Mark your calender!!!!!!!

Hoagland is updating his book Dark Mission and it is due to be released on September 1st 2009.

Boy, I bet it will twice as good at the first edition.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

How dare he release it on the anniversary of the day my hero Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic!

;-) (I'm offended, but not as much as the above comment implies.)

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

<sarcasm> Wow! I can't wait!</sarcasm>

In fact I can wait. I'm happy to wait years! Will there be more "secret NASA photos and footage never meant for release" or some such? All of which are more than likely freely available if you know where to look ....

And also I wonder how many days, hours, or even minutes after publication it will be before the code for the extra images is available somewhere on the internet.

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

It would be a real shame if someone legitimately purchased the book and the code, then circulated the code so that other people could see these so called exclusive images for free. I really hope that doesn't happen, if it does, of course I'll take a look myself, but I won't like myself for doing so.... ;-)

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

I'm just savoring the irony of Hoagland selling access to publicly available pictures in conjunction with a book arguing that NASA is hiding and controlling access to information.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I have a feeling that someone may post this comment of Hoagland's site or at least under the amazon comments.

Oh joy, another book to add to my mustn't buy and not to read lists.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

Oh man, you beat me to it!

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Was just wondering what the law was 'down there' regarding the use of NASA images. (I assume such images will be used as 'proof'.) Is it something along the lines of rebuttal constituting fair use?

It just seems rather rude to slander an agency with the very material it provides free of charge as a public service. Especially if an admission fee is required to view them.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

You can use them as long as you credit NASA.

I saw this the other day. It explains what some of the shuttle mission patches symbolize. The first one is about a Dark Mission. Some are about missions carrying top secret payloads, the others are satellite launches we know about.


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1197/1

__________________
I am kick asstronaut. you are not.

Most photographs released publicly by NASA are considered in public domain -- that is, entirely free of copyright or other intellectual ownership. One is not strictly required to give credit. It is however scholarly convention to credit the source even for public-domain material as a means of establishing authority and origin: you say you got it from NASA so that people know where it came from, not because NASA desires or requires the credit. That is not true of all NASA material, but most historical photography from NASA has no property rights associated with it.

The provision you must respect, however, is the privacy of individuals depicted in the images. There are certain commercial and editorial uses of photographs that may violate the rights of people recognizably depicted in them. You cannot, for example, use a photograph of recognizable Mission Control operators smoking cigars in order to sell your tobacco products in the United States: that violates the right against someone's likeness being used for commercial activity without his consent.

Hoagland (and any other author) may create a derived work from a public-domain item. If I obtain from NASA a public-domain photograph and annotate, compose, or otherwise transform the item so as to create a substantially new original work from it, I have rights in that derivation. I may charge people money to view it, even if the original material is free.

Once published, that new derived work is itself subject to Fair Use doctrine.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Thanks for the explanation, all. I could see that the promotion of products by associating them with NASA would be over the line, but wasn't just sure where the line was drawn, and this makes it more clear.

Still, the whole business DOES seem pretty scuzzy to me. Then again, IANAL.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

I'm astonished that anyone would want to buy this crap. 5 seconds with google and you can debunk an entire chapter. Glass domes on the moon being the easiest. Half an hour, and the entire premise of the whole book falls to pieces.

This book is a total work of fiction, and Hoagland knows it. Amazing how all his attention has turned away from Mars now that the data from MRO demonstrates just how moronic his Cydonia obsession was.

I've had the most unpropitious opportunity to carefully search for, and briefly evaluate every RCH "anomaly" photo available on the web. This consumed at least six months of my life, and was nothing short of absolute drudgery.

Some groups of self-appointed "anomaly hunters" usually commit the typical folly of pareidolia or .jpg image compression. However, RCH brings things down further by depicting blatantly obvious film and camera defects as alien constructs.

Which brings me to why I am astonished that this image never showed up in any of his books, or any of the abominable publications related to the subject by other authors. It's a doozy: (Lunar Orbiter image lo5-125-h2a)

It's a veritable paradise for pareidolic eyes! Conversely, when considering that, I'm glad these images never came up before for that same reason.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever had a decent chance to have a lunar geologist elaborate on it's features for me. But that taken into account, they are quite plainly diverse geological formations accompanied by some very beautiful (and long) shadows.

I like to pull it out whenever someone insists that the moon is just a cratered, flat and barren landscape. They seem to forget that impacts and even possible lunar volcanism can craft some very pretty, and downright gorgeous landscapes. The lack of an atmosphere magnifies this natural beauty and makes it all the more fantastic. (Did I just say cratered AND flat? Meh, ah well...)

One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon.

That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough.

__________________
I am a cryptozoologist.
I search for hidden zoologists.

I guess Hoaxland needs to keep food on the table somehow.

It is amazing that there remains a small, but hardcore group of so-called "anomaly hunters" who, dspite the obvious science to the contrary, continue to claim there are alien-made ruins on the moon and Mars. The contorted machinations they require to keep the assembly line running at Hoagland's nonsense factory are engineered from sheer naivety. That anyone would actually buy this book for anything other than litterbox lining speaks to how far we have yet to got to climb out of our caves of ignorance.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

Howdy Algorithms!

Would these lines be directed at the foolish few who posted at the Red planet discussion table website? Is that thing still running? There was another one too, that SNC, Gordon de Spain, etc and other うんち lived? Long time no read old comrade.

That sounds depressing, but unfortunately true.

These kinds of ideas seem to come up more frequently as opposed to dwindling away (to me, anyway.) Large groups of people are demanding copious amounts of fantasy and escapism and are caring less and less about the heavy price these things carry in the long run.

Then there are misinformed people who genuinely don't know any better.

__________________
I am a cryptozoologist.
I search for hidden zoologists.

MARS...A Red Planet Roundtable Discussion is still alive and kicking. Our old friend MARS REVEALER has resurfaced there today and continues with his obsession of Hoagland.

I'm sure the 'assembly line' will keep running as long as there's a market for the product. There must be some profit in it, or purveyors of such material would undoubtedly move on to other pursuits.

I suppose at least a few of these authors genuinely believe the claims they make, and are doing their best to 'get the word out', but most of them seem suspect to me. I can't help but think that many who make a living as proponents of such 'theories' really know better, but find it too easy (and much too lucrative) to capitalize on the ignorance and naiveté of certain groups within society.

As for their readership, I wonder whether need doesn't play as much a part as gullibility. Isn't our society historically chock full of beliefs in elves, gnomes, sprites, pixies, angels, etc? Are aliens the contemporary equivalent of these creatures? Maybe these authors are just using modern terminology to fulfill the innate need for mythology that exists within a certain segment of the population.

What strikes me is that they use real technology against itself, so to speak. Their reliance on photographic 'evidence' abuses the inherent flaws in the methods used to gather, retrieve, and reproduce images of the moon, Mars, etc. To an experienced observer, dust, scratches, blurs, flares, and other imperfections are common flaws in any photograph produced or reproduced by mechanical means. Likewise, pixelation, artifacting, and other byproducts of image digitization and conversion are well known and well considered when viewing digitized images. Anyone used to working with images (and especially digital images) as evidence would appreciate that there are certain limitations inherent in the technology.

And it's these gaps that the conspiracists exploit. A trained analyst could explain (and even an untrained, objective observer could assume) that the image was flawed, somehow, and that there's nothing noteworthy in the imperfections. But for those who are looking for a miracle in the gaps, they're well served by the hucksters and charlatans who are willing to feed their desires.

__________________
I can't WAIT for January 1, 2013 to arrive! Then again, I'm still waiting for October 1, 1993 ...

You'd better BET there's a spoon, Neo! THWACK!!!!

Thanks for the link Alan, interesting to note it is still there with what - seven posters!

Enjoy. That website remains on my F list, while BA is on my C list and you can see how often I post here.

Good reading you again Alan

I have always interpreted the interest in SF, UFOs and the comics featuring "Cosmic" heroes from Marvel and DC (Characters such as the Silver Surfer) as people wanting a "mythology for the age of space travel".

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

I think it unfortunate that you lump a whole field of literature (the good the bad the ugly) into the same bag as UFOs and comics.

Jon

I didn't say there was anything WRONG with being interested in SF or comics.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

I would tend to call that lump "fiction".
It all depends on the context of the lump.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Didn't say you did. I said it was unfortunate that you lump creative fiction with the misinterpretation, ignorance and deliverate lies that typify UFO "reports".

Jon

And why should creativity be lumped in with UFOs? It is like lumping tax fraud and the Nobel prize for economics together just because they both deal with money.

Jon

There is a lot of creativity in those UFO books and DVDs. As much as in most Sci-Fi and any comic I have ever seen.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►