Does anyone find it a bit strange that Hogland accuses NASA of "covering-up" the "true" colors of Mars when much of his website consists of Martian and Lunar images manipulated in Photoshop until they can pass off as something other rather than rocks and natural landforms?

Who's trying to "cover-up" the "true" appearance of things?

Dancar

... But they do it under the guise of revealing the truth. But yes I've long thought it was dishonest to pretend that overprocessing digital images does not introduce artifacts.

If NASA is covering up the truth as Hoagland alleges then why is he using NASA photos ?

Because it's okay to use information from a source you don't trust when you think it supports your wild conjectures. As soon as evidence from them doesn't conform to the delusion it's called a "cover-up".

Not standing up for him but I suspect he's not got his own rover!

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

hoagland is pure entertainment, nothing less

he's harmless

and no, the excuse "people may be mislead by his inane rantings.." is patently false
lets be rational here

Trying to build a strawman here? No one here I know of said he's actually harmful (although NASA might have a different take on his coverup innuendos) and who is making excuses? Some people are misled by his "inane rantings." Have a problem with us discussing what he "rants?" If so, why? If not, why the lecture?

He's Leopold Strabismus with a Mars Shtick.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

judge not, lest ye be judged

Incidently, the two implications:

A) The excuse "people may be mislead by his inane rantings.." is patently false; and
A) We on this board are laboring under the assumption that excuse is true

seem to be somewhat contradictory. After all, if it's possible for us to be misled into believing a patently false concept, then it's certainly possible for others to be misled by Hoagland's "rantings".

Of course, if it is possible for others to be misled by Hoagland's rantings, then that "excuse" is clearly not "patently false."

Either way, your implications are not rational.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

While I realize that anecdotal evidence is not always relevant, I think in this case it is.

I was once misled by his nonsense. Thanks to sites like these and others dealing with the falsity of certain belief systems AND a class on rational thought, I am no longer misled.

However, if one person can be misled, it's not a great leap to think that others could as well.

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

I notice thou hast not answered the questions posed.

Who's going to judge him, and why should he care?

__________________
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

If anything, Hoagland is good for the space program, and for science in general.

Lets take the typical layman (George) who stumbles on a well-thought out astronomical conspiracy, coverup, etc. George will no doubt find Hoagland's site. Fueled by all of this fascinating information, George wants more space conspiracies and assorted weirdness. But after awhile, he begins questioning the truth behind it all.

Skeptical inquiry will no doubt lead him to Dr. Plait's site, and George is soon reading real science, with true information. Realizing the conspiracy/coverup theories have no basis in reality, George dismisses them. But George remains hooked on the real science. Real space questions are even more of a mindwarp than conspiracy theories are. George returns to this site and others. He starts thinking about going back to college for a science degree...

And we have another science fan. Hoagland is an asset to this community.

Guys, the man has a point here. I find Hoaxland's attempts at "uncovering the truth" x-files style somewhat entertaining and good for the occasional soft touch of amusement in else sobering discussions.

I can actually see some validity in the view that "space-noobs" (hmm I'm hardly a vet myself, must watch out with that #-o ) might be intrigued and get excited about mars/space, and dig into the topic when subjected to chunks of sci-fi like woo-woo they can digest.

For all, sooner or later they will read BA, try to sell woo-woo here, and get a nice re-education in the process (hmm Paulo el magni..well anyways) .

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

You're assuming that the "typical layman" will take that next step. My visits to Godlike Productions and similar sites suggests otherwise.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The site you cite is merely an extension of Majic's mentioned entertainment value. Why, we all read that site don't we?

