• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Bad Astronomy vs. Richard Hoagland

What a load of wishful thinking as usual from Mr Hoagland. Nothing against him personally, of course. I went to see him in London about 3 years ago, and frankly he doesn't half talk some nonsense about the so-called Face on Mars and the Pyramids on Mars and other stuff like that, IMHO. The simple fact is, the Face on Mars turned out to be a crumbly old mound of weatherbeaten rock, nothing more, nothing less. I frankly don't think this "city" will be any different.
I have yet to see anything on Mars that I think looks remotely artificial. Sorry! :nah:

Bill Robinson
 
The "face" was intriguing - the FT article went into some depth about geometry with other *ahem* artifacts in that region.
Back then it looked like if it wasn't aliens, the human mind and its ability to form patterns out of any image were responsible...
Now it looks to me like pixillation is the main evidence Hoagland draws on.
 
I often stop by Hoagland's website just to see
what he is up to. I can usually read between the lines
as to what he "wants" us to see versus what the photos
actually show -- but his latest diatribe about the
color of the Martian ground and sky actually has
some non-NASA photographic evidence to back it up.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/colors.htm

The added bonus is a recap of the
"tree photos" that so intrigued
Arthur C. Clarke. A fun read -- but only
if you've got time to kill!

TVgeek
 
One of them looks like the skull of a Grey.:D ;)

Naw,...just rocks. Hoagland must be getting desparate.
 
Speaking as an amateur geologist...They look like rocks to me. Rusty ones.
 
Machinery? Looks like Trilobites to me!

Mike P said:
Hoagland's Machinery on Mars here

Lovely! Thanks for the laugh!

Did you notice the teeny-tiny pyramid in the upper right corner, bottom of frame? The aliens have gone from building 200 mile long claw hammer heads on the Moon to building pocket pyramids. No doubt adaptation to the arid conditions of Mars--if you knocked six inches (15 cm) off the height of the average human being they would require half the resources, so the Martians obviously have knocked a few metres off of their height in order to survive on less. Judging from the vacant lot appearance of the landing site, I would say they would positively thrive on Baffin Island.

If there were wee bits of machinery scattered around the surface of Mars, it would explain all of those lost landers, etc. Somebody should mail Richard Hoagland one of them shaving thingees, Occam's Razor.

The scum at the bottom left looks intriguingly biological but is probably natural desert cement. Looks vaguely like a flounder or seaweed, but after all this time, that isn't likely even on an ancient seabed unless they are fossils.

It would explain the trilobites or fossil bivalves in which Hoagland sees machinery. But then the rocks which to him look like evidence look just like the other rocks to me.
 
Timble said:
One of them looks like the skull of a Grey.:D ;)

Naw,...just rocks. Hoagland must be getting desparate.

so no confirmed sightings of bigfoot then? ;) :D
 
Here's a suggesion for Hoagland & Nasa. Hoagland should nominate one of his "artifacts" and Nasa should roll the Spirit over to it for a really close look. The cameras can resolve up to 0.1 mm at close range which should be enough to prove what it is one way or another.

Personally I think its all rocks.
 
Astronomer Philip Plait is tired of radio personality Richard Hoagland's claims.

He's had enough of Hoagland's assertions that NASA is covering up evidence of extraterrestrial life, that the infamous Face on Mars was built by sentient aliens and, of late, that otherworldly machine parts are embedded in the Red Planet's dirt.

And then there's the mile-long translucent martian worm.

On Hoagland's Web site, there are several images from various space probes said to possibly show evidence for ETs. Recent Mars rover photos include not just rocks, Hoagland and other contributors maintain, but common objects that might tell of an alien civilization -- a bowl, a stove, a piston.

Since 1983, Hoagland said he has led "an outside scientific team in a critically acclaimed independent analysis of possible intelligently-designed artifacts" on other worlds, using spacecraft data from NASA and other missions.

Plait, author of "Bad Astronomy" (Wiley & Sons, 2002), which debunks space myths and common factual misconceptions, had for years not countered Hoagland directly, because he did not want to give a man he calls a "pseudoscientist" the "air time that he so desperately seeks."

But last week Plait took his intellectual gloves off.

Shapes in the clouds
Plait has two words for the latest claims of alien objects on Mars. The first is "garbage." The second and more scientific word is "pareidolia." This is the same phenomenon that makes us see animals or other familiar objects in clouds.

"It's pretty common," Plait said of pareidolia. "Just a few months ago, a water spot on my shower curtain took on the uncanny form of the face of Vladimir Lenin." Plait took a picture of the liquid Lenin and uses it illustrate his contention that, though objects on the surface of Mars can sometimes take on interesting shapes, they are just a bunch of rocks.

"Hoagland's claims irritate me because he is promoting uncritical thinking," Plait said. "He doesn't want you to think about what you're seeing. He's trying to bamboozle you into believing what he's saying."

Critical thinking is the foundation of science, but Plait thinks it's also an important skill for anyone trying to navigate modern society. "Hoagland is eroding away at that ability."

Hoagland said the names given to objects shown on his site are nicknames, just as the rover scientists came up with "blueberries" to describe small spherical objects on Mars.

"We are not saying there are stoves or pistons on Mars," Hoagland said in a telephone interview. "Absolutely not. When we began looking at these objects, what struck us was how remarkably symmetrical, how remarkably designed-looking, how remarkably manufactured some of these things looked."

Hoagland's site, however, does not make this distinction with many rover images. A headline on the home page flatly states that some objects on Mars are non-natural: "Spirit Sees (and Still Ignores) More Artificial Junk." And the caption to one reads, plainly, "an Unmistakable Machined Fitting." Another caption reads: "When is a Rock Not a Rock? When They Come in pairs!" And another: "A Collection of Mechanical Bits."

Hoagland said he suggested to scientists on the rover team that they go study the objects up close to determine their composition. "NASA chose not to," he said. "So we have a hanging mystery. We don't know what these things are. We'll never know what these things are."

Hoagland is routinely critical of Stephen Squyres, a Cornell University astronomer who is mission manager for the Mars rover mission. Squyres did not respond to a query regarding Hoagland's claims.

It should be pointed out that NASA is not in the practice of commanding its rovers based on suggestions from people outside the agency or from beyond the Spirit and Opportunity science teams, which together include dozens of leading geologists and other scientists from inside the agency and from universities around the country.

Rest of the lengthy article here.
 
If we assume that there once was a lost alien civilisation on Mars (at a similar packing level as earth, as that is the only example that we have), what are the odds of two rovers landing at sites full of artefacts? (I think someone did a similar study considering what an equivalent mission to earth would find.)
 
A very easy experiment would be to drop a camera at a random rocky area in a desert on Earth and play the 'that rock looks like' game.

I'm pretty sure you'd find plenty of 'machine parts' there as well.
 
If there were artifacts from an extremely ancient Martian civilisation, they would have long since been burried by natural processes - archaeologist have to do enough digging to reach things only a few centuries old, never mind millenia.

Assuming that the conditions on Mars didn't allow for objects to become burried, then we should be seeing masses of ruins or at worst foundations of the buildings of a great civilisation.

Hoagland's argument is a complete non-starter.
 
Timble said:
I'm pretty sure you'd find plenty of 'machine parts' there as well.
Absolutely. I seem to recall that there is a magazine with a "simulcra" section. ;)
 
I never did like Hoagland. He always seems to find a way, in each interview, to ask for some kind of donations. For what?? So he can sit on his ass and look at pictures!!! It's pretty much all part of his agenda to make movies because nasa or pretty much anybody else will not give him a job.

And also Beckjord was on coast to coast a couple weeks ago, that was funny.................
 
Seems to me that this is similar to how some people claimed to see canals on Mars...
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
.Assuming that the conditions on Mars didn't allow for objects to become burried, then we should be seeing masses of ruins or at worst foundations of the buildings of a great civilisation.

...
It may all hinge on the ESA photo mapping excercise. Should clear up a fair bit of ambiguity.

Can't say I'm too hopeful that NASA will come up with too much worth looking at. Their output seems to be hamstrung by internal politics and bickering. Perhaps, a bit of competition with ESA will goad them into trying a bit harder?

Otherwise, it's just the sort of lack lustre output and crap presentation, we've got use to from NASA over the last 30 years that leaves a vacuum for, alleged, space cadets like Hoagland to fill.
 
THE "face" on Mars seems to have disappeared, which must come as a great relief to NASA. In 1993 we reported that Mike Malin, principal investigator on NASA's Mars Observer camera, complained that he was spending a quarter of his valuable time responding to conspiracy theorists. Publication of high-resolution photos of what turned out to be a very ordinary hill obviously helped free up his time. But where have those conspiracy theorists gone?

