Talk:Richard C. Hoagland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Biased Article 2 Old Navy 3 Career 4 The Angstrom Medal 5 book sales 6 American Antigravity 7 Solicitation of money, promotion of media 8 Middle name 9 Merely "unlikely"? 10 Panspermia & Science Language 11 Black Spot on Jupiter 12 Simply Wrong 13 Edit on 4 aug 06 by 70.170.79.6 14 Numerology 15 Claimed biography

[edit] Biased Article

If we are going to talk about Gary Posner's article in Skeptical Inquirer, here is the Enterprise Mission's response: [1]

The article can easily be written to exclude bias. I'd present the concepts in a more objective tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.156.159 (talk • contribs).

Do you mean that it's biased in favour of Hoagland or against him? The Singing Badger 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "Objectively, Hoagland is a crackpot who spouts nonsense for far too long on the radio, thanks to producers who are too ignorant to understand the difference between a scientist and a con-man, and uses the public media to beg for cash" ?? --El Inglés

I haven't read all there is on his TEM website, but I find little to condemn as outright fraud (perhaps the bit kooky visionary), or pseudoscience (some personal judgement comes into play when one applies occam's razor). What I do find over and over is the compelling claim of "hey, this thing over here is really weird, lets go look at it a lot closer". In other words, he presents elaborate hypotheses, with requests for support in testing, and wondering, as I do, at the appearance of stonewalling.

Attacks on the mans's character have little bearing on well-documented research. This is science we're talking about here. Why should he make such an extraordinary effort, just to make money selling books? (Spam works so much better). There is an entire realm of fortean, "off-beat" studies, and while there may exist credulous folk who believe anything (and who would benefit from an in-depth elucidation of the scientific method), inquiry into the nature of recurring, anomalous phenomena is itself not a credulous enterprise. Rather, it is the basis for the existence of the scientific method framework, and one should not be attacked because of it.

I would like to see R.C.H controversy focus on violations of Scientific Method protocols. -- Gaia9

Focus on 'The Scientific Method' is a laudable aim, but it will fail in this case. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, 'The Method' starts with accurate observations. Since Hoagland's observations are all inaccurate, the Method never gets a start. There are no 'recurring, anomalous phenomena', either. It's all just fantasy.

Look, Richard Hoagland has no standing whatsoever in planetary science. He has no standing in science journlaism either. He's best described as a former science journalist who hasn't been published anywhere for a decade other than on his own website -- and, as we all know, 12 year old girls all over the world publish to their web sites daily (and deserving of about the same degree of public attention). His pronouncements have approximately the same validity as a published letter to the editor of a small town somewhere in Idaho. Quite obviously, the planetary science community has no interest in responding to them. If you choose to call that "stonewalling" I'd say that just shows that you've been conned.

El Ingles 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that we have a claim that Hoagland worked for NASA as a consultant in here, with the supporting evidence being three web pages on Hoagland's site that off-handedly mention this? I think this should be removed unless there's some actual supporting evidence that it's true. -Syberghost 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gary Posner investigated this claim for the Skeptical Inquirer in 2000. Read all about it... http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html In summary, Hoagland is grossly distorting the truth in making this claim and I support the idea of deleting it. El Ingles 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, why does this con-man have a wiki page at all? I propose deleting the whole thing. El Ingles 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think popular con-men deserve their own wiki pages. Robert Tilton and Silvio Berlusconi have their own. ;)

More seriously. It is sometimes very difficult to find neutral and reliable information about controversial personalities. Even when wiki pages are not always neutral and reliable, the bits of indirect information (mostly on the discussion side) create a picture. (Kind of cockroach theory of information gathering: If you find one ugly fact there are bound to be others hiding...)

Talamus 00:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh. He may be a kook, but he's a famous kook. We can't deny him that. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Navy

Does anyone have anymore information about the Old Navy store basement conspiracy theory? I have a bit of morbid curiosity about it, I suppose you could call it. Cuitlahuac

I didn't hear the C2C show where talked about this. But from what I've heard from people since, he thinks that the store is owned by Masons (or something) and they pass coded information through their ads and hold secret meetings at the company headquarters. 68.234.239.109 10:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This was mentioned during his "birthday tribute" in april 2006. Art Bell said, chuckling, "I'll never forget that Old Navy episode. Whatever happened in the end?" Hoagland evasively replied (non-verbatim but close) "A contingent is keeping watch on that story, and that's all I can say about that." El Ingles 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I heard the original show with good 'ol Dick giving the scoop about Old Navy. Sorry I can't remember the date I'm sure it was quite a few years back. I'm sure some coast-to-coast fanatic has the show recorded to prove me wrong. To continue... Dick claimed the name "Old Navy" actually refers to the lost ancient civilization of Atlantis. I guess Atlantians (sp?) citizens being a seafaring peoples were much advanced long ago before the modern civilization we know today. They somehow got wiped out when the Atlantis Continent sunk into the ocean (or is Antarctica the frozen remnant of Atlantis?) except for a few who essentially are the source of a the Old Navy secret society. The Old Navy advertisements on TV are usually code for meeting dates and times. For instance, a statement like "Labor Day sale Men's shirts only $14.50" says the meeting is on Labor day at 14:50. Also, these secret messages seem to be one of the first things you hear, like a recap, of the most recent upcoming meeting when you call 1-800-OLD-NAVY. Their status levels of membership are simple. Men, Women, Baby. So the last sample meeting would only be for a "Men" level ranking member. Richard also claims that Old Navy does not make a profit. The company is a front for the secret society. Thus, each store exists as a meeting point for members and has secret basements or backrooms where members can meet. At the time of the original broadcast there was some big meeting coming up. Richard challenged the listening audience to go to their local Old Navy store and state "I am here for the meeting" just to see what happens. A day or so later people called back in to Coast-to-Coast and claimed they knew someone who was lead to a backroom meeting... but most just said that the store clerk looked at them as if they were crazy. I'd love to hear the episode again and get an accurate date it was aired. [WARNING: a few possible embellishments above] feel free to completely kill my comments. --EiO 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. Weren't people supposed to be carrying something special when they turned up for "the meeting", too? El Ingles 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career

I have taken a cautious approach in improving the Career section of the Richard C. Hoagland article. Some of his supporters, such as Jonathan B. Richards III, David Wilcock, Dave Jewett, and Michele Bugliaro Goggia have posted to the Web biographical information concerning his alleged work at the Gengras (1968) and Hayden (1974-75) Planetariums, among other things. For accuracy's sake, those planetariums would have to contacted for verification of employment before including such information in the article. Also, it should not be difficult to verify the claim that Mr. Hoagland was once the Editor-in-Chief of Star & Sky magazine.

Interestingly, I can not find a reference on Mr. Hoagland's website concerning his 1983 Analog Award for Best Fact Article, the two-part article, "The Blivit in the B-Ring." Perhaps there should be a separate bibliography and awards section in the Hoagland article. Alan G. Archer 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I should have noted that the Publisher's Forward in Mr. Hoagland's book, "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever," provides some background details on Mr. Hoagland, such as his time at the Gengras and Hayden Planetariums, his work at NBC, CBS and CNN, his role as "contributing editor and then Editor-in-Chief of Star & Sky Magazine," and other details. Alan G. Archer 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean, one of the sources was an AP story that I obtained courtesy of the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library. The library sent me copies of all of the materials, with exception of an archival 7" 45 rpm vinyl audio recording, related to the Peabody Awards entry submitted by WTIC (AM). And is not Mr. Hoagland's website, such as it is, a primary source? The Career section is not the only one that references Hoagland's website. Should the 'primarysources' tag be moved to the top of the article? Alan G. Archer 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Angstrom Medal

As mentioned on the Bad Astronomy website, Hoagland's medal is unofficial at best, i.e. not actually awarded by Uppsala University.

The claim that he recieved this medal is largely unverifiable outside of Hoagland's own website, and in fact sources point to the contrary. Rather than removing the original claim I included the counter-claim, with source. Anyone disagree for any reason? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Only that the counterclaim doesn't put it strongly enough. It is definitely not the award from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Uppsala University. The link cites several sources; we may take it as proven, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] book sales

We have language that Hoagland's books have sold "very well". Unless somebody has a citation for that, I'm thinking of changing it to "While Hoagland has sold thousands of books, most in the scientific establishment consider his theories to be pseudoscience." I think that claim is pretty safe since he's breaking the top 100,000 on Amazon, but by the same token he's only barely breaking the top 100,000 on Amazon, so even "comparatively well" seems misleading. I don't want to remove it entirely, however, because the man sells a lot of books. Problem is I can't prove numbers. Any of Hoagland's supporters got a link? I'll wait a while before I do this so you can respond. -Syberghost 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Hoagland supporter, but I think the statement that his books sell "very well" is not problematic, especially since you just said "the man sells a lot of books" yourself. Perhaps "very well for a small-press author" would be more accurate, although such a distinction reads like a deliberate attempt to belittle his writing career, such as it is. wikipediatrix 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he sells a lot of books; I can't point to a reference that verifies that he sells a number that I can show in a verifiable way is remarkable. Basically, I can prove he has sold books; not that they have sold "very well". I think the language is therefore unverifiable POV. However, the fact that I can't verify it doesn't mean somebody can't, and so I want to leave tons of time for somebody else to give it a shot. -Syberghost 13:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Antigravity

Alan Archer added this reference today, with a link to a web page that describes that old fraud Hoagland as "the museum curator for NASA". What a joke...

El Ingles 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solicitation of money, promotion of media

Since I'm not interested in a revert war with Alan Archer, by default he wins the deletion of Hoagland's solicitation of money. In wiki-talk Archer wrote:

I think that mentioning his solicitation of donations for The Enterprise Mission from listeners of a late-night radio program, and also his promotions of his book, videos and speaking engagements, to be irrelevant and unworthy of an encyclopedia article.

Obviously I disagree. Anyone want to take sides?

El Ingles 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, as it speaks somewhat to his motivations. If he makes money off of his "theories", he is more likely to pursue them on that basis alone. I'd think of going for an RfC or something I were you, or finding one of those people that represent other editors in disputes. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I may try to take it to such a level if you yourself do not. I'm pretty much an outsider in this article, but I don't appreciate the nonsense link Archer keeps adding, and the removal of this critical information. (I don't know what the devil I meant by saying he's at or past his revert limit, I think I meant to warn him not to get to such a point. Too many edit wars to keep track of in my head =/) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert combat quickly becomes tiresome. You are now the new "winner." Alan G. Archer 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was planning to have an actual discussion here and possibly an RfC or arbitration, but if you want to make it easy for me I won't argue. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name

Hoagland's middle name in the article was changed by 24.118.150.246 from Caulfield to Charles on 14 May 2006. Can his middle name be verified? Alan G. Archer 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My Google search was a complete bust, including searches for references to those two names specifically. I wouldn't be surprised if C is his middle name. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Caulfield was added again. Anyone have any sources that call him by this name? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

His middle name is indeed Charles. I once asked him directly and that was his answer. This admittedly may not be verifiable unless there is some legal record concerning him. -Don Davis

[edit] Merely "unlikely"?

I protest the change by 4.153.20.216 today from "preposterous" to "unlikely". IMHO "preposterous" is already a mild enough adjective to apply to this utter nonsense. El Ingles 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed the wording back. "Unlikely" is not a good word for this part, even if it was done in an attempt to rectify NPOV issues; the section is talking about how incredibly scientifically invalid the jump is, not how improbable the idea itself is. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. El Ingles 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panspermia & Science Language

