Gentlemen,

Yes, I signed up just today and this is my very first post, but there is something I wish to address about the entire deal with Hoagland and Plait vs Hoagland. I enjoy being straightforward, so doubtless people may feel that I'm stepping on toes as I say what I say, but I ask that people keep in mind that I like to remove as much personality from my logical arguments as is possible. Being cold about it is the only logical way to get at the truth, or to discuss any logical thing, imo.

First, I will tallk about Hoagland: Imo he really seems to like to stretch things. I further disapprove of his use of the Zechariah Sitchin material, which in turn uses bits of Biblical Hebrew in stretched ways. Hoagland seems to be caught up in a mania in which he tries to be really specific about a notion which so far can only be vague, and that is his mistake. But logically, that doesn't mean that some of his basic and vague notions about there being man-made structures or designs on the surface of Mars are necessarily all bunk, even if the way he went about trying to "prove" it with all of that math can be refuted. In the end, his best evidence is the vague nature of the Face and some of the other structures near it, because the nature of the vagueness automatically means we don't know enough about them yet to categorically rule out the possibility that they may have design to them. And yes, I say this even after seeing the detailed pictures of the face, with weathering and all.

Second, about Phil Plait: His greatest weakness is his mocking tone and his categorical and illogical dismissal of everything a la Hoagland. This comes off as both immature, emotional, as well as ultimately illogical, because just because a man can be proven to be wrong about some of his ideas (especially the detailed workings) it doesn't mean that he has not gotten some general notions correct or on the correct side. True, you can pick at Hoagland for using all of that fancy math to prove relationships between structures in Cydonia, but in the end you can't refute Hoagland completely for his basic and general notion that there is something odd, possibly of design, in the Cydonia region (and keep in mind, I do say this after extensively reviewing the latest relevant pics of the region). If you want to make an analogy of it, just because a man can't explain (or doesn't explain properly) just how penicillin works, it doesn't refute the general observation that it does seem to work.

In the end, I'm not ready to completely close the book on the entire Cydonia deal just yet, until they actually put men in the area to physically explore it, and assuming that what we find can ever be construed as conclusive or not.

My personal reasons for this are numerous, but chief among them is my eye for design and when I look at the region I get the vague impression that a mind may have had a hand in it, even in the apparently "collapsed" Face.

Science by nature is conservative and the nature of conservatism is that it can cling so hard to previous ideas and conceptions that it has the potential to be completely wrong and miss the mark on reality. I believe it was such men who predicted that no train could possibly move faster than 50 miles an hr...etc. Whether conservatism expresses itself via men of science or via men of religion, as it did when people refused to believe the Earth revolved around the sun, you have to be careful of it by being aware of its logical limitations.

Well...since Dr. Plait has gone through many pages of material examining, reproducing, and demonstrating the Hoagland claims as invalid...I don't think he's discarding it out of hand, or illogically. It's hard to 'categorically' dismiss something when you have a three page treatise on it (inlcuding things like the glass worm).

First, welcome to the board.


Second, I'd take issue with science being conservative. Science is full of mavericks; it has to be, or nothing new is postulated. The progress of aggregate knowledge is slow mostly because of the culling. There is a lot of culling. So much culling.

Ideas and general notions are a dime a dozen. A dime a gross actually. I have plenty of my own. However, to be considered science, they need to stand on their own, free from my own coddling and nurturing. It's hard to see something that is so dear subjected to harsh scrutiny, but if it doesn't stand up, it's not science. It gets culled, and no amount of nurturing will help. Try again, different tack.

Nurturing a culled idea is the sad part here; attempting to hide its plausability in nooks and crannies of unknowns. That is the wrong tack, saying it isn't disproved because all knowledge is incomplete. It is the point of the idea to stand on its own and to state its own case. Failing that there is no appeal. There is no need for anyone else to go looking everywhere to make sure it is wrong; it wasn't right, and that's enough.

Plenty of things look like things. Our brains are pattern recognizing machines to a fault. They get out of control in optical illusions, hallucination, dreams, and in darkness, but none of these reflects reality. We don't even perceive colors the same. "It looks like" is not proof, or even data. That's cloud watching.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

(emphasis added)

First, welcome to the board.

On Hoagland: It has been shown repeatedly that the fellow deals in nonsense. If someone has been shown to be a terrible source of information, I see no reason to continue to listen to him. There is always the small possibility that Hoagland will get something right by chance, but certainly not because of his methods. It seems reasonable to demonstrate why someone like Hoagland should not be a trusted source of information.

On Cydonia:

There is another forum here called "Martian Chronicles" where you can discuss this. But as to your general point, if someone believes there is evidence for artificial structures on Mars, it is up to them to present their case. I have yet to see Hoagland or anyone else present even minimal realistic evidence for anything artificial. I don't deny the possibility, but I certainly don't see anything "odd" (suggesting artificiality) about Cydonia.

First off, it's not a "Plait vs Hoagland" deal. It's the entire scientific community vs hoagland...there is a difference.

Yes, I'll keep that in mind...and return to it in a moment.

There is nothing vague about the HIRES images. As you yourself state they are "detailed". The question is why would you think that there is evidence of artificiality in a mound of dirt?

This is what you consider (returning to the above quote) "removing personality from your logical arguments??" It might be a good idea to try and "remove" a little more.

Why can't we "refute" this?? You say "Odd, possibily of design". how do you come up with that determination?? There is nothing in the Cydonia region to suggest artificiality. The "evidence" presented by Hoagland is laughable. There is just no other way to "put it".

emphasis mine...

So even if we do send men to Mars, and even if it is confirmed that the area is completely lacking in any artificiality, you would be the final arbitrator as to if that evidence was conclusive or not???

All I can say to that is WOW!!!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Atrahasis -

I disagree with you on all counts. Regarding Hoagland, the man never got over his "Face" being an optical illusion and the other features of Cydonia never did look artificial IMO. While a lot of Hoagland's claims deal with numbers and such, the lack of artificiality is as plain as the MGS follow-up images. Hoagland's nonsense isn't confined to Cydonia and, as his spouting about the Martian rover images and Iapetus show, RCH takes it upon himself to tell us what we are seeing as if we didn't have eyes ourselves. In addition, Hoagland relies on the crutch of NASA/PTB cover-ups to peddle much of his spiel. Some of his hokum regarding the PTB include innuendos they had a hand in killing their own astronauts, which is despicable.

Regarding your take on Dr. Plait, his "mocking tone and his categorical and illogical dismissal of everything a la Hoagland" makes you sound like a Hoagland apologist. There's nothing "illogical" about Dr. Plait's dismissal of Hoagland's claims especially since his stated goal is to address astronomical misconceptions and the fact that this dismissal is "categorical" only reflects the degree of nonsense Hoagland spouts. "Mocking tone?" I disagree although I can see how someone sympathetic to Hoagland might feel that way.

As to your opinion that there might be something to Cydonia despite the follow-up MGS images, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. If you think you can make a case for Cydonian artificiality, you're welcome to try although, as has already been pointed out, the burden of proof is on those that feel that way, not the other way around.Well, since trains do move faster than 50 mph how to you reckon that happened? This analogy, as it applies to Hoagland's claims, is not very apt and the continued advancement of science is the best argument against the degree of conservatism you imply here.

The way in which someone argues a point is a legitimate cause for discussion.

I do sometimes leave in some of the mock when dealing with garbage-peddlers like Hoagland (see? There it is again!). After establishing to no small degree that his Mars arguments are totally wrong, and especially with his self-aggrandizement, I don't feel the need to entirely hold back, as long as it's not impolite. I call them like I see them, but I am careful not to resort to ad hominem name-calling. I never call him a liar, or a hoaxter, or anything like that. I just make sure people understand that he's wrong, and that he continues to be wrong, and that when he's shown he's wrong he continues to be wrong, and will even resort to some particularly loathsome tactics when shown wrong (like I point out when Ralph Greenberg showed beyond doubt that Hoagland's analysis of Cydonia is complete garbage).

I have never said that emotion is a bad thing. I actually want people to see that I have some passion about these topics. But I don't want that passion to interfere with the meat of the discussion, and I don't let it run away from me (as it has with so many others).

