Attacks Against Richard C Hoagland

[DrMarvinBuster]

A local public access amateur astronomy show "Mysteries in Space" (aired on friday august 27th) featured a twenty minute investigation into Rihcard C Hoagland. The "debunking" (if you can call it that) featured on this network was quoted from in parts of the segment.

I don't know if others in the Harrisburg, PA area have seen this show but this is a clear case of personal attack and revenge against an alternitive scientist. Hoagland has repeatedly astonished and brought forth new ways of looking at data. Yet, even after significant evidence is shown he is mercilously attacked because he did not finish completing his studies towards his degree. At no point is the reason for this given. In reality he did not finish his degree but instead took up a prestigious oppurtunity
at a museum to become the youngest museum curator in the United States during the 1960, at age 19.

In addition to his many contributions to astronomy (though this has been degraded because of the media and nasa) he's also worked to complete major feats in the educational system and had personal meetings with then first lady barabra bush.

To sum all this up he recieved the Angstrom award which frankly is quite possibly the most respected scientific award next to the Nobel prize.

I would also like to state that I'm sure Richard would be the first to state his theories are not backed by 100% prove but I think their is enough distrinction between his achievements and the babblings of clearly delusional, insane people.

Richard C Hoagland, crackpot or information liberator? You decide.

[papageno]

Have a look at this.

[DrMarvinBuster]

That doesn't seem to prove much of anything. Hoagland disagreed on some photographic data and this guy says "their is no way hoagland could have come to this conclusion".

I hold this issue dear. I know exactly what it feels like to be an intelligent person (with an honorary degree or respected achievements) and be shot down and lumped together with ufo crackpots. I think it's a sad state of affairs when someone like Hoagland (who only proposes that life once existed or may unlikely still exist) is compared to people who think the government is run by an overseeing alien race and that we are all slaves.

I recieved an honorary degree in Astrology from the Lines-Morris Institute in Mechanicsburg PA. I sometimes recieve disrespecting attitudes from others in the field because of my background. I just think it's wrong to judge someone based solely on his or her credentials surely their achievements nad thoughts count for something.

I'm not saying Hoagland is right about everything but their seems to be an automatic dismissal towards anything he suggests.

[papageno]

Have a look at the BA website.

By the way, welcome to the BABB.

[N C More]

I'm not saying Hoagland is right about everything but their seems to be an automatic dismissal towards anything he suggests.

I don't see this happening at all. From what I've seen it's Mr. Hoagland and his associates (one of whom I was once involved in conversation with) that are dismissive. Add to this to poor reasoning, illogical thought, a close minded attitude and an arrogant demeanor and it becomes very clear as to why anyone with a scientific mindset has a problem with Mr. Hoagland. It's not Mr. Hoagland's credentials that are the issue but rather his lack of evidence for the conclusions he's declaring as truthful.

I'd suggest that you read the Bad Astronomer's analysis of Mr. Hoagland's position and think about who it is that's "jumping to conclusions".

BTW, being "open minded" and having "common sense" won't get you very far without logic and reason.

Edited for omitting a word.

[R.A.F.]

I know exactly what it feels like to be an intelligent person (with an honorary degree or respected achievements) and be shot down and lumped together with ufo crackpots.

I recieved an honorary degree in Astrology from the Lines-Morris Institute in Mechanicsburg PA.

This is a science board. Astrology is not science...it's pseudo-science...sorry to be so "blunt".

I just think it's wrong to judge someone based solely on his or her credentials surely their achievements and thoughts count for something.

I really don't care if Hoagland was a dishwasher, (an honorable profession...I've done it myself ). Hoagland's problem is that his "theory's" are just plain wrong. He is not being dismissed automatically...he's being dismissed because he has no evidence to support his claims.

[TinFoilHat]

To sum all this up he recieved the Angstrom award which frankly is quite possibly the most respected scientific award next to the Nobel prize.

Except he didn't. The people who gave him the award didn't have the authority to do so, and later admitted their mistake.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc....html#angstrom

[electromagneticpulse]

To sum all this up he recieved the Angstrom award which frankly is quite possibly the most respected scientific award next to the Nobel prize.

Except he didn't. The people who gave him the award didn't have the authority to do so, and later admitted their mistake.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc....html#angstrom

hahaha now thats funny!
The guy is a wack job, he's no evolutionist he's a pixie dustist his claims come from apparently as little as a grain of sand thats from the wrong place... so maybe its from mars! or maybe the moon and the martians brought it here. The guy must be smoking some heavy stuff cause he really can't be serious, i have better evidence for my last drunken claim that i once lived in russia... my proof was a vodka bottle and pretending to have a russian accent.
See my point i had a better claim then RCH but i know mine was 100% trash like im guessing his are, my evidence was physical not altered photographs.

[DrMarvinBuster]

Electro you are just part of the conspiracy against Hoagland. I've seen your type before.

Astrology is a science. For example right now I'm working on a project that is going to determine who will be the next president and what kind of policy related changes they are going to make. As well as learn the outcome of the war in iraq including the Najaf incident by comparing kerry and bushes star signs and the position of certain astronomical objects. Using advanced caluculations to include probability we are learning very much. It should be quite interesting.

Also what about the work he's done with Barabra Bush and his work with NASA? Their are picutres of him at NASA headquarters during a voyager mission? You are saying the ywere doctored? I will admit I believe the angstrom medal is a bit fishy however it's not his fault a similiar scientific award goes by the same name? I think he should perhaps make it a bit clearer that it is not the swedish medal however it must still hold some scientific value? If it's a funded organization they must have at least some kind of scientific know how? It wasn't just some guy in a garage that made him a plastic badge.

[Musashi]

Oh. Can you explain to me the science behind astrology?

[R.A.F.]

...Or the science behind Hoagland?

[Humphrey]

What are these figures you talk about DrMarvinBuster? Several of us here know very advanced mathematics, or have contacts who know it. Please, enlighten us onto your theroies on astrology. But please do not get into politics, just pure, hard mathematics and physics.

So are you saying you were fooled about the angstrom medal award or did you know all along and tried to push a lie on us?

This board deals with facts and proofs. You have to back up your claims here and giving generalized statements does not hold up. It might at GLP or The Enterprise missions forums, but alas, sorry you have come to a much tougher place.

[DrMarvinBuster]

Astrology is about predicting the future, by conducting carefully analyzed repeatable experiments, using a finite list of components.

[Humphrey]

Astrology is about predicting the future, by conducting carefully analyzed repeatable experiments, using a finite list of components.

Care to give an example? Showing all techniques used to get results of course.

Thank you.

[Musashi]

And it works? How?

[papageno]

I found a few things on the web:

Astrology & Science;

The Astrotest;

Horoscopes vs. Telescopes;

The Italian version of CSICOP: CICAP (if you can read Italian).

I would like to read some comments on these by DrMarvinBuster.

[Musashi]

Also, DrMarvinBuster, I would say you have generally mischaracterized Hoagland in your comments. I have a feeling this was not intentional, but I suggest you delve deeper before you lend him your full personal support and belief. This may save you some time in the long run.

This mischaracterization is evidenced here:

Hoagland disagreed on some photographic data

Hoagland violently and irrationally disagrees with the basic tenents of scientific inquiry. Were he to use the tools of science, he would come to the same conclusions that rational people have, namely that his "theories" do not hold water. His unwillingness to admit mistakes and move on, coupled with his desire to take credit when it is not due, points in a not so good direction for Hoagland.

And conspiracy against Hoagland? Please.

[gzhpcu]

I found a few things on the web:

Astrology & Science;

The Astrotest;

Horoscopes vs. Telescopes;

The Italian version of CSICOP: CICAP (if you can read Italian).

I would like to read some comments on these by DrMarvinBuster.

While you are waiting for DrMarvinBuster:

- I read Italian fluently: the Italian site addresses only the nonsensical sun-sign astrology you get in the newspapers. Ths site is no better than the tabloid horsoscopes.

- The astrotest is written and done by someone with no idea of the principles of astrology. If you want to argue against something - study it first. ditto for horoscopes vs telescopes. No knowledge of what they are writing about.

- the first reference will need more time to look at.

In the meantime:

http://www.skylarkbooks.co.uk/Shop/m...gy_Seymour.htm


If you want to argue against astrology, you must first understand what you are arguing against. Natal astrology is not the trivial sun-sign tabloid junk.

[lyford]

Richard C Hoagland, crackpot or information liberator? You decide.

I have. I do come from a skeptical background, but I don't look up anyone on a good guy-bad guy list to find out if I should accept what he/she says. I weigh their arguments, check references and research for myself. This, of course, takes quite a bit of time and energy.

I'm not saying Hoagland is right about everything but their seems to be an automatic dismissal towards anything he suggests.

After the twelfth time, people start to say - "I don't really have the time or inclination to spend my limited free time confirming or debunking your new idea, since the last few were nutty and wrong and I see no reason to expect otherwise in the future."

I think it's a sad state of affairs when someone like Hoagland (who only proposes that life once existed or may unlikely still exist) is compared to people who think the government is run by an overseeing alien race and that we are all slaves.

But he's not just claiming that life once existed on Mars. He is claiming a highly advanced super race existed that left behind monuments incorporating hyperdimensial mathematics and there is an active international government conspiracy to cover up the data that will prove it. Oh and he's speaking at the BAY AREA UFO CONFERENCE today and tomorrow. Okay, I couldn't find him claiming we were slaves.
And I am so tired of people playing the NASA/Spanish Inquisition card.

[papageno]

- I read Italian fluently: the Italian site addresses only the nonsensical sun-sign astrology you get in the newspapers. Ths site is no better than the tabloid horsoscopes.

Actually, Massimo Polidoro did a better job at predicting than the tabloid astrologers.
Anyway, are you saying that the tabloid astrologers are not doing they job properly?

- The astrotest is written and done by someone with no idea of the principles of astrology. If you want to argue against something - study it first.

I would love to see against-the-mainstream "scientists" do it with "mainstream" science.
Unfortunately, many people that argue against "mainstream" science do not make the effort of studying it first.
Maybe now they can get a glimpse of how "mainstream" scientist feel when cranks argue against them.

[gzhpcu]

Predictions done by tabloid astrologers are baloney. Tabloid astrologers are charlatans.

[Taibak]

As for astrology, I did an experiment with my students this summer. First, I asked everyone in class what their sign was. Then I gave them the Washington Post's horoscopes from the day before with the names of the Zodiacal constellations removed and had them choose which one best described their day.

The correlation never got better than about one match in six.

Taibak

[DrMarvinBuster]

okay I have read all of your comments.

In terms of Richard Hoagland I am beginning to accept some of the points being made. I do have a few questions regarding his credentials however. Firstly in the 'debunking' they make it sound as if he is exaggerating but still retains some merit. For example "greenberg" claims he wasn't the first to suggest the idea of an ocean on europa but that he did popularize it and deserves credit. Others argue as to wiether he was ever even at NASA to comment on Voyager data. What about his supposed work with Walter Cronkite and CBS? or his meetings with Barabra Bush? Can anyone shed light onto these?

Also my experiments deal heavily in Astrological Physics. I plan to upload these onto a small site that will outline in detail every aspect of the project up until this point. Expect it ready within a few hours, I would appreciate any and all comments.

[DrMarvinBuster]

natal astrology at conception cannot work because free will begins at birth, the moment the child is no longer 100% dependent on his mother...

the natal chart is a blueprint of tendencies, strengths and weaknesses, the human soul has free will to either follow these (which is what most do), or has the free will to learn about himself and exercise the strengths and strengthen the weaknesses...

[R.A.F.]

If you want to argue against astrology, you must first understand what you are arguing against.

