A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hoagland a fraud?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 16th 04, 11:48 PM
*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

{...}

But why is the below off topic?


Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not the
rumors.


You mean science isn't interested in facts?

Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though they
did forget to tell the public about them)

---------------------------------------------------

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.

What secret discoveries?


1) 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.

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

3). A breathable atmosphere on Mars.

4). Vegetation on Mars.

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





  #12  
Old March 16th 04, 11:49 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?


"*" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

{...}

But why is the below off topic?


Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not

the
rumors.


You mean science isn't interested in facts?


Boy, you just failed logic 101.


Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though

they
did forget to tell the public about them)


Now, these are claims. You have yet to provide the evidence. Try again or
go away and stop bothering us. You obviously don't understand the basics of
science.



  #13  
Old March 16th 04, 11:55 PM
*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:49:51 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"*" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:45:17 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

{...}

But why is the below off topic?

Because these are SCIENCE. Support your claims. Show us the proof, not

the
rumors.


You mean science isn't interested in facts?


Boy, you just failed logic 101.


Um, no, sweetie, I didn't.


Here's the facts and they're already proven by NASA/Lockheed. (Though

they
did forget to tell the public about them)


Now, these are claims.


You'll have to ask NASA/Lockheed why they failed to tell you.

You have yet to provide the evidence.


NASA/Lockheed has the evidence, I'm just the messenger.

Try again or go away and stop bothering us.


lol Is science a little club or something? Does that mean all the science
I learned in school is no good unless I belong to your science club?

You obviously don't understand the basics of
science.


It's about peer review, huh. And speaking of that, why isn't NASA allowing
scientific peer review of their Mars MOC photographs?

  #14  
Old March 17th 04, 12:09 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?

In article ,
* wrote:
, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Note followups.

In article ,
* wrote:
Hey anything to keep the thread in the public eye.


Actually, no. "Anything" is, in fact, grossly off topic in
sci.space.policy and sci.space.history .


But why is the below off topic?


Because it fails to meet the standards of verifyability
and repeatability required for it to be scientific evidence
or data.

What standards you chose to use in your life are your concern.
What standards you use posting to sci.space newsgroups
are subject to existing charters and community standards.
Your postings do not meet those standards.

Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups
and because of that in violation of your internet service
provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this,
eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space
groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof.

Newsgroups are different groups for a reason. They have differing
standards and topic areas. It is not at all infringing on your
beliefs or right to discuss them for us to insist that you do
it in places where it is on topic and on charter. By posting
this over and over again, you are grossly disrespecting our
groups, our beliefs, and wasting our time. It is rude and
intolerant to post or crosspost off topic over and over again.


-george william herbert


  #15  
Old March 17th 04, 12:22 AM
*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?

On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:
,
(George William
Herbert) wrote:

Note followups.

In article ,
* wrote:
Hey anything to keep the thread in the public eye.

Actually, no. "Anything" is, in fact, grossly off topic in
sci.space.policy and sci.space.history .


But why is the below off topic?


Because it fails to meet the standards of verifyability
and repeatability required for it to be scientific evidence
or data.


Oh you mean that's why NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review
of Malin's Mars MOC photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US
government property which is against the law.

What standards you chose to use in your life are your concern.
What standards you use posting to sci.space newsgroups
are subject to existing charters and community standards.
Your postings do not meet those standards.


You should hold NASA to those standards, I'm just the messenger.

Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups
and because of that in violation of your internet service
provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this,
eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space
groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof.


Oh baloney, it's quite on topic and you're blowing smoke up everyone's
behinds just like Lockheed/NASA.

Newsgroups are different groups for a reason. They have differing
standards and topic areas. It is not at all infringing on your
beliefs or right to discuss them for us to insist that you do
it in places where it is on topic and on charter. By posting
this over and over again, you are grossly disrespecting our
groups, our beliefs, and wasting our time. It is rude and
intolerant to post or crosspost off topic over and over again.


Since when is science a religion?


-george william herbert


  #16  
Old March 17th 04, 12:28 AM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland a fraud?

In article ,
* wrote:


Abuse complaint filed.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
  #19  
Old March 17th 04, 12:52 AM
*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Science Double Standard Hoagland a fraud?

On 16 Mar 2004 15:46:34 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:
On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800,
(George William
Herbert) wrote:

{...}

Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups
and because of that in violation of your internet service
provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this,
eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space
groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof.


Okay Mr. Arrogant Scientist, why did the scientific community allow this:

NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review of Malin's Mars MOC
photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US government property
which is against the law.



That is a false statement.


No at all, and you're hedging and not being honest. I doubt you're a
scientist at all. Science is supposed to be about honesty.


All the MOC images older than the proprietary period are in
the National Space Science Data Center set, which can be
accessed by the public or independent researchers.


Please explain 'proprietary period' and who owns the photographs during that
period.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ds=*

They are also on Malin's website:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery


Why aren't any independent scientists allowed to peer review NASA's raw
data? Why aren't any independent scientists not employed by NASA, Lockheed
or under contract by the same allowed to view the raw Mars MOC data as it is
being transmitted?




-george william herbert


  #20  
Old March 17th 04, 01:00 AM
*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maline Hired by NASA/Lockheed to Doctor MOC PHotographs Space Science Double Standard Hoagland a fraud?

On 16 Mar 2004 15:46:34 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:
On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800,
(George William
Herbert) wrote:

{...}

Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups
and because of that in violation of your internet service
provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this,
eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space
groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof.


Okay Mr. Arrogant Scientist, why did the scientific community allow this:

NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review of Malin's Mars MOC
photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US government property
which is against the law.



That is a false statement.


No at all, and you're hedging and not being honest. I doubt you're a
scientist at all. Science is supposed to be about honesty.


All the MOC images older than the proprietary period are in
the National Space Science Data Center set, which can be
accessed by the public or independent researchers.


Please explain 'proprietary period' and who owns the photographs during that
period.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/...1996-062A&ds=*

They are also on Malin's website:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery


Why aren't any independent scientists allowed to peer review NASA's raw
data? Why aren't any independent scientists not employed by NASA, Lockheed
or under contract by the same allowed to view the raw Mars MOC data as it is
being transmitted?




-george william herbert


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.