Slashdot Mirror
'Civilization on Mars' Claims Debunked
StarEmperor writes "Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait has finally taken some time to
debunk conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland's claims about life on Mars. There's also a CNN story about this here."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Oh come on, laugh. It's silly AND funny!
More seriously, why is it that the US seems to get more than its fair share of crackpots like this guy? Is it just because they're more able to make themselves heard (high tech, relatively rich society), or is it [tin hat] something more sinister [/tin hat] ? Perhaps it just seems that way from over here in the UK (officially the worlds least-likely to believe the walking-on-water and rising-from-the-dead thing - can't find the link though it was a bbc report recently), but there seem to be more potential tin-hatters from across the pond than just about anywhere else, even if you take into account the population differences (the US is less than 5x the UK...)
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
...ie, if they find bacteria of some sort, many people will be even *more* confused, since "Life On Mars" claims have already been "debunked".
I guess it's a fact of modern life that conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hoagland make discerning fact from fiction more difficult... thankfully, Phil Plait has been on the case, and doing a great job.
libertarianswag.com
If any of you tinfoil hatters are interested... (via anomalist.com)
....
....
... now 25 years old.
... such as Plait and Greenberg.
... and a lesser tidal input maintaining a current possible "liquid ocean for Europa."
I found it hilarious that the photo link Hoagland provides at the end goes to a page with a caption that mentions him as an "unidentified guest".
http://www.enterprisemission.com/response.htm
Email Exchange From Rob Roy Britt of Space.com
And Richard C. Hoagland on the Plait\Greenberg Allegations
In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:14:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, rbritt@HQ.SPACE.com writes:
Hi Richard:
I will be going into some of these issues. Your serious criticism of NASA
requires that I discuss your credentials as well. I just spoke with Ralph
Greenberg, who has analyzed some of your biographical claims that on your
web site. I've read them too, and indeed your web site clearly says that you
claim to have been the first to propose the Europa ideas. If you'd like to
respond to Greenberg's comments, feel free to e-mail me back.
Rob
Here is what Greenberg said to me:
"It's clear that [Hoagland] deserves no credit for proposing an ocean under
the ice on Europa." And regarding the notion of life: "Others before him
wrote on the same topic with more merit."
Greenberg says Hoagland deserves some credit for helping to popularize the
Europa ideas. But he is bothered that Hoagland does not make an effort to
clear the record.
"He never made it quite clear that this was not his original idea in any
sense," Greenberg said. "I think it's really shameful that he hasn't been
willing to make it crystal clear."
Rob,
OK, here's the real story behind Plait's current accusations
Greenberg is the source. It is his long-standing "Hoagland obsession" -- which has been going on for years, and can be characterized as nothing less -- that is a clear example of how far certain people are willing to go to smear our reputation and our work. This is a classic case of what I pointed out a couple days ago, about these baseless accusations being fundamentally "political"
I would hope, as a good reporter, you would prefer to rely on "primary sources" for your story -- as opposed to merely "hearsay" from third parties -- certainly third parties with an obvious political agenda. I would therefore strongly recommend that you begin by actually reading my original 1980 article, "The Europa Enigma" (on the Enterprise website -- http://www.enterprisemission.com/europa.html) -- which appeared in the January, 1980 issue of Star & Sky Magazine
In the entire article -- at no time -- do I take undue credit for the original idea of a potential ocean under Europa's icy surface. That is a skillfully spun fiction -- created specifically by our less than honest critics
What I actually do in this extensive paper is clearly credit Cassen, Peale and Reynolds -- who originated and published in Science Magazine the first tidal model for internal Jovian satellite heating, just before Voyager 1 arrived at Jupiter in early 1979. I clearly credit their original calculations regarding the possibility of tidal heating of Io
But, I also carefully cite their strong caveat (in the then just-published Science tidal paper) that, depending on certain "incalculable factors," such an originally liquid Europan ocean could have frozen solid in the 4.5 billion years of subsequent solar system history.
