Friday, April 07, 2006

Some of the photos in Richard Hoagland's latest suggest architectural forms similar to terrestrial ruins. Take a look.
Posted by at

15 comments:

RJU said...

I think Hoagland is stuck on the idea that geometric forms must can't be natural. Nothing is further from the truth.

6:10 PM
Mac said...

RJU and WMB--

I think you're both right.

9:30 PM
Carol Maltby said...

What it proves is that Richard Hoagland hasn't got the discernment to be able to weigh vague quadrilaterals against fairly well-defined rectangles, and decide which might make a better case for artificiality, and which might be a case of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into his article.

It proves that Richard Hoagland doesn't bother to read the Mars analysis of other Mars anomalists. If he did, he'd realize that Mac had already used photos from the same source way back in 2001 -- at Mac at least had the decency to credit those who own the photos.

It shows that he's really poor at describing what he sees accurately.

I don't see any evidence with this piece that RCH is doing good science, or good science writing. I've got a couple of pages of critique on it written up already. May post it on the Yahoo Cydonia list in a week or so.

Carol Maltby

9:56 PM
Mac said...

I'd love to see it, Carol.

10:07 PM
Mac said...

WMB--

I think Carol was referring to some of the examples of grid-like areas that I describe on my Mars site but, alas, wasn't able to include in my book.

I have to agree that RCH's latest is interesting -- not because of his shoddy, knee-jerk "analysis," but because I find some of the pictures at least a little compelling.

1:36 PM
Carol Maltby said...

Mac used an image at his Cydonian Imperative website in 2001:

http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative25.html

He credits a Bill Eatock for them. I think they were getting around on other boards as well at the time, but I know that one or two of them may have lost their archives from then due to various mishaps. Hoagland's statement that he "acquired" them is laughable -- all it take is a URL and a browser and anyone can "acquire"them.

Look, I try to be fair, objective, and evenhanded when commenting on what comes out of TEM. I get taken to task as being a woowoo Hoagland supporter when I publicly correct lies or distortions about Hoagland, and I get accused of being a Hoagland-hater if I point out problems with his claims. I've probably written more analysis of the dynamics of The Enterprise Mission and how it affects other Mars anomalists than anyone else over the years (most of it is scattered on forum archives at this point).

I'll give Richard Hoagland credit where credit is due, but when his non-professionalism hurts what other researchers are trying to accomplish, I'm going to speak out about that too. There are too many people willing to use TEM's clunkers as a reason to dismiss all Mars anomalies work.

7:14 PM
Mac said...

RCH is nothing if not theatrical. I deal with his approach in the "Memespace" chapter in "Apocalypse."

12:40 AM
Carol Maltby said...

RCH's being a great entertainer is one of the few things many of his detractors with concede about him. And I'm sure his passion and enthusiasm have encouraged many tens of thousands of people to look more closely at the surface of Mars. Without him, Mars anomalism would have been a fraction of what it is at this point.

Serious? There's not doubt that he's serious, as serious as cancer. This Mars stuff has been consuming him for most of his adult life, and he's probably the only person making a day job about ruins on Mars.

But he was the big dog in a world of printed books and newsletters, and he never really adjusted to the Net. He doesn't know how to use a blog or an online forum well. His vision doesn't extend to realizing how information moves (and how fast it moves) on the Net. He shows no signs of knowing how to pass the torch to another generation if he doesn't achieve his Mars goals in his lifetime, and he's at an age where you have to consider that, especially having had a heart attack.

It's easy to convince the fans, who don't have the depth of commitment it takes to really learn how to look at things and what the pitfalls are. But he hasn't learned how to speak the language of those who have the power over Mars research, and I think that they are giving in to the squeaky wheel effect when they get bombarded with phone calls and emails. He hasn't grown as a writer and a written communicator, and it shows.

I'm a real tough sell on most Mars anomalies. Even more than Mac is. ;) But one thing I've learned over the past 8 years that I've been involved with this is that you have to do your homework, you have to meticulously document what you are doing, and you have to be able in advance to counter your opponents' potential arguments. Richard hasn't learned to do these things, and we (and the work) get hit by the consequences of that.

12:19 PM
Carol Maltby said...

Should be "will concede," not "with concede."

12:21 PM
Ken said...

I think you folks are giving Hoagland way too much credit. Tip the dancing bear if you want to, but let's not hear anything about Hoagland being a sincere and serious researcher of Mars. This guy's in it for himself -- period. His only desire is to get ooooo's and aaaahh's for stoking the imagination. But hey, he's doing what he loves to do -- hence the enthusiasm (it's not a passion for the actual furtherance of science).

I would also have to disagree that Hoagland "doesn't know how to use a blog or an online forum well." This is not the impression I got when I checked out his "Captain's Blog" or other websites. To me it's obvious that he is adept at using the Net; but he's simply not interested in using it in the way that we would like to see him use it.