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

I agree, although illogical and immature are probably the last words I would use in describing your debunking of Hoagland...at least that's the point I was trying to make.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

the "face" looked like a face in the original images. on this, I think we are all agreed. the issue is how relevant intial impressions are to what's really there.

in botany, there was a philosophy called "the doctrine of signatures." this held that if something looked like a body part, it was good for that body part. sometimes, it was so minor as "it's yellow; it must be good for jaundice."

why is this relevant? well, because Hoagland so strongly appears to be saying, for example, that since mandrake is shaped like a human body, it must be good for all parts of the body, even though it's known to be poisonous. those arguing the "poisonous" side has evidence; he has "but this is what it looks like to me." for a similar argument, if you think you can take it, see both threads about a solid-surface sun. evidence is presented; we are told to look at the pictures. evidence is presented about what the pictures show; we are told that we're not looking at the pictures. it's ultimately unconvincing.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Thanks, Gillianren for posting that...I think that statement is very important!

"If" Hoagland's ideas had any merit whatsoever, then why are his arguments so unconvincing? That's all I ask when someone brings forth a new idea...simply convince me that what you say has even a possibility of being true.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I just want to say in this thread, that I myself don't like the tone used by some posters on here and others in general in refuting this. I'm not saying they are wrong in refuting this, and indeed I think they are right, but it doesn't hurt to at least be nicer about it. Nobody appreciates being made fun of for their beliefs and I think if a kinder tone were adopted it might work out better and maybe cause a few more people to see the facts more clearly than otherwise and isn't that the goal? To turn people from erroneous beliefs?

If I've offended anyone, I apologize, but I think it's something to think about at least.

__________________
Science--can't live without it, but it makes everything so much more boring.

G'day Atrahasis, and welcome to the BABB. (Bit of a warm welcome, but I hope you return to discuss the points raised.)

Let's assume that there are artificial structures on Mars. Hoagland doesn't have clear evidence of this. Instead he stre-e-e-etches the evidence he *does* have in order to make his point to make up for his lack of real evidence. Whether in science, history or the court room, I think the manufacturing of evidence is not considered acceptable behaviour.

But the reality is that we don't know whether there is anything artificial on Mars. So far, all the evidence Hoagland has provided doesn't prove his point.

The point is that erroneous, conservative conclusions are overthrown by evidence. Having a strong feeling but no supporting evidence isn't much use. Remember the Greek philosopher who developed atomic theory purely on thought experiments. But without actual experiments to prove his conjecture, the fact that he was ultimately right doesn't really count for anything - after all, if his thought experiments had been based on incorrect premises, he would have been wrong.

Hoagland insisting on cydonia makes as much sense as if Lowel would still be insisting on canals.

It just ain't there man no matter how much the man wants it to be.

Offended? I don't even know what you are talking about. I think, considering the tone set by Atrahasis (funny you missed this) as he characterized the BA as being "..immature, emotional, as well as ultimately illogical," that the responses were pretty measured. As much as that remark ticked me off, it was already addressed by another poster so I didn't even "go there." While I don't advocate "beating the truth" into people, I don't subscribe to the notion that promoters or apologists for woo woo spinners are to be coddled either.

BTW, I just re-read this thread and didn't see an example of Atrahasis being "made fun of." Care to elaborate?

Good day again!

And of course, always please keep in mind I like to be in my ultra-cold mode when I discuss things. I find that it does help.

Surprisingly, some of the scientists here have misunderstood my comments about Phil Plait. If you examine my oft-quoted comment in context, you'll realize I was not talking about Phil Plait the man nor his very well-argued arguments. I was talking about the tone he uses at times, which I took issue with.

I never said the man was himself was at all immature, emotional, or illogical, but that his words can come off as such at first blush before you can really digest what he is actually saying re Hoagland. Once you disgest everything he is saying and look past that, then you can see Phil Plait the man and his arguments, but the tone at times is not really suitable for arguments that should be sounding more academic if they want to be taken seriously and not just as a passionate counter to a passionate subject. It's like someone who should be wearing Armani actually choosing to wear rags.

OK, that may have been a bit harsh.

Also, it's surprising how some people here assumed my very nature from my comments which they misconstrued and stopped just short of directly calling me a Hoagland sympathizer. Yes, it's easy to get carried away.

More thoughts about Cydonia: The main issue about it that makes it persist as a continuing mystery in my mind is the idea of "design" and how you define it. As someone involved in design, I define it as such: A deliberate intention to relay something, or to create a particular atmosphere or ambience, or to just be noticed.

Given that, you don't have to create exacting pyramids or structures of precise mathematical relationships and all that geometrical stuff. You can create design by being rather random as well, because even though you are not trying to express a universal mathematical truth or whatnot, you are trying to be noticed. You can do that these days by creating something that sends out an EM signal, like a beacon, or lacking that or when that is somehow not preferred, the other way to do it is to create something...anything...very large.

Crop circles and pyramids and other ancient earth structures do exactly that.

Therefore, arguments about how the math does not add up or that it is just all coincidence and can be dismissed is not a logical way to go about trying to "prove" that the Cydonia region is natural. It may be a starting point, but logically it's not a definitive answer when the design factor is considered.

The way to do it is to send men there, but seeing as how we have not done that yet, the only logical thing to do is to suspend judgement until we actually do it.

And yes, of course I have seen the close-ups of the face, but obviously what I see and what others see are different. People may have convinced each other that it's all just a "mound of dirt", but I personally can see what may be possible design, even though things are not geometric and perfect. Like I said, design does not have to be.

If people are still confused, all I can say is consider deeply what you get when you dabble in assymetry and why you would design something based on that principle in the first place.

Of course, it's not just the Face either, but some of the other objects in the region which still have to be examined more closely.

Additionally, I am well aware that Hoagland stretches things and at times just creates things for fun. But despite that, if there is a mystery at Cydonia, he does not own it. He may have been the most vocal about it, but even if he were removed from the picture completely, there are things one has to wonder about the region.

I personally think many people have become fixated on calling him "liar liar" and have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

But the fact is, as you go through life you will encounter many liars. The only logical way to deal with them is look past the bs if you can, and if you're particularly mature to consider if he has in fact contributed anything at all in a roundabout way.

In other words, you can't let your personal hatred of the man cloud your judgement as to whether there is a mystery there or not.

Just out of curiosity, what do you design?

Insinuating that NASA murdered its own astronauts is creating "things for fun"?

Yes he does. It's his invention and as such belongs to him.

A pleasant scenario such as that leaves only one response. What would one "wonder about the region"? One would wonder what all the fuss was about concerning geological formations.

You can't do that when there's no baby. BTW, no one's "fixated on calling" Hoagland anything. Instead the attention is on his claims. Those that have cared to do so have scientifically analyzed his claims and found them to be bogus. That Hoagland continues with these claims after they have been demonstrated to be false means that it is Hoagland himself who is casting aspersions on his own credibility.

Wow.

No, the only logical way to deal with liars is to make sure one doesn't get caught in the fallacious traps they set. Correct application of skepticism and logic, not continued gullibility, is a characteristic of maturity.

I know Phil doesn't have a "personal hatred" of Hoagland. I certainly don't, and I'm sure that is typical of most of the folks who post here.

Instead what we have is a strong dislike of unsubstantiated claims, and an even stronger dislike of those claims when they continue to be made after they have been shown to be unsupportable.

Now, let's look at your claim of not being a Hoagland sympathizer. Nothing you have presented in your posts has found any fault with the basics of what Hoagland proposes, but you have provided no evidence as to why. Instead you have taken the tack of claiming that Hoagland is the victim of some kind of agenda of personal attacks, hatred, and the like by persons on this board. Once again no evidence, other than opinion, has been presented for this claim. In short, I refer you to the classic method for determining that a duck is a duck.

Finally, re

Not really sure what that means. It "does help" with what? Nevertheless, based on the subjective and personality-focused content of your posts, it would appear that not getting any warmer is a good thing.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

General question: Does anyone here hate Hoagland? I certainly don't. Actually, I find that an astonishing statement. The issue with Hoagland is that he constantly speaks nonsense and his "findings" have nothing to do with a scientific process. I don't know how to make that much clearer.

You're missing the point. There is overwhelming evidence that Cydonia is natural. Hoagland has put forth counter-arguments that have been shown to be ludicrous. It isn't meant to "prove" the region is natural, simply that Hoagland's arguments are pointless.

He "stretches things"? I would be hard pressed to find anything he has said that could be taken seriously, technically or otherwise. And while there are things to wonder about in Cydonia, noone has provided a good reason to suspect something artificial is there.

Unless we have a real reason to believe these formations are artificial, why consider spending money to send someone there just to see if they are? Your reasoning of design possibly being random and asymmetrical doesn't leave out a whole lot of formations as possibly artificial. If I understand you correctly design could be organized, disorganized, symmetrical or asymmetrical.

The point is, we understand the processes that create objects and formations like the face. Who designs something to look exactly like a natural formation if they want to be noticed?

The burden of proof lies upon Mr. Hoagland and he has thus far failed to meet it.

Atrahasis you seem to be at least sympathetic to the possibility that the face could be artificial. Looking at the first photos, it was remarkable how a couple dark spots resembled a stylized representation of something face-like. It is remarkable how almost universal the man-in-the-moon is preceived as well. And the old man in the mountain.

But what interested you in the first places was the face-ness of the image. That was what made you want to find out more about what it was. it was the faceness that made it artificial, at least potentially.

Now when we see better photos, we see it is nothing like a face, no sulpturing to bring out eyes and mouth. Maybe it is more than a pile of dirt, but it is essentially a mesa or two and some debris. Now you still think it has potential artificiality, yet, that which made you think that in the first place is now gone. It is not a face at all, but the artificality claim remains. Based on what? Other than a sort of positional momentum.

I think it is that because it looks like this. Oops, it doesn't look like this after all. But I still think it is that anyway. Not a very compelling argument to me.

I think too that there is a larger context for Hoagland. It is not just hoagland makes face claims, and we mock him. Hoagland has been spewing - sorry - producing and ever changing stream of baloney for years. SOmething is this, then it is that, then it is something else, and all the time he claims that he always believed in whatever the position du jur might be. it gets tiring.

I used to hear him on Art Bell's show, and I would think the guy was kinda goofy. But over time I got my fill of him, and his accusations and general baloney, and I could no longer listen to him. Now someone who knew my listening history would understand that. Someone who heard me tune it in for the first time would be shocked that I could dismiss a guy as soon as I heard his name come out the radio. But of course that person has not the benefit of knowing the back story.

The Hoagland formula hasn't changed appreciably in years. His latest position is an ever changing thing, and it seems to be based as much on his tales of NASA somehow trying to suppress both him and the "truth" as on any substantive arguments.

So forgive us if we don't pretend the events of the last decade or so never occurred and treat the latest Hoagland offering as if it were some new idea to consider.

Let's get something out of the way first - I'm not a scientist."Harsh" doesn't do it justice. I knew what you meant by "come off" the first time and stand by what I said before. Carried away? Not me. When I said your comments made you "sound like a Hoagland apologist" it was based on what you write and don't write regarding Dr. Plait and RCH. To characterize Dr. Plait's rebuttal as "illogical" (among other things) while glossing over Hoagland's tripe speaks for itself. RCH does a lot more than "stretch things" and if you feel what I said doesn't really apply to you, the fault lies with how your writing makes you come off.You can claim "design" in any number of natural formations. While such rationalization may work for you I need actual evidence of artificiality, not something that is essentially esoteric.Crop Circles are best left for another thread/forum and ancient Earth structures are .. Earth structures. You need to establish that there are artificial structures on Mars before such speculation really means anything.Two things - the "design" factor is a product of your opinion, nothing more and it's up to you and others of similar leanings to prove artificiality, not the other way around.Why? Where's the actual evidence that would justify such a suspension?You'll need to do better than that. Your "design" speculation has no limitations. A "design" can be anything you want it to be .. which sounds more like a refusal to accept the realities of the follow-up Cydonia images than anything else.I don't think confusion is the proper word here, at least in my case. Instead, use any word that's a synonym for "I ain't buying it." Of course? heh .. Hoagland couldn't get the surrounding region to look artificial with his lines, arrows, and other enhancements even before the second fly-by.You can claim your posts are being misconstrued all you want but this post only reinforces my opinion about your coming off as a Hoagland apologist.

As others have pointed out, hatred of Hoagland isn't the issue. I judge Cydonia on it's own merits and what I see with my own eyes. As for RCH, the reason his claims are debunked here is simple .. his claims are bunk.

The Story of Atrahasis.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

What about Phil's discussions on other topics? There has been no mention of that. His (and other members of this board) facts and logic are what drew me here. I've only seen the discussions get mocking when there is a great history of deception and illogic. I've seen some of the most ridiculous questions being answered in a kind, honost, logical way.

One of my points is the way RH is profitting from it. When most of the information is either misleading or lies, then that is where the buck stops. (excuse the pun) I equate that with "truth in advertising". If some publically held company advertised that way, someone would be in jail.
What if someone advertised, "this subcompact can go faster than the speed of sound" and fail to mention that its only when shot out of a cannon. There's a reason for asterisks on ads.

First, welcome to the BABB.

I will gladly concede that Hoagland gets some things correct. Even a blind squirrel occassionally finds a nut. However, I'm perfectly willing to dimiss his occassional correctness in light of his overwhelming wrongness.

Basically, I have neither the time nor the desire to sift through HGs mountains of pure bunk in search of a deeply recessed nugget of correctness that may or may not even be there. The signal to noise ratio isn't favorable.

Welcome to the forum, Atrahasis.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I have a different opinion.
I do not mind a little snarkiness in a criticism. If that's the greatest weakness in Phil's writing style, then there's no problem with his style, as far as I'm concerned.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Atrahasis, I think you'll find that "cold" attitudes when discussing such things usually comes across as "rude" to many people.

Also, your argument is not logical, since it makes too many assumptions on unknowns. All the evidence we have up to this point says that Mars has never been inhabited. Logically, that is your starting point for discussing these matters. Many natural structures may appear artificial at first glance, but if you start from the logical default, you find that there isn't enough evidence to back up Cydonia or the "face." Again, the logical assumption is that these structures are not artificial, and we cannot rule that they are until they are directly explored (by rovers or by man) and evidence uncovered.

You're starting from the assumption that they are artificial, with no evidence, which is not logical. Citing crop circles is not a good way to bolster your stance, either.

If it's simply a feeling you have, that's fine. But, it does you a disservice to claim it's a logical progression.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Good day again!

What makes you think I have an "argument" about the nature of Mars or Cydonia? I haven't detailed any such thing, and if you think I have one that was actually your own imagination filling in the blanks.

From two of the previous posts on this thread. My imagination is not quite up to complete continuing coherent hallucination, so I suspect these are your statements about the possibly unnatural status of Cydonia.

Ahem. Observe

Here, you claim to "see" a design in Cydonia. Okay...this sounds like you're making a point for artificiality, or, to be blunt an "arguement"

Before we get to the next point, what do you mean you have an "eye for design"? Does that mean you've had experience in the design of cities or houses or whatnot?

Second point

So you're willing to keep in the possibility that there may be artificiality on Mars, due to the "nature of its vagueness"? That sounds like another "arguement" to me.

Not to put you on the spot here, but you wanted to know what made us think you had an arguement - here's what made us think so!

__________________
here we go, the world is spinning
when it stops, it's just beginning

sun comes up, we laugh and we cry
sun goes down, and then we all die

Touched by his noodly appendage

Incidentally, that is incorrect. Hoagland has a good analysis of the Moon Hoax on his pages. I make a point of that in my intro page to the Hoagland debunking. He even corrected a mistake I had in my Moon Hoax debunking!

I don't categorically dismiss everything he says, just most of it. After all, when you spew as much nonsense as he does (and even what he says about his own history turns out not to be true) then at what point do you say to yourself, "Maybe I should take everything he says as wrong until proven otherwise"?

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com