I'm taking this whole paragraph out. It seems to imply that science (which is a method which can be used to determine and test rules, not a set of rules itself) somehow forbids the idea of a technologically advanced society transporting itself from one planet to another (within one solar system no less). We can reach the planet with probes, so obviously payloads can be transferred from one place to another. Genetics have reached the point that interspecies mixing goes on today (at least at the cellular level). Neither the directed transportation of a species from one planet to another nor the interspeciating of such can honestly be defined as "not permissible by any stretch of science". The laws of physics, as we understand them, in no way rule such possibilities out. If the intent is to point out that Hoagland's techniques and conclusions do not derive from or conform to the Scientific Method it should be written as such. Even if that is so it does not make these theories impossible by any kind of valid 'scientific law'. The language needs to allow for the fact that these things are possible while discrediting his methods. 28 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.3.253.171 (talk • contribs).---- Christopher

Well put. I may try to see if that can be achieved later (edit: unless someone else does it first, as they may just have :p), but I support its removal until that time. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The new entry doesn't really work either. Why even refer to Panspermia in reference to Hoagland's theories if his theory is that it was intelligent directed transportation (IDT)? The fact that Panspermia refers to microbiology does not rule out the possibility of IDT, it just illustrates that calling it 'Panspermia' would be inaccurate. Unless Hoagland refers to an advanced society moving to another world as Panspermia, the point has nothing to do with the subject.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.3.253.170 (talk • contribs).---- Christopher

The passage is was wholly non-neutral, I agree. In the process of reverting you (I apologize for not checking the talk page first, but I was hoping you might explain your edit in edit summaries), I've tried to clear some of this nasty language. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This new sentence: "a form of the panspermia theory postulating that life in this solar system may have started on Mars has some support [33], it may not be the most popular hypothesis." Doesn't work. Popular among who? And what does that have to do with Hoagland? He is not postulating Panspermia, he is postulating that advanced intelligent beings deliberately moved from a dying world to another one. Panspermia does not even come into the picture, never mind how popular it is as a general concept. To compare the two concepts is a case of apples and oranges.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.3.253.170 (talk • contribs).---- Christopher

I don't know why it was included; I'm not the author of that passage. Nevertheless, Hoagland's idea is, in essence, an extrapolation of the panspermia theory, if a radical one. I only reworded the sentence as I did to give it more neutrality. It's saying almost the same thing as it did earlier, but in a less opinionated way. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Panspermia is unintelligent transfer of microbiological material throughtout the universe. Hoagland refers to intelligent directed migration. That is wholly different from Panspermia. Look it up. Unless Hoagland refers to the migration of the ancient civilization as Panspermia this point is a non sequitur. ---- Christopher

Hoagland does not mention Panspermia on his site. His theory draws directly off of the exploding Mars idea, nothing else. So, yeah, the IP person seems to have it here. If something is to be written dealing with controversy around this, it would have to take a wholly different approach (ie. directly trying to debunk Tom Van Flandern's theory, or pointing out that this is all extremely wild speculation on Hoagland's part, which would probably require a whole different section of its own). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To 208.3.253.170 (some person or other in Knoxville, TN): Hoagland's ideas in this regard are totally unscientific because he has not even advanced anything recognisable as a scientific hypothesis, let alone tested it by examining evidence (of which there is, of course, none). You say, from your anonymous IP address, that "these things are possible". Oh really? How do you know that? What prior instances of a civilisation evolving on Planet A and then successfully migrating to Planet B do you know of? You write parenthetically "within one solar system no less" as though survival of such a civilisation is more probable than if transfer was from one solar system to another. In fact, the reverse is the case. If Planet A and Planet B are within the same solar system, we can predict with close to certainty that ambient differences would make survival impossible for a migratory species. There may be a hypothetical possibility that Planet A in System A has the same ambient temperature, gravity, and atmosphere as Planet B in System B, but nobody is entitled to go on a national radio programme and assert that this event has actually happened. It's laughable. I stand by my original paragraph and I'd like you to restore it please (I only revert my own contributions in exceptional circumstances that I consider vandalism). As for the reference to panspermia, that was a good-faith attempt on my part to give fair credit to the New Scientist reference and it is not in the least irrelevant. El Ingles 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Hoagland's site in detail to verify, but if what Consumed Crustacean says is correct about the basis for Hoagland's theory, then it is, indeed, scientifically impossible on other grounds. An "exploding Mars" in times recent enough for it to have supported a civilization (as opposed to the routine collision of protoplanets during the formation of the Solar System) is completely ruled out by astrophysics and celestial mechanics. It didn't happen. "Preposterous" is not too strong a word. Neither, for that matter, is "absurd", "ludicrous", "ridiculous", and "laughable", but I won't insist on them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 28 June 2006 UTC)

