
"Welcome to our world" he boldly states; sorry, does he personally have dibs on Mars or is he just rather arrogant?


Mr Hoagland is somewhat pleased with current events because they seem to confirm some of his "Mars is a young wet ex-moon" theory. His submissions are long and contentious, but you do yourself no favours by misrepresenting his arguments.

For example, based on the content of his submissions "Welcome to our world" is probably a reference to how he sees NASA's position over the amount of water on Mars has changed to one which is closer to his "Mars is a young ex-moon with sub-surface water" theories.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-13 06:10 ]</font>


"Misrepresent" how, exactly?
And is he still banging on about the Face?

Phobos
2002-Jun-13, 02:43 PM
On 2002-06-13 08:58, Conrad wrote:
"Misrepresent" how, exactly?
And is he still banging on about the Face?


Lets look at his most recent entries His Website (http://www.enterprisemission.com)

6/09/02 - Excuses, Excuses: You Can Lead NASA to Water ... But You Can't Make Them Think (http://www.enterprisemission.com/excuses.htm)

He heads this one "Water, Water Everywhere but NOT Where NASA Thinks!" - the main thrust of his argument here is that water distribution around the equator seem to support his contention that Mars was once a moon around a larger body he calls planet V (see Mars Tidal Model (http://www.enterprisemission.com/tide.htm))


5/30/02 - Russians Boldly Go Where NASA Fears to Tread .... (http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/27/29346.html)

A link to speculation that there may still be life on Mars


5/29/02 - NASA Summarily Cancels Mars Odyssey Water Press Conference! (http://www.enterprisemission.com/water.html)

Speculating about NASA avoiding discussing implications of water discoveries


5/28/02 - When We're Right, We're Even More Right ... (http://www.enterprisemission.com/right2.htm)

More references to the Tidal Model, speculation of artificial structures.


5/28/02 - NASA Finds Mars Home to Ancient, Major Oceans (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20020528a.html)

Link to recent NASA water discoveries on Mars.


5/28/02 - Despite Two Decades of Documented NASA Trickery -- It's STILL a Face! (http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/stereography/parallax-results.htm)

Examination of the "face" structure.


Yes he is still convinced the face structure is artificial, but that is not the main emphasis about what he is arguing. The main thrust of his current arguements seem to revolve around the tidal model and in his view the recent NASA releases are confirming some of his predictions.

The statement regarding misrepresentation was with regard to his heading "Welcome to our world". Based on his writings to date it would seem clear that rather than claiming ownership he is stating that NASA's official view of Mars is changing towards something closer to his view. He could just have easily have worded it "NASA's Mars has just got wetter" and still have meant the same thing.

Surely when he refers to the channels as being consistent, he is meaning consistent with his proposed model.

If Richard Hoagland was a contributor to this board I would expect the BA would need to tighten up on the Ad Homenim styled attacks that seem to be directed towards him. Rather than personal attacks shouldn't we be debating the merits/demerits of his tidal model ?

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-13 11:07 ]</font>

Cloudy
2002-Jun-13, 05:18 PM
When I said that Hoagland was correct on one
point, I meant that he was correct in predicting that Mars had allot more water, allot closer than to the surface, than what was thought at the time he made the prediction.

In this he was correct, but that fact does not really argue for any of his other fanciful prediction.

My fault for not making myself clear.

also
Mainstream science changed its mind when confronted with new evidence.
Hoagland never changes his mind - when inconvenient evidence shows up, he invokes conspiracy theories.

Jim
2002-Jun-13, 07:00 PM
In this he was correct, but that fact does not really argue for any of his other fanciful prediction.

If you make enough predictions about anything, sooner or later you'll get one right.

"Even a blind squirrel finds some nuts."

David Hall
2002-Jun-14, 05:24 AM
On 2002-06-13 13:18, Cloudy wrote:

Hoagland never changes his mind - when inconvenient evidence shows up, he invokes conspiracy theories.


From what I've seen of Hoagland, usually when he's confronted with new evidence, he alters his "theories" to include the new data and then claims that he was right all along. This is most evident in the continuing mutation of his 'Face on Mars' claims, where each and every new photo coming out is hailed as a validation of his ideas.

When he cries conspiracy it's usually to make himself look like the underdog fighting for the truth against the big bad NASA machine.

The Rat
2002-Jun-15, 04:53 AM
On 2002-06-13 10:43, Phobos wrote:
If Richard Hoagland was a contributor to this board I would expect the BA would need to tighten up on the Ad Homenim styled attacks that seem to be directed towards him. Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-13 11:07 ]</font>


When most of us hear his name we begin rolling our eyes, a typical non-verbal ad hominem attack. There comes a point when all you have to do is hear a name and you immediately discount anything they have to say. It's come to that point with many of us where Hoagland is concerned. His credibility is so low that an anorexic worm couldn't limbo under the bar he sets.

Sorry, but 'ad homs' are about all I'll waste my time on where he's concerned.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-15, 05:36 AM
On 2002-06-15 00:53, The Rat wrote:
When most of us hear his name we begin rolling our eyes, a typical non-verbal ad hominem attack. There comes a point when all you have to do is hear a name and you immediately discount anything they have to say. It's come to that point with many of us where Hoagland is concerned. His credibility is so low that an anorexic worm couldn't limbo under the bar he sets.


You mean these:

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-15 02:22 ]</font>

Cloudy
2002-Jun-18, 05:14 AM
David Hall,

I thank you for correcting me re Hoaglans tactics. I see now that he does seem to respond to contrary evidence by changing his tone and still claiming he is right - and using his conspiracy theories mainly for emotional appeal.

But don't real scientists also alter their theories to fit new evidence? How is Hoagland different from mainstream science in that respect? Is it that he never admits he was wrong, or is it something I am missing? These arn't rhetorical questions, I am asking those of you who have more experience with Hoagland(and real science) than I...

David Hall
2002-Jun-18, 01:36 PM
On 2002-06-18 01:14, Cloudy wrote:

But don't real scientists also alter their theories to fit new evidence? How is Hoagland different from mainstream science in that respect? Is it that he never admits he was wrong, or is it something I am missing?

Yeah, he never admits he's wrong. I would say that wraps it up in a nutshell.

A true scientist is always alert to the possibility that he's wrong. The greatest level of criticism is actually leveled at his own work. He attacks it from all angles (as well as letting others attack it) until he's sure it is as rock-solid as he can make it. If he finds a weakness so large that it undermines the whole theory, he chucks the theory and starts afresh.

And this is continued as new data is brought forth. Sure, he will attempt to alter the theory to an extent if it's possible. But only if it can be safely done without damaging the theory as a whole. Nobody wants to throw out a perfectly good theory on a few minor points, after all. But if the data gets too damaging, out goes the theory and we start over again.

Most importantly, he will admit readily that he was wrong, or at least that the data has invalidated his theory, and document clearly where and how it fails for all to see and learn from.

Hoagland on the other hand is more concerned about protecting his "theories" than actually analyzing the data. He doesn't ever admit to being wrong. He doesn't accept any corrections. He doesn't even admit it when the data contradicts his work. He just shifts things around until the new evidence is assimilated into the old, whether or not they actually make sense or truly support him.

Under Hoagland's methodology, the data does not truly support the theory and the theory doesn't truly explain the data. He just uses whatever bells and whistles he can muster to make it look like a cohesive whole. The image of correctness is more important than actually being correct.

I hope I've explained this well enough. I'm not as erudite as some of the others on this board at explaining the scientific method. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Cloudy
2002-Jul-06, 03:52 AM
Thanks Dave,

You do a very good job of explaining the scientific method so the layman can understand - and I thank you for your efforts. I just wish more people would try it out for themselves... It can be just as fun as Hoagland's stuff...

My expertise is more in history and religion, and even though such disciplines are not strictly scientific - I wish people would be able to see that even in these areas, not all opinions are created equal. Some are more or less supportable by facts and experience, and some are not.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-07-05 23:53 ]</font>