Hoagland a fraud?

In re Hoagland:

I am reminded of Lowell, who built his observatory in Arizona while it was
still a Territory (AZ didn't enter the Union until 1912). Lowell is known
for his "Canals", a mistranslation of Schiaparelli's "canali" (Italian for
Channels -- the channels of Mars were confirmed by Mariner IX a the Viking I
Orbiter.)

Lowell, however, was part and parcel of the late 19th (Edwardian) Era; his
Mars books became the basis for a number of science fiction writers
(Burroughs' Carter series, much of early Heinlein & Clarke, perhaps del Rey
& Smith).

Hoagland, from the first, was a hoax from start to finish. He started off by
using the standard conspiracy theorists; Lowell, though, didn't start off
with conspiracies, just applying Boston Brahamins and their elites through a
Martian theory. And it was considered believeable until better telescopes,
and the Mariner satellites. (Lowell's theories were good while they lasted.)

--
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been.
"The Visionary Remembers, and speculates on what may yet be."

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:31:49 GMT, $ wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:09:11 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:38:00 GMT, * wrote:

On 16 Mar 2004 18:16:10 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:
And this is what NASA/Lockheed are hiding:

1. Hoagland a fraud. He's being paid by Lockheed to be a
diversion and to make NASA/Lockheed secret discoveries on Mars look
ridiculous.

2) Ruins of a previous sophisticated and technologically advanced
civilization on Mars. This extinct Martian civilization shows evidence of
being more technologically advanced than current earth.

3) Evidence of a sudden, catastrophic mass extinction of that civilization
on Mars.

4). A breathable atmosphere on Mars.

5). Vegetation on Mars.

6). Grey aliens currently have established a base on Mars.


And your evidence for this is?

Malin has the evidence, I'm just the messenger.

IN other wordfs, you are making it up as you go along, like you did
about the sekrit flying saucer underground at Groom Lake.

Of course not. I always tell the truth.

Not according to the evidence available on Usenet, kook.



Yep, You took a strong stupid pill today, didn't you, kook?

Strong yes, stupid no. Not with a 200 IQ.

Your waste size in inches is NOT your IQ, kook.


--

http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

* wrote:
Malin has the evidence, I'm just the messenger.

Great. Message received. Thanks. See ya, bye!

Sam

In sci.space.policy * wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:58:07 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:44:49 -0500, Patty Brooks
wrote:

snip

Is Hoagland a fraud? Yes he is. He's being paid by Lockheed to be a
diversion and to make NASA/Lockheed secret discoveries on Mars look
ridiculous.

Is your name Maxson? You seem to share their patriarch's Lockheed
fetish.

To all amused lurkers, I suggest a quick google search on "Formosa's
Law" . . .

I suggest you bone up on Lockheed and their holdings and involvement with
NASA, the NSA, the phone company, the welfare system, and all the components
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
would the be the AT&T phone company, the Sprint phone company, the Worldcom
phone company or some other 'the' phone company?

of Lockheed which are the technology behind the so-called US government.
Lockheed is so ingratiated into government, that for all intents and
purposes Lockheed IS the US government, and in fact the work force of the
new world order.

One wonders why they then give their shareholders so lousy returns and
not say 10x more....

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
JGDeRuvo wrote:
In the early 1980's, based on NASA data from the more sophisticated
unmanned Voyager fly-bys of the outer planets, Hoagland became the
first to propose (in a widely-quoted series of UPI and AP stories on
his startling paper, published in 1980 in Star & Sky magazine) the
possible existence of "deep ocean life" under the global ice shield
perpetually surrounding the enigmatic moon of Jupiter, Europa...

This unfortunately comes from believing Hoagland's press releases. Benton
Clark suggested life in subsurface oceans within the icy satellites at the
NASA Ames "Life in the Universe" conference in 1979, Gerald Feinberg came
to the same idea at around the same time, and Guy Consolmagno gave the
idea at least passing attention several years earlier in his work on
subsurface oceans.

Anyone who sees a long-lived ocean is going to think seriously about the
possibility that life might arise in it. This is how the idea came to
Consolmagno. (Incidentally, Hoagland has also been heard to claim that
he was the first to predict an ocean within Europa, which is even more
flagrant mythology -- John Lewis published that idea in 1971.)

P.S.: the idea for the Pioneer plaque came from Eric Burgess, as Hoagland
himself has admitted in print at least once.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html is worth
reading.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

* wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:44:49 -0500, Patty Brooks
wrote:

snip

Is Hoagland a fraud? Yes he is. He's being paid by Lockheed to be a
diversion and to make NASA/Lockheed secret discoveries on Mars look
ridiculous.

Nice Troll!!!

Alas! , Lockheed is a small farmer!

Why not go after Halliburton!!

In sci.space.policy Ami Silberman wrote:

"*" wrote in message Okay smart ass, why are the MOC
photos coded during transmission from Mars

Because to digitally store or transmit images they need to be encoded in

This is also true of analog transmission of images (or other sensor
data) - youhave to covert it into a way that can be transmitted over
radio waves.

some sort of format. To transmit them, furthermore, there needs to be
further encoding to be able to detect and correct errors during
transmission. Conceptually, its no different than fax transmission in the
60s.


Except I think faxes weren't digital yet in the 60's.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.space.policy * wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:32:26 GMT, Wally Anglesea?
wrote:

Not at all, nada. Even *amateur* astronomers can test for that.
I guess they must be part of a grand international conspiracy, huh?

Care to explain how that is possible, kook?

You believe NASA lies, that's why.

Are you contending that it's impossible for amateuur astronomers to
detect a breathable atmosphere on mars, or that they are part of NASA?
Even the Russian ones?

See the problem is that the loons don't really understand astronomy, so
they never get around to the "this is waht somebody with understanding
of basics and $2000 would do to try to verify / disprove it". The same
trouble that Guth has with understanding why nobody is taking his claims
about Moon surface being hotter than Radium - and it all being covered
up - seriously.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
news:herbschaltegger-
I've already filed a second abuse report. Should I file a third?

And, btw, your posts are coming through loud and clear, your fears of
censorship to the contrary. However, they are entirely off-topic and
off-charter for the sci.space newsgroups and THAT'S why people are
objecting. Confine your lunacy to the alt.* groups and no one will
care.

Well, that's not ENTIRELY true Herb. If he actually posted verifable
evidence, he'd be welcomed with open arms.

I mean I think I speak for most sci.space folks that if there were REAL
evidence of life on Mars we'd love to hear it.

But as long as he spouts nonsense, I agree. He can stay with the alt.*
groups.


Yeah, you're right. As it stands, however, he's spouting Guth-like
nonsense combined with Maxson-like anti-NASA/anti-Lockheed paranoia and
hostility.

Oh, definitely agreed. Just wanted to make sure that other more reasonable
people understood that we DO welcome differing opinions here.



The best, most intellectually-honest and interesting sources of
information regarding possible ancient life on Mars is probably
contained in the sites noted by JimO in his "F-word" (e.g., fossils)
column last week. Very interesting stuff there.

Ayup.



--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .


Didn't you watch that Stargate SG-1 episode "Disclosure"? The Russians are
in bed with NASA, sandwiching Min and Hoagland!

Funny, JUST saw that one last night.

Of course Wormhole X-treme points out the truth... Stargate is really a
program, the TV show is just for plassible deniability.