Onward and outward to Saturn's moon Iapetus is where. Dez Barbara directs us to www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm, where one Richard Hoagland asks "what could possibly explain the existence of extremely ancient (judging from the abundance of real craters scattered in between) ruins..." Eh? "What if Iapetus is not a natural satellite at all...but a 900-mile-wide spacecraft...an artificial 'moon'?!" That'll be the same Hoagland who put so much effort into selling books about the face on Mars.

Iapetus is indeed interesting, puzzling, mysterious even. There is much for scientists to get their teeth into. But what will happen when we know as much about Iapetus as we do about Mars? Feedback is waiting, not too impatiently, for the first sighting of an ancient civilisation on a comet.
http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns ... 725182.500

EDIT: The correct link is
http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm (No comma)
 
Has anyone else started to plough through Hoagland's site on Iapetus?

I've finished the first two pages (of six!), and I'm 90% sure he is just seeing pictures in the the clouds. Blurry meaningless enlargements are interpreted as cities, buildings, etc, lots of exclamation marks and rhetorical questions.

But I'm 10% sure he may be on to something - if only because Iapetus is truly weird. The Equatorial ridge seems beyond conventional explanation at the moment.

I could quibble more, but the site is worth a look if only for the many images of Iapetus (although this may make it slow to load if you're on dial-up).
 
I'm sure there are better versed people than I here, but didn't Hoggy baby develop or help develop the 'imaging' techniques that spotted these structures? However, I am glad that NASA have released data re: frozen water etc. Do we believe that within X years that there will be microbe fossils found or that the 70's soil experiments will be ratified? This is an area that I have background reading knowledge on, and not a great store - any further info would be appreciated to help kick the old grey matter...
 
rynner said:
I've finished the first two pages (of six!), and I'm 90% sure he is just seeing pictures in the the clouds. Blurry meaningless enlargements are interpreted as cities, buildings, etc, lots of exclamation marks and rhetorical questions.

I would agree with you. It's easy to interpret blurry enlargements in photos. The face on mars photo is a case in point.

(As an aside, Richard Hoagland asks what did Arthur C. Clarke and HG Wells know about Iapetus. I'd like to add what did George Lucas know about it, this is clearly the death star! Scramble the X-Wings. :shock: )

(Edit : just moved onto page 3 and he asks the same question!!! ... I just don't know what to say! :roll: )
 
Looking at photos of the moon taken by one of the spacecraft, I spotted a random arrangement of overlapping craters that looked just like an over-inflated blow-up sex doll. I even sent it into FT as a Simulacrum, but heard nothing more. Wish i could remember the photo source, as if taken literally it implied strange and interesting things about the aliens....
 
Looking at photos of the moon taken by one of the spacecraft, I spotted a random arrangement of overlapping craters that looked just like an over-inflated blow-up sex doll. I even sent it into FT as a Simulacrum, but heard nothing more. Wish i could remember the photo source, as if taken literally it implied strange and interesting things about the aliens....

I can't help you with that, but when I went to see the "Full Moon" photographic exhibition back in 2001, these two images were placed next to each other. I asked the person standing next to me whether they saw the same thing, or I just had a dirty mind:

http://www.michaellight.net/fm-images/pidl3ht7q4o258deemeaoytqjunox5

http://www.michaellight.net/fm-images/x4v28fow9xm7342vs0rop8vucbytb4
 
I can't help you with that, but when I went to see the "Full Moon" photographic exhibition back in 2001, these two images were placed next to each other. I asked the person standing next to me whether they saw the same thing, or I just had a dirty mind:

http://www.michaellight.net/fm-images/pidl3ht7q4o258deemeaoytqjunox5

http://www.michaellight.net/fm-images/x4v28fow9xm7342vs0rop8vucbytb4
Neither image would open for me, but even weirder, my desk lamp flickered while they tried to load..!!
 
I asked the person standing next to me whether they saw the same thing, or I just had a dirty mind:
First one, muff said. Second one, jury's out. Could be a spermatazoon, aswimming sou'west, but up in the nor'east I can see Alfred Hitchcock in profile, performing an indecency with a cheese puff.
 
Back
Top