Above all there's something about Hoagland and his cult following that resembles the creationist mentality: easily enticed by imagination and the need to believe, raving accusations leveled at genuine scientists for so-called conspiratorial motives, presuming to "expose" or discredit those who are qualified and actually have something to say about Mars that is worth hearing. There's something vulgar, profane, intellectually unclean about Hoagland and all Hoaglandians -- and it repells me.

Don't get me wrong: I myself strongly incline toward thinking that there ARE artifacts on Mars (how they got there is anyone's guess at this point). I am in full support of Mars anomalism -- provided that the theorizing and endorsement of further research are done in a serious and acceptable manner. I also think that those of us who are like-minded in this way ought to disassociate ourselves from persons like Hoagland. OUR interest, OUR endeavor, is a serious pursuit of scientifically verified truth. We do no service to our cause by identifying ourselves with -- or even sympathizing with -- the half-assed, intellectually sloppy and easily worked-up sci-fi struck riff-raff.

Let's strive to gain the respect of the scientific community. The rewards for that could be enormous.

10:34 AM
Carol Maltby said...

Ken Younos, I have to take issue with some of your points.

This guy's in it for himself -- period. His only desire is to get ooooo's and aaaahh's for stoking the imagination.

I don't think any of us know Richard Hoagland well enough to either read his mind, or assert what his desires are other than what he has specifically articulated. Internet mind-reading by strangers is always an argument that is resting on the thinnest ice.

But hey, he's doing what he loves to do -- hence the enthusiasm (it's not a passion for the actual furtherance of science).

Again, you are trying to state what his feelings are, without being privy to them. Given that mainstream scientists have for the most part been unwilling to examine features such as the Face scientifically, the furtherance of science is stunted all over the place.
Science's boyfriends smack her around, and the flowers they send her at work don't make up for it.

This is not the impression I got when I checked out his "Captain's Blog" or other websites. To me it's obvious that he is adept at using the Net; but he's simply not interested in using it in the way that we would like to see him use it.

You are giving vague generalities, would you mind giving specifics on how Richard Hoagland uses the Net and Net culture adeptly? Perhaps you have some institutional memory of TEM's particulars that I have missed that you could share with us.

Richard Hoagland's use of his website to generate pressure on public officials from his supporters is more an adjunct to his radio pleas. It doesn't take much techno savvy to tell your readers to keep the cards and letters coming to NASA, for example.

Back in the late nineties, on his Rowland-hosted forum, TEM had one of the best cooperative research efforts going that I've seen in my 13 years of online participation, at least in terms of pre-9/11 research. RCH had Rowland pull the plug on it at a moment's notice, not even giving us sufficient time to archive our postings there. No explanations, no interest in making sure that this group of people who worked together might continue to do so in a way that enhanced TEM's work.

He then offered a board ostensibly under TEM's aegis, through the Coolboards system. It was not moderated, and soon degenerated into a free-for-all, with the loudest and most manipulative posters calling the shots and steering the conversations. That went down like a stone when Coolboards failed.

Hoagland then hooked up with the struggling fledgling board anomalies.net in 2001. There were some major personality and philosophical conflicts with the admins there, and finally TEM split from them after some very acrimonius infighting. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that either side had thought to make provisions for respectfully divorcing if they wern't compatible, and the strife caused a lot of long-term bad blood.

Hoagland then went to a pay-for-play board hosted once again by Keith Rowland. I don't have any problem with the paid aspect, it's a legitimate way of gatekeeping. But its private nature means that useful information generated there sometimes doesn't get beyond the event horizon into public view. From what I hear, Hoagland has pretty much stopped participating there, and that was supposed to be its biggest draw.

Then he started his blog. He updated it infrequently, and the format is just not appropriate or usable for the pent-up interest in discussion of TEM subjects. His last posting, from October, now has over 2400 comments!

Despite the superficial visual makeover, his website organization is even more chaotic than ever. It lacks the very basics of a site map and FAQ, which one would think would be vital for a website focused on information and advocacy.

raving accusations leveled at genuine scientists

I assume you have your own ideas of what "genuine scientists" are. Are you aware that there is no consensus in the scientific community that defines what a "genuine scientist" would be? I had an interesting time thrashing that out in a discussion with some posters who were interested in science. The term "scientist" is remarkably fluid, not to mention a relatively recent coinage.