To think that the positions and motions of planets (millions of kilometers away) and stars (light years away) would have any effect on people is simply not supported by any evidence, whatsoever.

Dr. Seymour is an Astronomer???? Don't make me laugh.

[gzhpcu]

As for astrology, I did an experiment with my students this summer. First, I asked everyone in class what their sign was. Then I gave them the Washington Post's horoscopes from the day before with the names of the Zodiacal constellations removed and had them choose which one best described their day.

The correlation never got better than about one match in six.

Taibak

Not surprising. This is tabloid sun-sign astrology. Nothing to do with astrology.

[Stinger]

..I'm not saying Hoagland is right about everything but their seems to be an automatic dismissal towards anything he suggests.

Well? Should everyone just take what he says on face value? (sorry, I had to). Hate to break this to you but most people don't buy his unique interpretation of data from the same agency (NASA) that he accuses of cover-ups, doctoring photographs, and killing their own astronauts.

Electro you are just part of the conspiracy against Hoagland. I've seen your type before.

I'm curious about why dismissal of fanciful unsupported claims has to be a "conspiracy." Is it simply because RCH says it's so or do you actually have evidence to back up such a claim?

..That doesn't seem to prove much of anything. Hoagland disagreed on some photographic data and this guy says "their is no way hoagland could have come to this conclusion"..

I'm having a hard time believing you've actually read bamf's post in it's entirety. Hoagland did a lot more than just "disagree" with photographic data, or did you skip that part?

Astrology is about predicting the future, by conducting carefully analyzed repeatable experiments, using a finite list of components.

I'm kinda curious myself to learn how planets and a grouping of stars as seen from Earth (constellations) influence mankind. What's the mechanism involved? Explain how (put your planet here) affects different people different ways. Do you think that by inducing labor and changing the newborn's astrological parameters, one can change his or her future destiny? Explain why stars not contained in a Zodiacal constellation don't count. They're out there too you know. If tiny Pluto manages to tug at our destiny from the outer reaches of our solar system, why discriminate against Ganymede? This moon of Jupiter is bigger than Pluto and much closer. :-k I could go on, but I'd be here all day!

[gzhpcu]

If you want to argue against astrology, you must first understand what you are arguing against.

To think that the positions and motions of planets (millions of kilometers away) and stars (light years away) would have any effect on people is simply not supported by any evidence, whatsoever.

Dr. Seymour is an Astronomer???? Don't make me laugh.

Sorry R.A.F. but you obviously have never even taken time to investigate the matter.
And I am pretty sure as to what you will say: "don't have time to look into such nonsense" right?

[gzhpcu]

BTW: I am only referring to natal horoscopes, not predictive horoscopes (transits, progressions, etc.)

[Taibak]

As for astrology, I did an experiment with my students this summer. First, I asked everyone in class what their sign was. Then I gave them the Washington Post's horoscopes from the day before with the names of the Zodiacal constellations removed and had them choose which one best described their day.

The correlation never got better than about one match in six.

Taibak

Not surprising. This is tabloid sun-sign astrology. Nothing to do with astrology.

It's also widely recognized as astrology by the population at large. Either way, we're in agreement that it's a load of bull.

Tell you what: give me the lowdown on what you claim is 'real' astrology, give me a set of predictions, and I'll run the same experiment with the new predictions and my classes next summer.

To be honest, I'm not expecting the results to be any better.

Edit: I think I see a problem here. You're arguing that natal astrology proves that the moment of a person's birth determines a set of tendencies, preferences, and habits that will influence that person for the rest of his or her life. HOWEVER, you're also arguing that these can be overridden by free will. Is that a fair appraisal?

If so, I'm still willing to run the experiment with my classes. But - and this is a big 'but' - I fail to see how it would prove anything. If there if a correlation, presumably they're following their celestial influences. However, it there is NO correlation, presumably they've consciously overridden these influences. It seems to me like your paradigm holds that natal astrology is true regardless of the evidence for it. Is there an experiment we can do that avoids this trap and provides clear, definitive evidence as to the validity of natal astrology?