Georeg Noory and Richard C Hoagland tonight

[Gregg_Evans]

Was listening to C2C on my way home tonight (I know, it's sad ain't it) and George Noory made a very sappy anouncement that he was nominating Hoagland for new NASA Adminstrator. I almost drove off the road! Richard C said he'd be glad to accept, and all it would take is a few million e-mails to your elected representatives to get the ball rolling.
Is the man delusional?

And I can't quite figure George Noory out, seems like an incredibly nice guy, but if you listen long enough it becomes obvious he's an absolute nutcase. Has he ever found any idea or woo woo he didn't find credible? (well, he has banned Nancy, I guess we know there is a threshold somewhere)

I just had to rant a little, I know it's not serious, but they sounded like they may not know that.

G

edited for 4 am spelling

[mickal555]

Barking....... the lot of them................

[Wolverine]

Noory strokes Hoagland's ego at every possible opportunity. It gets quite nauseating. Just take comfort in knowing it'll never happen.

[frogesque]

Sounds as if there are two broken biscuits in that particular packet.

[Doe, John]

Hoagland has a large (relatively) following. When he's on listenership goes up. Thus so do advertising revenues. Noory likes his paycheck so he does what he has to. But I have to admit sometimes his lapdog-like antics are sick making. Bell was never that much of a suck up.

edited for spelling

[steve45071]

and of course no accident that Richard C was on right after Phil's half hour slot. 8)

Gotta give George Noory points for trying. He doesn't give up

[The Bad Astronomer]

I think it was coincidence. He was probably scheduled for some time on advance, but they called me the day of the show because they needed someone to talk about the asteroid.

[Gmann]

Although this is a little late, George has been trying to get you together with RCH on the same show, for quite some time.

[R.A.F.]

Gmann...I don't know if you have seen this, but it explains why the BA isn't particularly "keen" on debating Hoagland.

[Kaptain K]

In essence, The amount of nonsense that RCH could (and would) spout in one minute would take the BA 10 minutes to an hour to debunk. In this era of "sound bite" attention spans, the typical C2C listener would see that as "RCH wins, BA loses".

[Gmann]

Gmann...I don't know if you have seen this, but it explains why the BA isn't particularly "keen" on debating Hoagland.

I saw that, and his decision makes a great deal of sense, but I also detect in the way George speaks that he really really really... wants an RCH/BA debate on C2C. It's tied to a ratings thing. It would be the most awesome show, that will never happen.

[Charlie in Dayton]

If (little word, big concept)...IF...if this thing could be held as a legitimate debate, RCH's chances would strongly resemble the proverbial snowball's...

Raise ONE point, present evidence, rebuttal to same, raise next point, etc etc etc...but you know that ain't never gonna happen. RCH would no more agree to that than the BA would give a glowing endorsement to the Zeta©®@¶ website...and I do believe Mr Noory would be an extremely poor choice as moderator...

Now, if the focus shifted a bit, and instead of someone debunking RCH, they insisted that he prove his line of bovine digestive byproduct...

Holding RCH's feet to the fire would be very interesting.

I got matches...

[Evil_Bomber]

Never thought I'd defend it, but George & C2C in general seems to me a lot like community cable access: anyone that wants a voice to say something can. George has said that as long as someone doesn't try and promote panic and seems to believe what they say, he'll let them spout whatever they want. From what I've heard, he seems to follow this standard pretty well, and that's what his listeners expect.

RCH plays into this well, and is an entertaining guest that brings listeners, so of course he will stroke his ego, just like any other host of any other type of show.

[Gmann]

Never thought I'd defend it, but George & C2C in general seems to me a lot like community cable access: anyone that wants a voice to say something can.

Bingo!!! That is the whole premise of the show. Art is the master of bringing forth unconventional ideas for everyone's consideration. People like RCH, Ed Dames, Dr. Peter Gersten, Bob Lazar, Zechariah Sitchin, James McCanney, and many others. On the other side of the coin, he has had an Astronomer named Dr. Phil Plait, and many others who show us the other side of the coin. Art chose George as his successor because of his ability to discuss this kind of stuff with both the woo^2, and the common sense sides of almost any issue, and make it interesting.

A classic example of why the BA 8) should not/will not debate this guy was made clear on the night that both were given time, but not together. When RCH came on, he started with his "Martian Carwash" theory as to why the solar panels on one of the rovers were somehow cleaned. He took a quick swipe at the BA 8) by asking "I wonder how Phil would explain this one?" Since no one could explain it at the time, the answer would have been, need more data, need to study further. After that, the accusations of being a "paid disinfo agent" would emerge, and the whole thing would go straight down the toilet.

As I have said before many times, the difference between a woo^2, and someone who is grounded in fact is that the woo^2 has an answer to any question, regardless of whether it pertains to their field of expertise or not. Someone grounded in fact/Science, is not afraid to say "I don't know, that is something outside my area of study."

I like Charlie's idea of having RCH show scientific proof of his claims, but he will probably fall back on his "hyperdimensional physics model" which explains everything, and makes little sense to anyone who has been in this particular universe for more than 4 years. He compares things on Earth to images from Mars, and there can be no real comparision since the gravity and atmosphere of the two are so different, that you cannot compare things found on one, to things found on the other, the dynamics of the enviroments are too different. But, that's just me, what do I know. I would probably be considered as part of the vast conspiricy.

[steve45071]

There is a free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia

Page on Richard C Hoagland is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

Now, the interesting thing is, anyone can edit the information at Wikipedia, you don't even have to be registered.

However if people put up inaccurate information or rude text, it'll be deleted.

Shame those same rules don't apply right across the net 8)

What is up there now, seems fairly balanced.
With links to Hoagland's site, plus Phil's debunking pages

Anyone if anyone has got any more to add, remember the pages can be edited