I am in full support of Mars anomalism -- provided that the theorizing and endorsement of further research are done in a serious and acceptable manner

I've always advocated that we anomalists learn to use the accepted tools and formats that academia recognizes. If nothing else, it is an indication that we are more interested in communication than grandstanding. If you urgently want to communicate, you have to learn the language of those you wish to reach.

sci-fi struck riff-raff. Are you asking to get beat up in an alley?
Some of us resemble that remark. ;)

Science fiction has been nourishing for some of us, in a way that is about some of the most liberating
ways of thinking about our complex world and where it might be headed. We're not going to throw that away in some misguided search for approval.

As for identifying ourselves with -- or even sympathizing with -- the half-assed, intellectually sloppy

Mars anomalism is a small world. Each of us involved with it has a unique web of friendships, alliances, and conflicts, and these are not always neatly correlated with whether we like or approve of another anomalist's perspective or speculations. Sometimes we just have to agree to amicably disagree. To compound this, Richard Hoagland becomes the mega straw man who's easy for armchair pundits to publicly pummel, while they ignore any differing views by other anomalists.

Mainstream opinion molders who refer to anomalists as "woo-woos" are not going to offer respect no matter how much we suck up to them, or how articulately and "respectably" we present our information.

I'm afraid WM Bear's closing remark in the posting above is a far more realistic assessment of the process that will be at work if artificial constructions are incontrovertibly found on Mars.

Carol Maltby

5:21 PM
Ken said...

Carol,

How do I know that Hoagland is full of shit? Let's start from the top:

1) As you and WMB have pointed out, Hoagland has a regular habit of "borrowing" other people's work (and stating or implying that he himself "acquired" them) without giving proper credit. He's recently done that to Mac and Gerald, for instance. When individuals do this sort of thing, a red light goes off in my head regarding their character and motives.

2) Hoagland is a good writer. It takes intelligence to write well. The law of contradiction makes it plain to me that a person of such intelligence would also possess "the discernment to be able to weigh vague quatilaterals against fairly well-defined rectangles, and decide which might make a better case for artificiality." Hence I conclude that all of the "proofs" he cites are for theatrical effect -- ooooo's and aaaaah's. In short, he's a bullshit artist.

3)Again, as you've pointed out, Hoagland "doesn't bother to read Mars anomalists." Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because he's only interested in promoting himself? It appears that he'll dabble in what's been written by other Mars anomalists only to the extent that he can find something useful for himself and his own interests. Again, this would be because he doesn't give a flying fuck about whether or not there really ARE ruins and artifacts on Mars; he just likes to wax his imagination and make his cult followers happy.

4)I've read articles such as the below which further shed light on Hoagland's character and motives:

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

Now let's put it all together. To me there is something conclusive here, and it goes a bit well beyond "internet mind-reading."

"You are giving vague generalities, would you mind giving specifics on how Richard Hoagland uses the Net and Net culture adeptly?"

There is no truly "improper" way of blogging or putting up websites -- BUT from what I've seen, he knows how to use a computer well. He's a not a luddite by any means. There was nothing wrong with his method of blogging; he knew how to keep the attention of his readers. Or take the example of his "Moon with a View" -- a site that was very well constructed. As for the instance of Hoagland pulling the plug on the Rowland-forum "without a moment's notice", this can easily be indicative of how much he actually gives a shit about the Mars anomalist cause. If he's in it for himself, he'll pull the plug whenever he feels like it -- without extending the consideration of at least an explanation to his readers.

Now then, let's try and see if we can detect a pattern in Hoagland's "inept" use of the Net, as you described it.

1)As stated above, he pulled the plug on the Rowland-forum without giving a moment's notice to those who depended on him. He showed "no interest in making sure that this group of people who worked together might continue to do so in a way that enhanced TEM's work."

2)Next he offered a board through the Coolboard system. For some reason he started this project but also soon neglected it (i.e., no moderation) and ultimately abandoned it.

3)Anomalies.net in 2001. Again, ultimately abandoned (BTW: what was the nature of those "personality conflicts"? Did some on the board think that Hoagland was a bullshitter? You tell us, Carol. Inquiring minds want to know).

4)Next up, the pay-for-play board. Hoagland "pretty much stopped participating there, and that was supposed to be its biggest draw." He just dropped it, apparently irrespective of Mars anomaly research.

5)His blog. It appears that he briefly tired of writing about Mars, and experimented 9/11 conspiracy lines. He mysteriously abandoned this project as well.

The pattern is that he repetitively begins new projects, then suddenly -- without explanation, and without any apparent concern for the wellfare of the Mars anomalist cause -- he drops them. We've already stated above that Hoagland is a relatively intelligent individual, so no matter how "inept" he might be at using the Net, it could not possibly escape his awareness that abruptly abandoning forums and such without notice, etc., would harm the Mars anomalist cause and delay all aspirations. Our conclusion, therefore, is again: he doesn't give a shit. He's in it for his own interests. He'll try something new for a while, just to test the waters, and when (inevitably) he finds it somehow dissatisfactory (because, perhaps, he quickly grows bored with the idea), he dumps it.

"I assume you have your own ideas of what "genuine scientists" are. Are you aware that there is no consensus in the scientific community that defines what a "genuine scientist" would be? I had an interesting time thrashing that out in a discussion with some posters who were interested in science. The term "scientist" is remarkably fluid, not to mention a relatively recent coinage."

I have one question for you here: would you consider six-day creationists to be "genuine" scientists? No? Then why not?

"Science fiction has been nourishing for some of us, in a way that is about some of the most liberating
ways of thinking about our complex world and where it might be headed. We're not going to throw that away in some misguided search for approval."

There's nothing wrong with science fiction, provided that we remember it is FICTION. Unfortunately there's a surplus of dumbasses out there who can't tell the difference (or don't bother to differentiate) between fiction and fact. Science is about matters of fact. A true scientist would without judgment about an anomaly which looks geometric, until further data can be gathered. A sci-fi struck dumbass, on the other hand, will immediate jump to conclusions: It looks geometric in the photos, therefore it IS artificial, there WAS an ancient Martian civilization, for God's sakes we have evidence even in old comics books!

"I'm afraid WM Bear's closing remark in the posting above is a far more realistic assessment of the process that will be at work if artificial constructions are incontrovertibly found on Mars."

I call this excessive distrust of the government a "collective paranoia". Yes, our government is corrupt, and yes they do lie to us sometimes and withold information from us sometimes -- but there's really no substantial evidence that they'd react that way if artifacts were ever discovered on Mars.

And who will get the credit for such an earth-shattering discovery? Probably the first persons who set foot on Mars and examine the artifacts hands-on. Who are these persons likely to be? Those from the "orthodox" scientific establishment. On the other hand, nobody is going to get much credit for "discovering" anything simply by examining grainy photos and making conjectures.

12:21 AM
Ken said...

"the remains of an ancient "lunar base" of some sort"

Here we go. Mr. Laney is just another sci-fi struck conspiracy nut. How credible is he? Where is he pulling his information? How did he come about acquiring his sources? And how credible are those sources? Cause Bear, I can tell you right now: There's nothing on the moon but rocks. Someday -- someday SOON -- when they send tourists up there -- yes, not scientists but tourists --(and this will be within our lifetime), we'll all see just how full of it persons like Mr. Laney are. But oh they WISH there was something artificial up there (how they wish it!). It would certainly make life a lot more interesting -- a bit more like a sci-fi story, perhaps? Well I have news for Mr. Laney: This is not a sci-fi story. This is reality.

If we can't establish Keith Laney's credibility beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it follows that there's no real reason to think our government will "cover up" any discoveries of artifacts on Mars.

And as for credit going to where it's due -- well, until credit can be securely anchored with someone who has a bona fide degree in space-research (i.e., proof of education and license to practice), credit will not go anywhere. It certainly will not be given to the masses of nameless Mars anomalists out there with little or no substantial qualifications. Sorry, but that's just how our culture is.

10:47 AM
Ken said...

"I'll tell you how this will finally happen..."

"there is a strong possibility that the astronauts were using a kind of "back channel" to describe what they were really seeing (the remains of an ancient "lunar base" of some sort) during long, awkward, and suggestive silences over the public channel. (Visit the site for details. Laney provides a blow-by-blow account of both the mission and the possible discovery.) Of course, this doesn't "prove" anything but it does suggest to me the strong possibility of a similar "coverup" when astronauts finally get to Mars."

"I can also (practically) guarantee that if the FIRST astronauts (as seems likely to me) discover artifacts and ruins, they are not going to be forthcoming about their discoveries either."

Your statements above imply something that goes way beyond mere 'if's and 'plausibilities'. From your wording it appears that you are not only saying that Laney is "believable" but more -- viz., that he should ALMOST DEFINITELY BE BELIEVED. And I am challenging you by asking: "WHY?"

I agree that Laney is indeed one of the "saner" Planetary Seti Anomalists -- at least when it comes to speculations about Mars. However, as soon as he starts talking about castles and fortresses on the Moon, and how our government has been hiding proof of these from the public, that's when I stop taking him seriously.

We all want credit for our part in discovering whatever there may be to discover on Mars. If we're being realistic, however, most of the credit will (in the end) likely go to names attached to credentials. This should not, however, be a reason for us to work apart from the "orthodox" scientific community. Gaining their respect will also gain their ears, which in turn may influence them to put more time, money and effort into investigating possible artificialities on Mars. Working apart from the scientific community, on the other hand, will end in accomplishing nothing whatsoever.

3:22 PM
Anonymous said...

Hoagland is full of shit, he's just a stupid jerk-off, and and anyone who believes his crap is a stupid dick wad !!!

12:01 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)