In other words, in their published model, there was a more than even chance that Europa's ocean now was no longer liquid -- but had become a 100 miles-deep glacier of solid ice! And, if this was the case, if such an original Europan ocean had ever frozen solid, their own tidal calculations in Science clearly stated it could never be unfrozen!
This is where the dishonest critics have carefully,
You know, for the longest time I thought Hoagland's website was a joke - kind of like Villain Supply. I didn't think he actually took it seriously. He really does seem to believe what he writes, enough to go onto the radio.
It's really quite sad.
...Hoagland IS very interesting to listen to. I'll give him that much. I don't believe most of what he says, but you know what they say, even a blind dog will find a bone every once in a while.
It is entertaining listening to him go on Coast to Coast AM, though.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Ah yes, the Breatharians with a cheeseburger to go! (Read Randi's site skeptically, of course. Read everything skeptically.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
If I'm driving around at night, I try to listen. Actually, they're not all crazy. Once I heard the physicist Micio Kaku on there, and that was a pretty cool interview.
Komi
The ultimate goal of science is to unify all forces of nature to a single law that can be silk-screened onto a T-shirt.
Apparently, they read in a book that after the body gets used to not having food, it draws the energy from the body itself and doesn't need food anymore.
So that explains the Matrix movies, then?
Bander
What we need more of is science!
This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public. People when presented with the most superficial of data will adopt as truth the most extreme or absurd of claims with no critical assessment.
I don't think it's a question of science education. Just look at how easy it was for this guy to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the solid state physics community. Science is full of dogma, unfounded beliefs, lack of proof, unstated assumptions, errors, etc. And science education usually does no more to address these problems than other academic disciplines.
Most people are gullible and don't think critically, whether they are scientists or not. The education system could help with that. But teaching critical thinking isn't tied to any particular subject: you can teach critical thinking in subjects like literature, history, philosophy, economics, or even physical education. All of those have assumptions that can be challenged and problems people can think through for themselves.
Science, if anything, is probably a bad subject to teach critical thinking because there is so much complexity to be mastered before you can even start thinking for yourself. Students can reasonably discuss different approaches to historical analysis without years of education because they can relate to it; students cannot meaningfully discuss the foundations of quantum mechanics or the meaning of general relativity or the possibility of the existence of life on other planets because that takes an enormous background of scientific knowledge and skills.
Indeed. I actually had this happen to me by the Discovery Channel of all sources. There was a documentary on vision rescue strategies where the producers of this particular show used some of my data in a completely backwards fashion in a segment that ironically was intended to support a particular bionic approach when the data suggested exactly the opposite. The data explicitly demonstrated radical changes in the retina that would not support a bionic chip, yet the show concludes the opposite while showing my data!.
Apparently a looming deadline inspired the producers to go to production before I approved the script.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There was an interesting article in Discover magazine several years ago about why humans always think they see faces in random patterns (such as the Martian surface, or the smoke rising out of the World Trade Center ruins).
Basically, our brain is hard-wired to quickly recognize human faces. This is for survival purposes, of course. But when you stare at these non-human shapes - such as the Martian rock - it is obvious these are NOT faces. The brows are wrong, the nose is fitting only for Michael Jackson, and the mouth is horribly formed.
I'm extremely disapointed in the reactions here. The space.com article was clearly a character assasination of Hoagland. RCH doesn't expect you do believe every rock on his website, but if you have an open mind then you can see that some of the stuff he points out is quite strange indeed. All that RCH advocates is that some of these things be investigated instead of being ignored, or covered up by NASA.
The picture of the fossil featured on RCH's site recently is one of the most incredible pictures I've ever seen. And guess what, NASA refuses to talk about it and they ground the damn thing into dust!!!.
Is that what we expect from our tax dollars? We send an $800 million mission to mars to see if there used to be water there? We KNOW that there is water up there NOW already!
The problem with these so-called 'debunkers' is that they don't look at things objectively with an open mind, they already have their mind made up before they start. They then use disinformation and character assassination.
If Plait is so righteous, why does he refuse to debate RCH on the facts? Who is the real scientist and who is persuing the truth. Wait and see.
Oh come on, don't pretent you hold up every single assertion to a microscope. We all take this shortcut. Some of us just have better bs detectors. Also happenstance is everpresent (some people call this luck).
:)
Of course you can't examine everything in detail (nor does anyone have the ability to always do it), but some critical thinking is really necessary.
I know a person who was convinced that dogs in Egypt say 'meow meow' instead of 'bow wow'. She thought it was cool and told all her friends about it. You don't really need a microscope for this
Could the face actually be something that was carved thousands of years ago and weathered to its current state? YES. Mars was once warm and rich in water, so it is possible. Could it be random weathering of a rock outcropping? YES.
The arguments presented against the 'Crystal Worm' are even better. 'I think it's an optical illusion that is actually concave with some sand dunes at the bottom'. Ok, do I think it's a fossilized worm out of Dune? No. Do I think it's possible that it's a convex tube that hasn't been explained? Possibly. Once again folks, without closer investigation WE DON'T KNOW.
I don't tend to buy conspiracy theories, but I also don't eliminate valid possibilities without investigation because I can make up an explanation. Want to know for sure what the hell the 'Glass Worm' is? Drop a lander there and FIND OUT. That's what scientific investigation is about. Forming a hypothesis and testing it. We seem to be missing the testing on some of these points. Providing an alternate, unporven hypothesis does not constitute proof (or debunking, for that matter).
On some of these, there are clearly valid explanations, such as the 'green spot' photos. On others, I'm sorry, there's simply not.
.technomancer
Let me say that I know he is wrong. I listen to him on Coast to Coast as entertainment, nothing more.
What I am asking is how would we, being the human race as a whole, react if this guy really had something? Every time I listen I can't help believe that he has one really good point. People would flip if there really was intelligent life other then on Earth.
How does the Slashdot community feel about this?
Great people don't need people to complete them, great people complete other people. -- Matthew Pawlikowski.
When the better images came back from the newer probes, I was like, "Oh well..." That's how science works. One "experiment" (the Viking images) suggested something unusual, so the experiment was repeated with greater care (better resolution), and showed the original conclusion was in error. End of story. Time to move on.
Do you ever read his site? I visit Hoagland's site regularly because it's entertaining, and when he was just looking for patterns in rocks, it was pretty harmless.
However, seeing artifacts in images and what he's doing these days are two different things. He's either off the deep end, or it's just a was to sell books and get paid for speaking appearances.
Hoagland has NASA timing launches based on astrology. He saw secret coded messages in the year display when the ball dropped on Times Square for the year 2000. He has end of the world scenarios involving (OK, all together now) the MASONS.
Fossil: I don't understand why people see a nefarious plot in the grinding of the "fossil". It isn't like they need to destroy the evidence. Hoagland or one of his followers aren't about to pop up to Mars and grab it. And, actually, grinding it down to look at the cross section is a good idea, and the "after" picutre shows no structure, or even anything to differentiate it from the rest of the rock.
Water: The probes were sent to find evidence that Mars had ABUNDANT water in the PAST, as in lakes and even seas. This has benn clearly stated from day one, so your complaint is deliberate obfuscation.
--- Ban humanity.
"If Plait is so righteous, why does he refuse to debate RCH on the facts? Who is the real scientist and who is persuing the truth. Wait and see."
Plait HAS offered to debate RCH, it's just the RCH refuses to agree on a list of topics, so as to avoid Plait getting dragged into a Tinfoil Hat 'Fest of RCH screaming, "Prove that I'm NOT right!"
The 'fossil' does have a segmented look to it, making it resemble any of a variety of invertebrates. But note the peculiar concavity whose entrance the 'fossil' is wrapped around. If it is a fossil, there's no good explanation why it happens to be associated with that hole. But from a geological point of view, it's easy to explain. The concavity was originally a crystal of some water-soluble variety, probably a salt. Water dissolved the crystal, and some of the water bearing the dissolved salt chemically modified the rock immediately surrounding the hole, forming the 'fossil'.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
What bias do you have against Christians? Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil?
If you learn one thing in this life, I pray that you actually learn to have an open mind, instead of just professing to have one.
May god bless you, in Jesus' name. Amen.
-Mike
Maybe you are all lumped together because of the fact that your main mission is to 'save' all of us and convert us to your perception of the ultimate 'truth'.
Well guess what, most of don't want to be 'saved' and indoctrinated as you have chosen to do. Most of us just want to live our lives as we choose and as long as we obey the laws of the land, this should be the way it is.
You can keep the blessings of your "jealous and vengeful" god to yourself. Besides who would want to spend eternity with a bunch of judgmental, hateful and controlling jerks anyway.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
I just wish I had some way of expressing how utterly depressing it is to read your post. I've spent a good 10 minutes trying to formulate a response, but words fail me every time.
Basically, every response I come up with lists the following:
Critical thinking, imagination, vocabulary, scope, character development.. Things that printed fiction provides far more effectively than any other form of media.
However, I am at a loss still to put how I feel into words. Without literature, be it fiction or not, we never would have made it to movies and video games. Sure, Lit classes suck, because we all have our own tastes. Rarely do you ever go into a Lit class and be able to evaluate the material you want on criteria you define.
For the love of $deity, I hope you're trolling. I want to see a </sarcasm> tag on the end of your post.
Maybe we'd be better off if people just stopped fucking breeding.
The problem here is that you're making the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. I've been doing a fair amount of reading on parenting and how that influences a child, and I was rather surprised with my findings... it turns out that parents probably have much less effect than was previously thought, and genetics may have a much larger role to play than we previously thought (or admitted, anyways). These findings have been supported by extensive studies that have found that kids tend to behave more like their biological parents than the family that raises them (including academically, surprisingly enough). The whole "blame the parents for everything" is part of a larger sociopolitical phenomenon that is based on some flawed philosophical and biological assumptions which has come to permeate almost every facet of our lives, including educational theories and practices. As a side note, my fiancee teaches special ed (for kids with behavioral disorders) and sees plenty of kids from homes with active, involved parents in her classes. Not the majority , by far, but enough to throw a monkeywrench into the crackerbarrel psychology :-)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
>> and you bitch about it.He wasn't bitching about the blessing, he was pointing out that the blessing is contraindicated by the position you took on being open minded.
>> Wow. I mean really...FORCE a blessing? It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day"
Maybe to a christian, but some people take offense at stuff like that. I know I do sometimes. Presuming you are christian, would you like it if someone told you to "Have a totally satanic day"?
>> It's the equivalent of saying "have a great day" and you screaming "F YOU BUDDY. I'LL HAVE WHATEVER DAMN DAY I PLEASE".
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that, because I disagree with what I take to be your point, but I totally agree, except not screaming, and without the "f you buddy". Cause quite frankly, and I'm just speaking for me here, I *will* have whatever damn day I please.
I take this exchange to imply that people who say "god bless you" take offense at rejection of the blessing, in the same way that people who reject the blessing take offense at it being made. Since I'm sure you already understand your side, let me note mine: When someone I don't know tells me "God bless you", I hear a faint undertone of "you heedless pagan" echoing after. They may not have meant it but sometimes, that's how it comes off.
Live long and prosper. (that can't be offensive, can it?)
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Oh, please.... This is not about lighting angle. Look, the pictures you present as proof has been photoshopped. That's not image reduction. The nose isn't even in the right place. If you want to do some real data reduction, you need to do like a friend of mine did: Get the raw data, have a beer, and hack a few scripts. this is the result.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid