Literature topic

[W1GUH]

book, with something important to say.

It is a book that was written by two outstanding, intelligent, and talented authors whom I've sat with, up close and in person, and whom I've seen present, in detail, their work at a public conference.

During all of that close contact, that stretched for hours over two days, I detected absolutely nothing in their work that spoke of ego. #What I saw were two very intelligent people who have impeccably researched, and reported, what they have found through independant research.

OK....now I'm about to lose a bunch of readers...

If you haven't already guessed, the book is
Dark Mission
The Secret History of NASA

by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara.

Now that I've met those two extraordinary human beings up very close and personal and have a very deep appreciation for the work they've done, and continue to do, I'll report what I think of their book, as I read through it.

[Yep, I've got on a suit made of the finest asbestos, and am prepared for all the flames that are about to come my way. #But...sorry to disappoint some of you, I have no tin-foil hat on. #That's just not necessary when you deal with those two.]

I'm up to page 90 of 548 in the book, and have just finished their detailed reporting of what happend with the Mars Observer probe.

Folks, what these people report is something we should all be aware of. #What they report is public domain stuff that, without any "interpretation" at all points at stuff that any concerend US Citizen should know and question.

Now I know that they're saying that one of the organizations that a lot of us, including myself, have really respected and loved over the years, NASA, is an agent of mis-information, at best, and outright lies at worst, but the evidence they cite is compelling.

But...people are people, and some people are incapable of grasping some things that are diametrically opposed to what the want to believe. #And under those conditions, some people will forego intelligent thought and rebuttal, and will resort to "brawn over brains" or at least, "flame over reason."

So be it. #In my 60 years, I've seen a lot of that.

But I also know that there are lots of you that do have the intelligence to know that there's something "funny" going on, and this book is an extraordinarily well done report of what these two intelligent and talented people have uncovered.

I highly, highly recommend it. #I also encourage you to follow them and attend, in person, one of their conferences where you can meet them in person, to judge for yourelf, based on real experience, whether they're tin-foil hat wearing crazies or not.

[n2ize]

Hate to be the one to say it but Hoagland is pretty much debunked and is not taken very seriously by the science / astronomy community. I mean...alien artifacts on mars and the moon ?... now really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif



Linque (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html)

[KC9IUX]

It's like believing in social programs that have never worked. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W3MIV]

More "tinfoil-hat" stuff from GUH, I see. A "book with something important to say," huh? Ah, that dark and threatening side of every gummint agency.

It'll probably reveal that it's all Ronald Reagan's fault.

[wa4brl]

I was raised a dyed-in-the-wool space/NASA buff. #I grew up with the space age, from Sputnik's launch when I was just three years old to our Apollo moon landings while I was in high school. #My enthusiasm for the space program was fanned all the more by my father's cheerleading fervor towards it. #

Dad spent his career as an aeronautical engineer at NASA-Langley in Hampton Va. #In the early sixtys he was asked to join Chris Kraft's team as the Mercury ground crew moved to build the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston for Gemini, Apollo and beyond. #Although he did not accept the position, he remained close with many of those who did and was able to visit the Houston facility throughout those years. #He was often mistaken for Buzz Aldrin there due to a fairly close physical resemblance. #Joe Walker, a test pilot who earned his astronaut wings flying NASA's X-15 rocket plane at Edwards AFB, was a family friend. #Yeah, we were close to this stuff.

It's difficult to describe the all-enveloping pride I felt in each of NASA's successes. #It was not just a government agency scoring points in the cold war arena, these were friends and acquaintences acheiving the stuff of dreams.

I was incensed when Nixon twice slashed NASA's budget in 1970, forcing cancelation of the Apollo 18, 19, & 20 lunar landing missions. #Next, Nixon cut funding for the Space Shuttle development, forcing severe engineering compromises in the shuttle's launch system. #I believe these budget cuts were the beginnings of the undoing of NASA.

Building, flying, and defending the Space Shuttle has been the ruin of NASA's space programs. #The un-admitted costs, boondoggles, and safety compromises have drained the spirit from the good souls working there, and depleted the budgets required for many serious unmanned basic science and exploratory missions. #

There has been much for NASA to hide about the too-compromised Space Shuttle system. #Most flights have required multiple waivers for serious safety deficiencies in order to be granted launch approval. #The huge costs of launches and labor-intensive refurbishing of the shuttle vehicle and main engines after each flight have been hidden from the very start of the program. #What was envisioned as a safe, cost-effective transport to and from earth orbit has proven to be anything but. #The true cost has been estimated at half a billion to one billion dollars per launch, and those estimates were made in the early 1980's. #They did not account for many billions more in vehicle development or the tragic losses of the Challenger and Columbia vehicles (not to mention their crews.) #How much greater is the actual per-launch figure now, in 2008?

Then there's the International Space Station. #A noble idea, I think, but I've yet to see any significant science result from it. #And the costs are absolutely staggering! #The corrosive fallout of the shuttle and ISS programs lay waste everything they touch.

I hope this new book sheds some light upon NASA's questionable management and their coccoon of self-serving bureaucratic culture. #I'm curious to learn of any other problems the authors may bring into the open. #I long for NASA to once again stun us with strings of inspiring achievements.

[WA8FOZ]

The shuttle was Nixon's revenge on Kennedy. Even if funded better, it still would have been a Rube Goldberg boondoggle. They thought they could make money with it - sort of like the #Iraq campaign paying for itself. I felt sorry for the engineers who were forced to work on it. Sad.

The next generation of vehicles harken back to Apollo and will be launched by "big dumb rockets." Thank goodness.

Too bad we lost three decades. Let's hope they don't underfund this phase too.

[W2ILP]

I don't praise many people...and I certainly don't think anybody is super human. Everyone is human and everyone has an ego. Some people seem to have more of a sense of reality than others. There has never been a technical government program which in my opinion was run entirely efficiently....to say the least. Some programs run long enough to overrun their funding but are never finished...Some are finished but management wants to keep them alive. Others are slowed by the use of too many people being assigned to them...and more job shoppers and subcontractors are added or changed in last minute rushes...so that communication between the engineering staffs keeps many brains reinventing stuff that others found to be a dead end. Many jokes are made about all government projects. When a program feast is finally over there is the layoff period...where often the best engineers but the politically most disagreeable people get laid off. I admit that most of the programs that I have been associated with could have stood some whistle blowing. I have always had a big mouth and was always recognized as a black cloud when I made reports from the field...but I never wrote a book about the specifics...because I had no guts and was afraid of being blackballed by "them".

There is a man who I always had the most respect for...although I never met him. I read his book "The Pleasure of Finding Out", and I listened to his lectures which I have on CDs called "Five Easy Pieces". He is of cause the late Richard P. Feynman. He had enough of a sense of humor along with a sense of modesty to tell his students that he himself did not understand the quantum physics that he was teaching them. I dunno any other teacher who could be so honest.

It was Feynman, who in front of a Congressional committee, explained the real cause of a Space Shuttle disaster. He brought a rubber O-ring to the hearing and sprayed it with freon. Then he cracked it before their eyes. Feynman was a hands-on technologist....not just a stuffed shirt rocket scientist.

w2ilp (I Like Physicists)...who are excellent observers...even of their own mistakes.

[W2ILP]

Many fiascos were the fault of the late Robert MacNamara. #I met him in person myself when I was working on a secret project. # This was not the F-111 which I later did get to work on.

It was MacNamara's dream that the F-111 could be flown off of an aircraft carrier for the Navy, as well as being an Airforce fighter bomber. #It was supposed to be a joint project of Grumman in Bethpage, New York and General Dynamics, in Fort Worth, Texas. #As soon as I heard of this I knew that only one could design the airframe...and it would never have a tail hook. #Enuf Sed.

I placed this post into this thread because MacNamara wrote a book before he died. #He adsmitted most of his own failures....to his credit.

w2ilp (Interservice's Lost Plans?)

[W2ILP]

I think that many will agree when I say that funding a program to send a man to Mars is dumb. We should continue our space program however by sending unmanned vehicles to Mars.

We don't need no hero astronuuts. We just need down to earth people who can read the telemetry.

w2ilp (Inhibit Live People) from going to Mars just because we want to beat the Chinese.

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 10 2008,00:48)]I think that many will agree when I say that funding a program to send a man to Mars is dumb.
Dunno.


It would be nice to be able to pick up the Rover and move it away from that big rock!

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,04:53)]Hate to be the one to say it but Hoagland is pretty much debunked and is not taken very seriously by the science / astronomy community. I mean...alien artifacts on mars and the moon ?... now really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif



Linque (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html)
Is that your only source? Have you met the man? Are you familiar with his work?

That site immediately struck me as a hokum site. How about some of your own words why I should invest time wading through it?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 09 2008,05:29)]More "tinfoil-hat" stuff from GUH, I see. A "book with something important to say," huh? Ah, that dark and threatening side of every gummint agency.

It'll probably reveal that it's all Ronald Reagan's fault.
I would expect no less from you, Albert, but do you ever get the notion that your inflexibility and refusal to accept anything that has happened since the 50's has limited you in knowing what's out there?

[W1GUH]

I posed two good questions to two of you, which went unacknowledged. I hope that both of you understnand that they were legitimate questions, posed so that I can learn something from your responses. I put real energy and time into the original post, and told you why I think this is a real, legitimate, valid thing that all US Citizens should be aware of. Both of your responses seemed to indicate that you put no time or effort, really, into your responses. Would you care to re-phrase your objections, this time with real thought and energy?

I really want to know your thinking behind this.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,23:29)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,04:53)]Hate to be the one to say it but Hoagland is pretty much debunked and is not taken very seriously by the science / astronomy community. I mean...alien artifacts on mars and the moon ?... now really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif



Linque (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html)
Is that your only source? #Have you met the man? Are you familiar with his work?

That site immediately struck me as a hokum site. #How about some of your own words why I should invest time wading through it?
You should wade through it to read some of the rebuttals and reasons why professional astronomers, scientists, mathematicians, various academics, etc. #are skeptical regarding many of Hoagland's claims and have offered rebuttals to many of his arguments. There are so many it's hard to know where to start nor feasible to even try on a forum such as this. I tend to be skeptical of many of Hoagland's arguments.

You might consider some of the professional skepticism surrounding his theory of the "face on mars". What evidence he did present has been debunked upon closer analysis at higher resolutions.

Another point of interest was Hoagland's theories regarding Europa in which Hoagland more or less claimed that NASA plagiarized his ideas. However, as mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg has pointed out the shoe is pretty much on the other foot. Most of Hoaglands ideas regarding Europa were first proposed by others (to whom Hoagland places no credit) and additionally Hoagland didn't even get his math correct.

Matter of fact I'll make a trade-off with you. I'll read and learn more about Hoagland if you'll agree to read the words of some of his keenest skeptics, many of whom are highly distinguished professionals in such fields as science, astronomy, mathematics, and related fields.

I leave you with a few links to look over..

1) A general wikipedia article on Hoaglandto get the ball rolling.

Linque un (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland)

2) The Posner article titled "The Face Behind the face on Mars - A Skeptical Look at Hoagland"


Linque deux (http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html)

3) Professor Greenberg's article titled "An Ocean on Europa"
Linque trois (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EuropaHistory.html)

4) A page of links to articles by Professor Greenberg relating to Hoagland. The link titled "An Experiment with Telephone Numbers" is a MUST READ.

Linque quatre (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/HoagIndex.html)

5) Skeptics page regarding the "face on mars"

Linque cinq (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html)

6) Professor Greenbergs home page. Links to Europa writings and lots of other interesting stuff.

Linque six (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html)

As I point out. To gain a full and rich understanding of the subject it is important to read and appreciate the learned writings of the skeptics. With respect to Hoagland I stand with the skeptics.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 12 2008,04:25)]I posed two good questions to two of you, which went unacknowledged. #I hope that both of you understnand that they were legitimate questions, posed so that I can learn something from your responses. #I put real energy and time into the original post, and told you why I think this is a real, legitimate, valid thing that all US Citizens should be aware of. #Both of your responses seemed to indicate that you put no time or effort, really, into your responses. #Would you care to re-phrase your objections, this time with real thought and energy?

I really want to know your thinking behind this.
I put the amount of 'thought and effort' into my response that anything from Hoagland deserves. That you didn't like the response is another issue entirely, and it speaks far more eloquently of your problems than mine.

I am not the one who refuses to accept change, though I do not always like it, nor am I the one with a conspiratorial chip on my shoulder, rooting about in seach of nefarious schemes and plots against me by intriguing government agencies. As to being 'inflexible,' I confess that I award high marks to rigidity when it affects the spine. I admit to having learned that in the fifties and sixties; I, therefore, found it much easier to wade upright through the seventies. Did you?

[kd5kfl]

I worked for the space program for over 15 years. Operated the equipment at Apollo site, Goldstone tracking station, in the Mojave desert.

Underappreciated fact #1: The space program was not as high tech as Hollywood would have you believe. When the station closed down in 1994, we still had tube type O'scopes ( Tektronix 545s ), Univac discrete component computers ( 1642Bs ) with a 5 mb hard drive the size of a pony keg, and frequency counters with nixie tubes.

The people who worked with this gear trusted it. Proven by years of service. That new stuff, LEDs, ICs - not when human lives depend on it, thank you.

Underappreciated fact #2: We were not all sci fi fans. Everyone was continuously reading. Science, technology of all kinds. Some were deep into history, the kind where they concentrate on the civil war and could tell you the major events of every day of the war. Obsession combined with intelligence and focus. Very little interest in fiction of any kind. 50 - 50 mix of obsessive sports fans and the utterly disinterested.

Yes, we landed on the moon. Left behind a package named ALSEP. Apollo Lunar Scientific Equipment Package. I tracked it when I first worked there, it worked into the early '80s.

Why we need a space program: this will require some effort on your part. You need to supply nine answers.

Name three exploring nations.

Name three nations that never were exploring nations.

Name three nations that were exploring nations and ceased to explore.

When you named three exploring nations, you named three nations that are major players on the world stage. Vital economies, net contributors to research and technology. People strive to emigrate to these nations. The language of these exploring nations are understood on the other side of the world.

Naming three non exploring nations was easy. Any three third world nations. No economy. Principal role on the world stage: Convenient victim status. Principal export: Unskilled labor.

Those three former exploring nations: Economy between third world and exploring nations. Current principal industry: Tourism. Hawking a peek at the surviving residue of their glory days, and colorful ethnic folk dancing displays. Principal exports: Fine wines and wool.

We cease to be a vital and dynamic nation when we cease to explore. We have the ability to explore space, an ability which greatly exceeds that of most nations.

If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Space exploration is the grizzly bear of exploration. So it's that, or start practicing square dancing and line dancing for the tourists.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,03:23)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,23:29)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,04:53)]Hate to be the one to say it but Hoagland is pretty much debunked and is not taken very seriously by the science / astronomy community. I mean...alien artifacts on mars and the moon ?... now really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif



Linque (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html)
Is that your only source? Have you met the man? Are you familiar with his work?

That site immediately struck me as a hokum site. How about some of your own words why I should invest time wading through it?
You should wade through it to read some of the rebuttals and reasons why professional astronomers, scientists, mathematicians, various academics, etc. are skeptical regarding many of Hoagland's claims and have offered rebuttals to many of his arguments. There are so many it's hard to know where to start nor feasible to even try on a forum such as this. I tend to be skeptical of many of Hoagland's arguments.

You might consider some of the professional skepticism surrounding his theory of the "face on mars". What evidence he did present has been debunked upon closer analysis at higher resolutions.

Another point of interest was Hoagland's theories regarding Europa in which Hoagland more or less claimed that NASA plagiarized his ideas. However, as mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg has pointed out the shoe is pretty much on the other foot. Most of Hoaglands ideas regarding Europa were first proposed by others (to whom Hoagland places no credit) and additionally Hoagland didn't even get his math correct.

Matter of fact I'll make a trade-off with you. I'll read and learn more about Hoagland if you'll agree to read the words of some of his keenest skeptics, many of whom are highly distinguished professionals in such fields as science, astronomy, mathematics, and related fields.

I leave you with a few links to look over..

1) A general wikipedia article on Hoaglandto get the ball rolling.

Linque un (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland)

2) The Posner article titled "The Face Behind the face on Mars - A Skeptical Look at Hoagland"


Linque deux (http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html)

3) Professor Greenberg's article titled "An Ocean on Europa"
Linque trois (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EuropaHistory.html)

4) A page of links to articles by Professor Greenberg relating to Hoagland. The link titled "An Experiment with Telephone Numbers" is a MUST READ.

Linque quatre (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/HoagIndex.html)

5) Skeptics page regarding the "face on mars"

Linque cinq (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html)

6) Professor Greenbergs home page. Links to Europa writings and lots of other interesting stuff.

Linque six (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html)

As I point out. To gain a full and rich understanding of the subject it is important to read and appreciate the learned writings of the skeptics. With respect to Hoagland I stand with the skeptics.
Those links are hopelessy out of date. Hoagland is a man who does his homework. I will not read those until you've read, or skimmed, Dark Mission.

Richard and Mike are people who acknowledge mistakes, and are intelligent enough to modify what they are doing.

But...Dark Mission is about none of what those links refer to, not in any way. Why don't you read Dark Mission. Buy it and read it. If you don't see what I'm saying, I will meet you in person and GIVE you cash that's double what you paid for the book. Can I be more forthright than that? To get you to the primary material. If not, you are very closed minded.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 11 2008,06:26)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 12 2008,04:25)]I posed two good questions to two of you, which went unacknowledged. I hope that both of you understnand that they were legitimate questions, posed so that I can learn something from your responses. I put real energy and time into the original post, and told you why I think this is a real, legitimate, valid thing that all US Citizens should be aware of. Both of your responses seemed to indicate that you put no time or effort, really, into your responses. Would you care to re-phrase your objections, this time with real thought and energy?

I really want to know your thinking behind this.
I put the amount of 'thought and effort' into my response that anything from Hoagland deserves. That you didn't like the response is another issue entirely, and it speaks far more eloquently of your problems than mine.

I am not the one who refuses to accept change, though I do not always like it, nor am I the one with a conspiratorial chip on my shoulder, rooting about in seach of nefarious schemes and plots against me by intriguing government agencies. As to being 'inflexible,' I confess that I award high marks to rigidity when it affects the spine. I admit to having learned that in the fifties and sixties; I, therefore, found it much easier to wade upright through the seventies. Did you?
Quote[/b] ]I put the amount of 'thought and effort' into my response that anything from Hoagland deserves.

Would you account, in detail, why you know what Richard deserves? Have you met him? Have you spent significant time with the man, so you can actually judge him like that?

In short, please outline in detail what has led you to this conclusion. I have read nothing in what you write that you are, in any way, knowledgeable about his work. You have formed opinions form secondary material. Always a risky move.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Jan. 11 2008,10:40)]I worked for the space program for over 15 years. Operated the equipment at Apollo site, Goldstone tracking station, in the Mojave desert.

Underappreciated fact #1: The space program was not as high tech as Hollywood would have you believe. When the station closed down in 1994, we still had tube type O'scopes ( Tektronix 545s ), Univac discrete component computers ( 1642Bs ) with a 5 mb hard drive the size of a pony keg, and frequency counters with nixie tubes.

The people who worked with this gear trusted it. Proven by years of service. That new stuff, LEDs, ICs - not when human lives depend on it, thank you.

Underappreciated fact #2: We were not all sci fi fans. Everyone was continuously reading. Science, technology of all kinds. Some were deep into history, the kind where they concentrate on the civil war and could tell you the major events of every day of the war. Obsession combined with intelligence and focus. Very little interest in fiction of any kind. 50 - 50 mix of obsessive sports fans and the utterly disinterested.

Yes, we landed on the moon. Left behind a package named ALSEP. Apollo Lunar Scientific Equipment Package. I tracked it when I first worked there, it worked into the early '80s.

Why we need a space program: this will require some effort on your part. You need to supply nine answers.

Name three exploring nations.

Name three nations that never were exploring nations.

Name three nations that were exploring nations and ceased to explore.

When you named three exploring nations, you named three nations that are major players on the world stage. Vital economies, net contributors to research and technology. People strive to emigrate to these nations. The language of these exploring nations are understood on the other side of the world.

Naming three non exploring nations was easy. Any three third world nations. No economy. Principal role on the world stage: Convenient victim status. Principal export: Unskilled labor.

Those three former exploring nations: Economy between third world and exploring nations. Current principal industry: Tourism. Hawking a peek at the surviving residue of their glory days, and colorful ethnic folk dancing displays. Principal exports: Fine wines and wool.

We cease to be a vital and dynamic nation when we cease to explore. We have the ability to explore space, an ability which greatly exceeds that of most nations.

If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Space exploration is the grizzly bear of exploration. So it's that, or start practicing square dancing and line dancing for the tourists.
Quote[/b] ]Left behind a package named ALSEP. Apollo Lunar Scientific Equipment Package. I tracked it when I first worked there, it worked into the early '80s.

My first job out of college was at Bendix Aerospace in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where I worked on the central station, Array E.

I am beating that experience against what Richard says, and can find no conflicts.

[AE6IP]

I spent five years as a research scientist at NASA Ames Research Center. "Dark Mission" is utter nonsense.

Hoagland is a hoaxer, and his "evidence" is fake.

We've already had this discussion, and you refused to learn from it the first time. Go back and read the questions I posted to you the last time around, and this time, go do some real research.

You got suckered by a charlatan. You weren't the first and you won't be the last, but you're sure being taken by some of the dumbest hoaxes going on.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 13 2008,00:23)]I spent five years as a research scientist at NASA Ames Research Center. "Dark Mission" is utter nonsense.

Hoagland is a hoaxer, and his "evidence" is fake.

We've already had this discussion, and you refused to learn from it the first time. Go back and read the questions I posted to you the last time around, and this time, go do some real research.

You got suckered by a charlatan. You weren't the first and you won't be the last, but you're sure being taken by some of the dumbest hoaxes going on.
OK, you can do me a big favor, and do a great public service if you will read the book and point out, in detail, the flaws. None of us are going to accept your blanket statements which sound like personal, brainwashed BS, without detailed commentary on what Hoagland is doing.

Will you do that? Or will you just be lame?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Jan. 12 2008,09:40)]Name three exploring nations.

Chile, New Zealand, and Fiji.

Quote[/b] ]Name three nations that never were exploring nations.

Switzerland, Belgium, and Mexico

Quote[/b] ]Name three nations that were exploring nations and ceased to explore.

China, Japan, and Korea.

Quote[/b] ]When you named three exploring nations, you named three nations that are major players on the world stage. Vital economies, net contributors to research and technology. People strive to emigrate to these nations. The language of these exploring nations are understood on the other side of the world.


Not hardly. Well, Kiwis do speak English, but not because they exported it anywhere.

Quote[/b] ]Naming three non exploring nations was easy. Any three third world nations. No economy. Principal role on the world stage: Convenient victim status. Principal export: Unskilled labor.


Wrong again.

Quote[/b] ]Those three former exploring nations: Economy between third world and exploring nations. Current principal industry: Tourism. Hawking a peek at the surviving residue of their glory days, and colorful ethnic folk dancing displays. Principal exports: Fine wines and wool.

Tell that to Honda, Samsung, and China Mobile.

Quote[/b] ]We cease to be a vital and dynamic nation when we cease to explore. We have the ability to explore space, an ability which greatly exceeds that of most nations.

We have a large planet we've barely explored. Let's explore it first. Space will be there.

Quote[/b] ]If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Space exploration is the grizzly bear of exploration. So it's that, or start practicing square dancing and line dancing for the tourists.

Grizzly bears are an endangered species.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 13 2008,23:26)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 13 2008,00:23)]I spent five years as a research scientist at NASA Ames Research Center. "Dark Mission" is utter nonsense.

Hoagland is a hoaxer, and his "evidence" is fake.

We've already had this discussion, and you refused to learn from it the first time. Go back and read the questions I posted to you the last time around, and this time, go do some real research.

You got suckered by a charlatan. You weren't the first and you won't be the last, but you're sure being taken by some of the dumbest hoaxes going on.
OK, you can do me a big favor, and do a great public service if you will read the book and point out, in detail, the flaws. None of us are going to accept your blanket statements which sound like personal, brainwashed BS, without detailed commentary on what Hoagland is doing.

Will you do that? Or will you just be lame?
I pointed out flaws the last time we went around this.

You called me names.

Go back and reread the thread. There are several flaws I pointed out there.

There's also a bunch of independent research you could do to demonstrate to yourself that Hoagland is a hoaxer.

You didn't last time and you won't this time. You want to believe in a nutty conspiracy and you don't want to know what NASA is, or was, really like.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 13 2008,23:12)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,03:23)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,23:29)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,04:53)]Hate to be the one to say it but Hoagland is pretty much debunked and is not taken very seriously by the science / astronomy community. I mean...alien artifacts on mars and the moon ?... now really http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif



Linque (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html)
Is that your only source? #Have you met the man? Are you familiar with his work?

That site immediately struck me as a hokum site. #How about some of your own words why I should invest time wading through it?
You should wade through it to read some of the rebuttals and reasons why professional astronomers, scientists, mathematicians, various academics, etc. #are skeptical regarding many of Hoagland's claims and have offered rebuttals to many of his arguments. There are so many it's hard to know where to start nor feasible to even try on a forum such as this. I tend to be skeptical of many of Hoagland's arguments.

You might consider some of the professional skepticism surrounding his theory of the "face on mars". What evidence he did present has been debunked upon closer analysis at higher resolutions.

Another point of interest was Hoagland's theories regarding Europa in which Hoagland more or less claimed that NASA plagiarized his ideas. However, as mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg has pointed out the shoe is pretty much on the other foot. Most of Hoaglands ideas regarding Europa were first proposed by others (to whom Hoagland places no credit) and additionally Hoagland didn't even get his math correct.

Matter of fact I'll make a trade-off with you. I'll read and learn more about Hoagland if you'll agree to read the words of some of his keenest skeptics, many of whom are highly distinguished professionals in such fields as science, astronomy, mathematics, and related fields.

I leave you with a few links to look over..

1) A general wikipedia article on Hoaglandto get the ball rolling.

Linque un (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland)

2) The Posner article titled "The Face Behind the face on Mars - A Skeptical Look at Hoagland"


Linque deux (http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html)

3) Professor Greenberg's article titled "An Ocean on Europa"
Linque trois (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EuropaHistory.html)

4) A page of links to articles by Professor Greenberg relating to Hoagland. The link titled "An Experiment with Telephone Numbers" is a MUST READ.

Linque quatre (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/HoagIndex.html)

5) Skeptics page regarding the "face on mars"

Linque cinq (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/face.html)

6) Professor Greenbergs home page. Links to Europa writings and lots of other interesting stuff.

Linque six (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html)

As I point out. To gain a full and rich understanding of the subject it is important to read and appreciate the learned writings of the skeptics. With respect to Hoagland I stand with the skeptics.
Those links are hopelessy out of date. #Hoagland is a man who does his homework. #I will not read those until you've read, or skimmed, Dark Mission.

Richard and Mike are people who acknowledge mistakes, and are intelligent enough to modify what they are doing.

But...Dark Mission is about none of what those links refer to, not in any way. #Why don't you read Dark Mission. #Buy it and read it. #If you don't see what I'm saying, I will meet you in person and GIVE you cash that's double what you paid for the book. #Can I be more forthright than that? #To get you to the primary material. #If not, you are very closed minded.
I read a review of the book. It deals primarilly with NASA withholding evidence of remnants of alien civilizations on the moon and other planets within our solar system. That alone sets up some red flags in my book. I am extremely skeptical. Furthermore, you are dismissing the links (including the relevant writings and discussions of Dr. Greenberg) I presented based upon date rather than content. That doesn'tmake sense in my opinion. That would be like me dismissing Bayes Theorem, or The Theorem of Limits, or the work of Fermat, Newton or Einstein because it was written too long ago. Date is irrelevant, CONTENT is what is relevant.

The content as stated explains many of the issues that very reputable learned professionals have had with Hoagland's claims past and present.

As I said, I will make a tradeoff. I will look at "Dark Mission" objectively and give it a fair assessment provided you will carefully read and examine the writings of the skeptics ,myself included, taking into accout our arguments and rebuttals to some of Hoagland's claims. Give them a fair and objective chance and hear what they have to say. I think that is a fair request. If Hoagland offers compelling and tangible evidence to support his claims such that his arguments are not easilly rebuted by and are backed by reputable professionals then, and only then, will I reduce my level of skepticism. However, I think that will be improbable but, nonetheless, I am willing to give it a look provided you give the skeptics a fair and objective look.

[W1GUH]

Now that I've dealt with specific replies...here's the straight skinny.

What Hoagland and Mara have uncovered is way out there, and I acknowledge that it's pretty hard to swallow.

But here's my experience...straight up.

As I've repeated many times, I now have met those two, and saw absolutely nothing in them that indicates, in any way, that they are wearing tin-foil hats. I sat with them in the lounge in the Hilton Hotel at LAX airport and got to know them as people, and they are extremely intelligent and talented human beings that have found what they have found. And they've documented in to a high level in their book, Dark Mission.

The next day I sat through their professional presentation of their work, in which I could find no reason to question them. That's because for every image they showed, they explained what they saw, why they saw it, and why it wasn't the obvious "problem."

They had deeply done their homework, and left me with no questions.

What they presented was, literally, SHOCKING! No kiddin' about that, and for the next two days I kept questioning it. But, the truth is, for every objection I had, I recalled their explanation as to why that objection doesn't work.

That's no s@#$. Straight up, absolutely honestly, no holds barred.

Hard to accept? You betcha.

Far out? Sure is.

Real?

Well, read for yourself the time and research those talented men have put into this and come to you own conclusions.

But please...go to the primary source. Don't pledge allegiance to individuals that want to discredit them.

Comprende?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] ]
As I've repeated many times, I now have met those two, and saw absolutely nothing in them that indicates, in any way, that they are wearing tin-foil hats. #I sat with them in the lounge in the Hilton Hotel at LAX airport and got to know them as people, and they are extremely intelligent and talented human beings that have found what they have found. #And they've documented in to a high level in their book, Dark Mission.


I don't doubt that Hoagland and Bara come off as inteliigent and level headed. Most likely they are.

I have a friend who is also quite level headed and very intelligent. He is both a professional engineer and a writer. he firmly believes that he is a witch and is endowed with superhuman powers and that he comes from family lineage of witches and warlocks. He believes that the comedy TV show of the 1960's "Bewitched" was an actual true (but comically portrayed) depiction of a real witch who infiltrated Hollywood during the late 50's and made such an impression on directors and producers that they decided to incorporate this person into a television series. He also believes that the actress who starred in the show has a real connection with witchcraft outside of her tv work and that she is/was fully capable of moving objects and causing events to happen from a distance. He also believes that he is under close government surveillance and that his home and phone and Internet connection are being bugged by operatives and spooks.

If you were to meet him in person you would find him intelligent, clever, well spoken, witty, and very normal and straight laced and you would find no indication that he wears a tinfoil hat whatsoever. Only when you get to know him well, over many years, as I have, will he confide his world of witchcraft to anyone.

I am not accusing Hoagland of this per se. I merely want to point out that many people who harbour very strange far out ideas, or who harbour hoaxes and spoofs, often seem 100% perfectly normal with no hocus pocus up the sleeve whence you meet them.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 13 2008,00:53)]
Quote[/b] ]
As I've repeated many times, I now have met those two, and saw absolutely nothing in them that indicates, in any way, that they are wearing tin-foil hats. I sat with them in the lounge in the Hilton Hotel at LAX airport and got to know them as people, and they are extremely intelligent and talented human beings that have found what they have found. And they've documented in to a high level in their book, Dark Mission.


I don't doubt that Hoagland and Bara come off as inteliigent and level headed. Most likely they are.

I have a friend who is also quite level headed and very intelligent. He is both a professional engineer and a writer. he firmly believes that he is a witch and is endowed with superhuman powers and that he comes from family lineage of witches and warlocks. He believes that the comedy TV show of the 1960's "Bewitched" was an actual true (but comically portrayed) depiction of a real witch who infiltrated Hollywood during the late 50's and made such an impression on directors and producers that they decided to incorporate this person into a television series. He also believes that the actress who starred in the show has a real connection with witchcraft outside of her tv work and that she is/was fully capable of moving objects and causing events to happen from a distance. He also believes that he is under close government surveillance and that his home and phone and Internet connection are being bugged by operatives and spooks.

If you were to meet him in person you would find him intelligent, clever, well spoken, witty, and very normal and straight laced and you would find no indication that he wears a tinfoil hat whatsoever. Only when you get to know him well, over many years, as I have, will he confide his world of witchcraft to anyone.

I am not accusing Hoagland of this per se. I merely want to point out that many people who harbour very strange far out ideas, or who harbour hoaxes and spoofs, often seem 100% perfectly normal with no hocus pocus up the sleeve whence you meet them.
Again...have you looked at the primary material? That's ALL I'm asking.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 14 2008,00:05)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 13 2008,00:53)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 13 2008,23:39)]
Quote[/b] ]
As I've repeated many times, I now have met those two, and saw absolutely nothing in them that indicates, in any way, that they are wearing tin-foil hats. #I sat with them in the lounge in the Hilton Hotel at LAX airport and got to know them as people, and they are extremely intelligent and talented human beings that have found what they have found. #And they've documented in to a high level in their book, Dark Mission.


I don't doubt that Hoagland and Bara come off as inteliigent and level headed. Most likely they are.

I have a friend who is also quite level headed and very intelligent. He is both a professional engineer and a writer. he firmly believes that he is a witch and is endowed with superhuman powers and that he comes from family lineage of witches and warlocks. He believes that the comedy TV show of the 1960's "Bewitched" was an actual true (but comically portrayed) depiction of a real witch who infiltrated Hollywood during the late 50's and made such an impression on directors and producers that they decided to incorporate this person into a television series. He also believes that the actress who starred in the show has a real connection with witchcraft outside of her tv work and that she is/was fully capable of moving objects and causing events to happen from a distance. He also believes that he is under close government surveillance and that his home and phone and Internet connection are being bugged by operatives and spooks.

If you were to meet him in person you would find him intelligent, clever, well spoken, witty, and very normal and straight laced and you would find no indication that he wears a tinfoil hat whatsoever. Only when you get to know him well, over many years, as I have, will he confide his world of witchcraft to anyone.

I am not accusing Hoagland of this per se. I merely want to point out that many people who harbour very strange far out ideas, or who harbour hoaxes and spoofs, often seem 100% perfectly normal with no hocus pocus up the sleeve whence you meet them.
Again...have you looked at the primary material? #That's ALL I'm asking.
Check my previous posting, the one previous to the one above. I explain my position on the matter there. For sake of brevity I requote myself below.

Quote[/b] ]
I read a review of the book. It deals primarilly with NASA withholding evidence of remnants of alien civilizations on the moon and other planets within our solar system. That alone sets up some red flags in my book. I am extremely skeptical. Furthermore, you are dismissing the links (including the relevant writings and discussions of Dr. Greenberg) I presented based upon date rather than content. That doesn'tmake sense in my opinion. That would be like me dismissing Bayes Theorem, or The Theorem of Limits, or the work of Fermat, Newton or Einstein because it was written too long ago. Date is irrelevant, CONTENT is what is relevant.

The content as stated explains many of the issues that very reputable learned professionals have had with Hoagland's claims past and present.

As I said, I will make a tradeoff. I will look at "Dark Mission" objectively and give it a fair assessment provided you will carefully read and examine the writings of the skeptics ,myself included, taking into accout our arguments and rebuttals to some of Hoagland's claims. Give them a fair and objective chance and hear what they have to say. I think that is a fair request. If Hoagland offers compelling and tangible evidence to support his claims such that his arguments are not easilly rebuted by and are backed by reputable professionals then, and only then, will I reduce my level of skepticism. However, I think that is improbable

[W1GUH]

So I just looked at it. Most of the links referenced the "Face on Mars" or Europa.

Neither of which is a topic in their latest work. Their latest work is far, far more encompassing and detailed than any of that work. And does NOT involve the "face on Mars" or Europa.

It outlines deeply researched work on other topics. But, if your mind is made up, of course you're going to ignore this stuff.

As you said, "I explain my position on the matter there." Is your position cast in concrete, or are you willing to go beyond that?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 14 2008,00:27)]So I just looked at it. #Most of the links referenced the "Face on Mars" or Europa.

Neither of which is a topic in their latest work. #Their latest work is far, far more encompassing and detailed than any of that work. #And does NOT involve the "face on Mars" or Europa.

It outlines deeply researched work on other topics. #But, if your mind is made up, of course you're going to ignore this stuff.

As you said, "I explain my position on the matter there." #Is your position cast in concrete, or are you willing to go beyond that?
Quote[/b] ]
So I just looked at it. #Most of the links referenced the "Face on Mars" or Europa.


And what did you think of it thus far ? I think Greenberg made some excellent points and brought forth some very interesting ideas as well as methods of comparative analysis.

If Bara and Hoagland can show compelling evidence for their claims that NASA has covered up evidence of alien remnants in space then I might become less skeptical. By compelling evidence I mean evidence that is backed up by reputable and prominent professional scientists in the field and deemed credible and worthy of deeper scientific investigation. In such cases I might lower my skepticism. But if it consists of half baked hard to swallow claims, anecdotal and here say evidence that cannot be verified amidst claims of cover ups by the top brass then my skepticism will remain high. Thus far my skepticism is high as I have yet to see reputable scientists embrace Hogland's "research" and deem it worthy of further research. We shall see.

[W3MIV]

"There's a sucker born every minute." Hoagland is aiming to make money off of each of them. Were I among that roquerie of rubes, I would be loathe to even admit it, not to even consider arguing in his behalf.

How long before we see the Ronald Reagan link?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 14 2008,04:59)]"There's a sucker born every minute." Hoagland is aiming to make money off of each of them. Were I among that roquerie of rubes, I would be loathe to even admit it, not to even consider arguing in his behalf.

How long before we see the Ronald Reagan link?
Well, at this point we're pretty much in agreement regarding Hoagland.

As far as ronnie goes he was bad news.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 13 2008,23:39)]Now that I've dealt with specific replies...here's the straight skinny.

And by 'dealt with', you mean 'ignored.'

Quote[/b] ]What Hoagland and Mara have uncovered is way out there, and I acknowledge that it's pretty hard to swallow.

They didn't "uncover" anything. They Made Stuff Up.

Quote[/b] ]
As I've repeated many times, I now have met those two, and saw absolutely nothing in them that indicates, in any way, that they are wearing tin-foil hats. I sat with them in the lounge in the Hilton Hotel at LAX airport and got to know them as people, and they are extremely intelligent and talented human beings that have found what they have found. And they've documented in to a high level in their book, Dark Mission.


They're con artists, not believers. Of course they came off as sane. That's part of the trade.

Quote[/b] ]The next day I sat through their professional presentation of their work, in which I could find no reason to question them.

You can't find what you're not looking for.

Quote[/b] ]That's because for every image they showed, they explained what they saw, why they saw it, and why it wasn't the obvious "problem."

None of their image manipulating techniques are valid. Ask any image analyst and they'll explain artifacting to you.

Quote[/b] ]They had deeply done their homework, and left me with no questions.

Which says more about your unwillingness to question what you want to believe than anything else.

Quote[/b] ]What they presented was, literally, SHOCKING! No kiddin' about that, and for the next two days I kept questioning it. But, the truth is, for every objection I had, I recalled their explanation as to why that objection doesn't work.

How about the objections I raised the last time you started a thread on the book, and you still haven't answered: Their "star witness" didn't have the job he claimed to have had, and had he had the job, NASA's protocols for evidence handling wouldn't have allowed him to destroy the images, not all of which would have been in his position anyway.


Quote[/b] ]That's no s@#$. Straight up, absolutely honestly, no holds barred.

It's nothing but BS.

Quote[/b] ]Real?

Nope.

Quote[/b] ]But please...go to the primary source. Don't pledge allegiance to individuals that want to discredit them.

You haven't gone to primary sources. You've gone to a couple of people who are inventing stories.

I tried to send you to primary sources, and you refused. Do you still refuse? Go to NASA and find out exactly how images were handled during the period. You'll find that it was impossible for them to have been destroyed in the fashion claimed. Check out the people making the claims. You'll find they didn't have the jobs they claim to have had. Talk to real image analysts at JPL about what Hoagland has done to create his fake structures on the moon.

Quote[/b] ]Comprende?

By the way, I am a primary source. I worked at NASA for five years, as a research scientist, and I know that it wasn't run the way Hoagland claims it was run.

The truth may be out there, but you have bought a con.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 14 2008,14:30)]The truth may be out there, but you have bought a con.
And not, it would seem, for the first time.

[W2ILP]

w1guh

I respect the fact that you took time to write the original post here. Many of us were reminded about stuff that we were all too familiar with by your post. I don't think any have had time to read the book that you recommended and that even you hadn't finished at the time you posted.

I read lots of non-fiction books. I'm half way through one now and I have four more by my bedside that I haven't had time to read yet. Some of them help me get to sleep...others make me fortget any of my own past, present and future troubles. I'll put the book you mentioned on my reading list...but I dunno when I will get to it. I can't comment about Hoagland. I'm not familiar with him....but Pavlov rings a bell.

w2ilp (I Like Paragraphs)...but I read entire books because I don't like any readers at "Readers Digest" to digest them for me before my cat can scratch their bindings.

I'll neve forget the day I read a book.
It wasn't a history because it didn't have a plot.
It wasn't a mystery because nobody there got shot.
The day I read a book?...I can't remember when?;
But one of these days I'm gunna do it again!
Yes Sir...One of these days I'm gunna do it again.
--Jimmy Durante--

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 14 2008,17:54)]I read lots of non-fiction books.
You miss the point. Hoagland's works ARE fiction. Of the cheapest sort.