Arr, my point was partially that the paragraph, in its current state, was not adequate. It was actually slightly nonsensical, jumping around between theories. Of course Hoagland's idea is complete rubbish, but the paragraph wasn't completely satisfactory in explaining why. Now, if all the arguments here could just be compiled into something a little more improved, it would be grand. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea can not be un-scientific. Methodology can, however. The arguments against Hoagland's methods of forming conclusions are justified. Ruling out planetary migration, on the other hand, is unscientific. The reality is that we are sending ever larger and more sophisticated payloads to Mars. Assuming technology continues to move forward those payloads will eventually be able to handle life support and such. The US government thinks they can get people there in the next 15 to 20 years. Nothing in Physics rules it out. Your original entry seemed to attempt to criticize his methods (valid) but failed when you muddied the waters with the unscientific implications about what is possible and the totally misplaced Panspermia definition (Hoagland never said anything about that). ---- Christopher, 28 June 2006

Certainly an idea can be un-scientific. Please sign comments on talk pages, per wiki-policy. Thanks. El Ingles 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't. The scientific method consists of four steps -

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

An idea is a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be proved to be incorrect by the scientific method, but it can not be inherently unscientific. There is a difference between wrong and unscientific. Science is a method of testing ideas, not a set of rules. Sets of rules are often formed as a result of the use of the scientific method, but those results are always subject to further scrutiny and testing. An idea can be in conflict with rules that were created as a result of the scientific method, but that does not make them unscientific. Is the distinction clear yet? ---- Christopher, June 29th, 2006

Yes, yes, I've read Karl Popper too. Richard Hoagland doesn't understand science or logic, and hasn't even taken the first of your four steps. Ergo, his assertion is unscientific. Van Fladern's idea, on the other hand, is scientific in that he observes and describes gross variation in cratering of the Martian surface. His hypothesis seeks to explain that. El Ingles 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoagland's ideas aren't unscientific, his methodology in testing them, however, is highly unscientific (and in my opinion the work of a con man, charlatan and profiteer). There is nothing inherently wrong with a hypothesis that suggests there has been past intelligent life which has migrated from one planet to another. The process of comparing observable data to what would be expected if the hypothesis were true and then making testable predictions based on such is where the breakdown is for Hoagland. To rule out planetary migration and interspeciation as a matter of dogma would be inconsistent with the scientific method, and therefore, unscientific. ---- Christopher, June 29, 2006

It is unscientific to make such a claim without valid evidence to back it up. Since this is what Hoagland is doing -- claiming not merely that such a thing is possible, but that it actually happened in the case of Mars -- his ideas are indeed unscientific.

His claiming they are proven or supported by evidence may well be unscientific, but the concepts themselves are not. You can discredit his methods and conclusions all you like, but there is no basis for implying that planetary migration and inerspeciation are somehow forbidden by scientific principals (which the original entry did). ---- Christopher

You are, incidentally, mistaken when you say that science is nothing but a method. It's also the rules derived from it, and the data too. See [2], especially "Science is Content as Much as Structure". TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The knowledge gleaned via the method is subject to change when better theories come along. The method, however, is static. For clarity it is better to use language such as "_____ idea does not conform to current rules of physics (celestial mechanics or whatever body of knowledge works best)as we understand them", rather than calling the idea itself unscientific. Just because an idea flys in the face of the current body of knowledge does not make it unscientific - in fact some of our greatest advances have come from questioning dogmatic views - and dogmatism in general achieves the opposite of what is intended by the formulators of the scientific method. If you use the word 'science' to describe a body of knowledge, then the definition of science may change over time. What is science in this sense today may not be science tomorrow (ie the world is flat), and as such, this usage isn't really good for an encyclopedia attempting to withstand the test of time in regards to clarity. ---- Christopher

Looking back over the history of this paragraph I see that it was at one point achieveing the sentiment I think El Ingles wants to achieve (a sentiment which I agree with, I just don't feel that the entry was communicating that sentiment properly). I think something like this would work: "Tom Van Flandern's theory of an exploding Mars companion is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Hoagland's extension of it -- to a Martian civilisation fleeing the catastrophe and inter-speciating with the human race, while still unable to be ruled out, is devoid of supporting evidence and not in line with proper scientific method. ---- Christopher Robinson

I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. No one is saying that the idea of planetary colonization is inherently unscientific. Hoagland's claim that this actually happened and that it happened because of a global catastrophe on Mars is, however, unscientific because there's no data to support it. One is, of course, free to formulate hypotheses and test them. One is not free to spout ideas that fly in the face of observations that are consistent along a number of different lines, or which are at best the among most improbable explanations for the data we have, and then claim you're formulating a scientific theory. This is not dogmatic. This is how science is done.

Of course the parameters of "science" change, both in terms of method and the data collected. I have no idea why you would think either is fixed. Methods must be adapted to circumstances. This is why chemistry is not done in the same way as evolutionary biology. (And "the world is flat" was never science. It was once believed by some, but not on any grounds we would call scientific.) You can argue this point all you want against working scientists, but I don't think you'll convince them.

And I have to tell you that celestial mechanics and the other sciences that disprove Hoagland's claims are very well-understood indeed. If it wasn't, we'd never be able to land probes on Mars in the first place. This is why we can indeed rule out an exploding companion for Mars. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"No one is saying that the idea of planetary colonization is inherently unscientific." - Actualy, that is exactly what the original entry implied. In fact, no one here is saying that Hogalnd's methods aren't unscientific. The whole problem is that the way the entry was worded, it did in fact imply that planetary colonization (and interspeciation) are by nature unscientific. Again, I support the premise that Hogland makes claims of proven knowledge with no evidence (actions that are unscientific) but the language did not achieve effective communication in that regard. It needs to be written in a way that criticizes his methods without claiming that the concepts are "not permissible by any stretch of science". Even Nasa's page in regards to the question of a broken-up planet acknowledge the possibility while stating that the evidence seems to support one option over another: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980810a.html - The possibilities must be acknowledged (or at least not discouted) or else we are guilty of the same type of behavior that Hoagland is being accused of. ---- Christopher

I'd accept Christopher Robinson's rewrite, albeit grudgingly. But why don't we just write "Hoagland's extension of it is poppycock" and leave it at that? El Ingles 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(Replying to Christopher) That's a clear misreading of the original paragraph, which says nothing more than that generalizing from panspermia on the bacterial level to colonization (and interbreeding) by an alien civilization is not permissible. That is absolutely true. And Hoagland does indeed cite the first as support for the second; I've heard him do it on Coast to Coast.

You have also misread the NASA page. When a scientist says "more likely" in these terms, he means it's pretty damn certain. Scientists almost never speak in absolute certainties as a professional habit, but this can give a misleading impression to a layman who is used to hearing such language from politicians and such to give themselves wiggle room. Given the supporting statement about the total mass and composition of the asteroid, what is clearly meant here is that an exploding Mars companion is not at all supportable from the evidence. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"More likely" does not mean certain by any reading. If you choose to extrapolate absolute truths from statements abou probability based on incomplete data sets, that is your perogative, but it's foolish IMO. And if you'd like to cite Hoagland referring to an intelligent civilization migrating between worlds as Panspermia I'd love to see it. ---- Christopher

As I said, scientists habitually avoid phrasing conclusions in terms of absolutes. Please tell me how the data cited in the NASA page allows any room for an exploding Mars companion.

As for the other, that's not what I wrote. I never said Hoagland called an alien invasion "panspermia". I said he used the theoretical possibility of panspermia (e.g. the probable fossil Martian bacteria found in Antarctic meteorites) as support for the idea of an alien invasion. Not directly of course, becuase Hoagland is a master of weasel words, but if you listen to him talk about it he clearly thinks (or wants us to believe) that the probability of the one means the other is possible. But I'm not going to wade through that morass of a website to see if he wrote things similar to what he's willing to say to George Noory. And I admit I haven't heard him recently. His tone of voice is so irritating I switch stations whenever he's on these days, as he's no longer sufficiently amusing to keep me listening. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoagland is indeed a master of misdirection. If you can cite that particular misdirection it may be worth inclusion, but it doesn't appear on his site and you remembering that he said something like that indirectly is hardly enough evidence.

For clarification in regards to Nasa's willingness to entertain the concept of a destroyed 5th planet (Planet V) please see this recent article from April, 2006. In light of such, it seems to be wise not to speak in absolutes about this particular topic, even if some of the alternatives are 'higly speculative', they can not honestly be said to be ruled out. And scientists speak that way because intellectual honesty demands it. Even if a theory is strongly suspected to be true, they must leave room for the possibility of misinterpretations and account for new data as it comes in. The idea that such language is simply "professsional habit" and actually implies absolute truths while giving them wiggle room seems insulting to scientists in my opinion. ---- Christopher

[edit] Black Spot on Jupiter

The citations listed here don't back up the assertion that there is "photographic proof that the "black spot" was present in imagery of Jupiter for several years prior to Hoagland's "discovery" of it." They do speak to the unlikely nature of the spot being caused by what Hoagland suggested, but not to the existence of this particular spot prior to the Gallileo crash. There is some info about other black spots that have been seen, but they do not refer to the particular one to which Hoagland addresses. I'm changing the language to indicate as such. ---- Christopher - June 28th, 2006

[edit] Simply Wrong

In regards to the changes made by Cernica. The thought that you are trying to insert (mainstream scientists disagree with most of his theories and methods)is allready addressed in a neutral fashion at the end of the paragraph. The sentence you keep changing is a seperate and different statement. While the adjective offbeat in the text 'a propounder of theories on astronomical topics that are considered offbeat by many mainstream astronomers' can be read as referring to topics or theories, it makes more sense to refer there to topics (ie offbeat topics) and later in the paragraph to the pseudo-scientific allegations, lest the intro paragraph become POV in regards to the 'wrongness' of his theories. And making statements (or implications - which your added text definitely does) that he is wrong is definitely not in line with a neutral point of view.24.90.35.185 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Christopher

More than that, it was somewhat odd sounding. The way it was written before that addition seems perfectly fine, and it does address the fact that he's considered a pseudoscientist. I'm all for keeping the opening of the article as clean as possible. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keep changing?" I reverted it once, today, and added no text. Please don't overstate the case. In any event, I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue much about it, only that you not mischaracterize an edit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not notice that the rv'er and the original poster were not the same person. 208.3.253.170 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Christopher

[edit] Edit on 4 aug 06 by 70.170.79.6

In principle I have no objection to this edit but, in the introductory paragraph, we now have "....considered offbeat by many mainstream astronomers" and ALSO "...the mainstream scientific establishment consider his theories to be pseudoscience and completely without merit."

Something needs to be done about that -- I suggest deleting the first. El Ingles 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"completely without merit" is unnecessarily vehement and POV-pushing. I don't really think the "mainstream scientific establishment" even thinks about Hoagland at all, nor do most people anyway, so there's really no need to use a sledge hammer here. I don't think there's any danger of anyone reading this article and coming away from it thinking Hoagland is a serious or respected scientist. wikipediatrix 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerology

In late Sept 2006 the expression "...frequently supported by numerological justifications" was added from an IP address in Texas, USA. Does anybody know if that phrase has any useful meaning, and, if so, what the meaning might be? El Ingles 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerology. In any case, the statement was completely nonsensical, and not backed up the the source. I also scrapped the statement before it, about some "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever" book; which nets me 700 GHits and most definately is not a reliable source. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed biography

• [3]