(and I know you do! )

Having been a "George" (as referenced above) I started perusing "Enterprise" in early '98 when RCH was posting all of those fascinating images of "Martian Artifacts". I found it amazing that NASA and the people at JPL were trying to decieve us all. After watching that site quite intently for the next year or so, it became obvious that RCH and his "researchers" weren't playing with a full deck. The - Masonic - Skull and Bones - Illuminati - and God only knows who else type of world domination conspiracy nonsense drove me to the conclusion that he is an educated nutbag. The latest stuff about the dark shadowy people taking over Spirit to show the "good folks at NASA" that "they" hold all of the power is ridiculious. Just a couple of years ago, it was NASA that was the evil empire, now it's the "shadow people". His blown up pictures of rocks that seem to look a lot like blown up pictures of rocks are hardly convincing. He has always questioned why Scientists don't come out say that there is evidence of artificial structures on Mars. The answer to that one is fairly simple; No real Scientist is going to state that these rocks are really parts of some machine or structure unless they have hard evidence. Photoshop manipulation of an image is not hard evidence. I have a picture of the Sphinx on the shore of Lake Michigan. The only problem with it is that it is really a footprint one of my sons made while walking on the wet sand. If you enlarge that area enough, it looks like the Sphinx.
I found this site a couple of years ago through an appearance by the BA 8) on C2C and have learned a great deal from it, the posted links, and the people here on the board. There are a few more "Georges" here as well, and in time, that number will grow. As for Hoaxland, I would still like to know where he gets a "stove" from that one picture, it looks more like a Dunce cap.

__________________
Those who repeat History are doomed to learn it.

I can't fault Mr Show's reasoning regarding Hoagland, his hokum does help ratchet up interest in Mars, even if it's for the wrong reasons. But, to take Mr Show's hypothetical George for instance, if he comes here to follow up after experiencing Hoagland's tripe, he will need to see Hoagland's stuff debunked, eh? Hoagland's ideas merit ridicule IMO and that's what I was defending. I haven't seen any ad hominems here to justify Mr Show's lecture, we have fun with Nancy Lieder's spouting too. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

Well I have to begrudge mr. show's point... I found BadAstronomy by visiting LunarAnomalies, then EnterpriseMission, then here...

I am a "George". #-o

Welcome, George.

May I suggest to Bad Astronomer that we create a temporary ranking system calling people "Bad Georges" if cookie evidence is found on these people's computers showing frequent visits to Hoaxlands / Lunar anomalies and such like websites ?

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Bad George! No doughnut!

??

Hoagland is not good for the space program, or for science in general.

If you think he's just entertainment, he's not. People fall for his stuff

Mr. Snow, I suggest you go to this thread- http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10902

You'll see our Host, the BA, has to say about Hoagland being harmless...

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

I once was blind now I can see.

I used to be a "George" Used to read stuff like Fortean times etc. After about a year on the BA site I believe I am nearly cured of my George leanings. Every now and again I get tempted but this site always brings my back.

My tin foil hat is now fully rusted from lack of use.

__________________________________________________ ____

Even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day

Well, the problem as I see it is that you can now "see" because you have a basic knowledge of science and critical, logical thinking. For those who do not have this, the Hoaglands and Sibrels of the world offer up a conspiracy filled with aliens and evil government agencies...hell, it a "real world" X-files!

In order to get information based on reality one has to know where to look and then one needs to read said information and come to a rational conclusion. I'm fairly well educated but when I first came upon Jay's Clavius site I went and got my husband (the engineer!) to read it first! Being able to sort out reality from male bovine feces may just not be easy for some folks.

Couple all of this nonsense with speculation that NASA/Masons/MIBs etc.. are responsible for murdering shuttle crews, then it seems to me that this could be very dangerous male bovine feces...JMHO

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

That post is rather tame compared to the pages I am writing about him now... they should be up soon, by the weekend latest. 8)

The other day, I picked up Richard Hoagland's book, The Monuments of Mars - A City of the Edge of Forever at a used book store, for a couple of dollars. As I was looking at a few of the picture/figures in the center of the book, I noticed that several were supplied or developed by none other than David Percy. David Percy is a moon hoax promoter. I took out my copy of Percy's Dark Moon and low and behold they are in his book too.

This seems very odd to me. You have Hoagland who is very much against the moon hoax, in collusion with the pro-hoax Percy. If that's not a conspiracy, I don't know what is.

For you true believers, Figures 40, 42, 43a and 44 in Hoagland's 1996 version of the book and Figure 17 in Chapter 10 and Figure 18 in Chapter 12 of Dark Moon.

This isn't the first time I've heard this claim...

It does sound fishy... But we know Hoagland isn't always good (or upfront) about his sources...

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif