Art Bell Is Back!

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:02:46 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


Or are you saying the face survived 3 billion years of dust erosion only to
completely change in the last 30?


No, one of Hoaxland's first claims when he saw the new pics was
that Pathfinder rolled over to the mesa and blew it up to make
him look bad.

NASA has agents hiding under his bed.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:58:55 GMT, DrPostman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:53:56 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:


Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

All of his claims have been totally debunked.
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html
http://www.masonicinfo.com/hoagland.htm
http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html
http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html
http://www.rense.com/ufo2/remedy.htm
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall1.html
http://www.skepticalmind.com/hoagland.html

Want more? I've got lots of them. I have done a bit of
research on him, including going to one of his lectures.

BTW, his resume has been investigated and it seems he has
lied about who he has worked for. People have looked into
his claims of employment and found that he either embellished
or out right lied.

Well your face would look pretty unface like if it had been exposed to
3 billion years of dust blown erosion.

Wow, you've got True Believer Syndrome in a bad way.

Not so, myself and a few friends have just seen his lectures on tape
at a mates house a few weeks back one quite evening, the Moon one is
quite good, and it [the moon] was clearly visable when we left his
house to go home.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:30:38 GMT, DrPostman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:24:11 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:58:35 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:22:10 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
wrote:

"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2003 18:32:06 -0500, Gimme a Break wrote:

Rudolph_X wrote in news:asqbb.10537$Uv2.2394
:

The late night radio talk show king, Art Bell, is returning to host
the
weekend editions of Coast To Coast AM!

Is Hoagland going to make an apperance on his show?

Oh please ! My stomach is churning now ! Barf !

Hoagland is cool.

Cool ? What's so cool about someone who lies about everything he's talked
about, including his background?


He stirs up the nest, and no-one can really disprove what he's
alleging, as our knowledge of Mars and the Moon is at this time very
limited.


Yea, he has been disproved. Want to start with the 20 mile high glass
structures he used to claim (not sure if he still does since I heard
that crap in one of his lectures in 95) are on the moon?

Sure.

How about his outrageous claim that NASA murdered the Apollo 1
astronauts.

Did NASA sue him for that, or did the astronauts families?

How about if we address his "angstrom":
http://home.teleport.com/~photoget/angstrom.htm

Hoaxland is a liar and an opportunist who never met
a fraud he didn't want to get a piece of.

We can go on, especially with his "nazi" images on Mars:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/pasadena2.html
(on the bottom of that page)

THAT has got to be one of the kookiest things I have ever seen.
And Hoaxland actually believes all that crap!


Want more?

Sue what every you got if it makes you feel better.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:02:46 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Umm, that's now how it works Christopher. The one making the claim has
the
burden of proof.

Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

A hypothesis IS a claim. He has to support it.

So, NASA has to support the claim that on Eurpa has an ocean under the
ice, even though its just conjecture at this moment as NASA dosn't
know for sure.

You really need to learn how the scientific method works.

An argument/hypothesis/claim has two sides, or are you saying it only
has one?

Even the invisible pink unicorn in my garage agrees with me. BTW, using
your definition, it's up to you to prove I don't have the unicorn I claim to
have.



And in any case, his claims about the "face" have been shown to be
completely bogus. Further photos of the same area show nothing that
looks
like a face.

Well your face would look pretty unface like if it had been exposed to
3 billion years of dust blown erosion.


Umm, that's completely missing the point. Hoagland and others claimed that
the Viking photographs clearly showed a face.

And indeed it did, very face like.

Now, 30 years later it's clearly NOT a face.

Or are you saying the face survived 3 billion years of dust erosion only to
completely change in the last 30?

No, but if you exposed the pryamids in Egypt to 3 bilion years of
martian dust erosion they wouldn't look artificial, even though we
know that are and the Egyptian pyrimids line up mathematically with
the 3 stars of orions belt.

Besides, if you want something that looks "manmade" take a look at Kermit or
the Smiley Face on Mars.

Seen them.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[follow-ups trimmed]

"Christopher" wrote ...
Not so, myself and a few friends have just seen his lectures on tape
at a mates house a few weeks back one quite evening, the Moon one is
quite good, and it [the moon] was clearly visable when we left his
house to go home.

If he claims the Moon exists I think there is sufficient evidence to
support _that_ hypothesis.

Christopher wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Christopher" wrote:
Umm, that's now how it works Christopher.
The one making the claim has the burden of proof.

Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

A hypothesis IS a claim. He has to support it.

So, NASA has to support the claim that on Eurpa has an ocean under the
ice, even though its just conjecture at this moment as NASA dosn't
know for sure.

NASA and the planetary scientists it pays to be on
the mission science teams *have* supported the claim.
There is both gravitational data on the density of
the bulk material below the surface from higher order
gravitational terms and observational evidence of
liquid coming to the surface.

The face-on-mars theories were supported by data which
was old (1970s) and only about 8-10 pixels wide.
That is down in the noise. A lot of people tried to
extract signal from that, and got what you normally
do when you're looking for meaning in a few bits:
exactly what you are looking for.

The acid test of all those theories was the Mars Global
Surveyor imagery. It was orders of magnitude higher
resolution than the Viking orbiters, and did image the
Cydonia 'interesting' spots quite nicely.

Before MGS got there, we got some of the pro-face hypothesis
people to agree to some reasonable tests for whether the
artificiality hypothesis was accurate, based on what the
MGS data might tell us. How accurately the MGS data supported
the hypothesized symmetrical face structure, for example,
and whether the hypothetical fractal geometry of the face
and other nearby structures remained the same at the higher
resolution imagery etc.

The MGS data completely blew those tests away. The 'face'
region is neither symmetrical nor anything like what the
hypothesized structure looked like, and the fractal geometry
of the region fell back down to background levels when the
higher resolution imagery was used. The fractal geometry of
the region as hypothesized has been demonstrated to be an
artifact of the chosen parameters and the pixel resolution
Viking provided, nothing inherent in the actual landforms.

What is sad is that despite preagreement on these tests
for artificiality, the pro-artificiality people are to
some degree still arguing the case.

Or are you saying the face survived 3 billion years of dust erosion only to
completely change in the last 30?

No, but if you exposed the pryamids in Egypt to 3 bilion years of
martian dust erosion they wouldn't look artificial, even though we
know that are and the Egyptian pyrimids line up mathematically with
the 3 stars of orions belt.

Some of the Egyptian pyramids do. Most of them don't.
They were completed by individual pharoahs over hundreds
of years and don't have any sort of master site plan related
to astronomy, for the most part.

It is a trivial exercise to take any large enough area of
natural landforms and line some of them up with significant
astronomy in the sky above. It is mathematically demonstrable
that you can do it even given a completely random surface.
It is not at all unusual that Hoagland and others were
able to do it with the Face region in Cydonia, even if
it were completely natural.


-george william herbert

"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:02:46 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

A hypothesis IS a claim. He has to support it.

So, NASA has to support the claim that on Eurpa has an ocean under the
ice, even though its just conjecture at this moment as NASA dosn't
know for sure.

Exactly. They have made a claim and are attempting to offer evidence. This
is exactly opposite of what you said folks had to do with Hoagland.


You really need to learn how the scientific method works.

An argument/hypothesis/claim has two sides, or are you saying it only
has one?

Non-sequitor.

You still haven't disproved my invisible pink unicorn, therefore it must
exist.



Umm, that's completely missing the point. Hoagland and others claimed
that
the Viking photographs clearly showed a face.

And indeed it did, very face like.

Let me amend my statement. They claimed it showed a face and that it was
proof of an intelligence and claimed there were structures as a result, etc.

Now we know that it clearly is NOT a face, that the few they saw was a trick
of shadows and light. Much as the several "faces" on Earth are (such as the
now collapsed "Old Man of the Mountain" looked like a face from one
direction.)

There's clearly nothing artificial about it.


Now, 30 years later it's clearly NOT a face.

Or are you saying the face survived 3 billion years of dust erosion only
to
completely change in the last 30?

No, but if you exposed the pryamids in Egypt to 3 bilion years of
martian dust erosion they wouldn't look artificial, even though we
know that are and the Egyptian pyrimids line up mathematically with
the 3 stars of orions belt.


After 3 billion years of erosion they wouldn't exist.


Besides, if you want something that looks "manmade" take a look at Kermit
or
the Smiley Face on Mars.

Seen them.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:34:02 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:58:55 GMT, DrPostman
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:53:56 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:


Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

All of his claims have been totally debunked.
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html
http://www.masonicinfo.com/hoagland.htm
http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html
http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html
http://www.rense.com/ufo2/remedy.htm
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall1.html
http://www.skepticalmind.com/hoagland.html

Want more? I've got lots of them. I have done a bit of
research on him, including going to one of his lectures.

BTW, his resume has been investigated and it seems he has
lied about who he has worked for. People have looked into
his claims of employment and found that he either embellished
or out right lied.

Well your face would look pretty unface like if it had been exposed to
3 billion years of dust blown erosion.

Wow, you've got True Believer Syndrome in a bad way.

Not so, myself and a few friends have just seen his lectures on tape
at a mates house a few weeks back one quite evening, the Moon one is
quite good, and it [the moon] was clearly visable when we left his
house to go home.


So you believe that there are 20 mile high glass structures on the
moon and that ALL the Apollo astronauts are liars?

Why would you take the word of a proven liar (Hoagland) over
men who went there?









--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:37:48 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:


Did NASA sue him for that, or did the astronauts families?

They don't even know he exists. Do they have to sue him?


How about if we address his "angstrom":
http://home.teleport.com/~photoget/angstrom.htm

Hoaxland is a liar and an opportunist who never met
a fraud he didn't want to get a piece of.

We can go on, especially with his "nazi" images on Mars:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/pasadena2.html
(on the bottom of that page)

THAT has got to be one of the kookiest things I have ever seen.
And Hoaxland actually believes all that crap!


Want more?

Sue what every you got if it makes you feel better.


Not if you will just ignore them. You haven't looked at them
at all, have you?




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:44:30 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:02:46 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Umm, that's now how it works Christopher. The one making the claim has
the
burden of proof.

Not so, hoagy is putting forward a hypothesis, not a claim, the other
side has to forward a reasoned counter argument, not dismiss
everything out of hand with no counter logical argument or counter
hypothesis.

A hypothesis IS a claim. He has to support it.

So, NASA has to support the claim that on Eurpa has an ocean under the
ice, even though its just conjecture at this moment as NASA dosn't
know for sure.

Hoagland doesn't know either. BTW, that's just one more of the things
he has tried to hijack and claim as his. He was NOT the first to come
up with the idea of ocean based life on Europa.

John S. Lewis proposed the theory a full decade before Hoaxland
thought of it.






--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar