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."

112 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by zeux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Russians found liquid water on Mars!

    http://www.libo.ru

    1. Re:In other news... by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Funny

      liquid water eh? Where can i get some? Is it being auctioned on eBay?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:In other news... by anagama · · Score: 2, Funny


      Even my girlfriend thought that was funny!

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  2. Science education..... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. This sort of blind trust allows folks to be taken in by claims of better health through unproven herbal supplements or claims of penile enlargments. On more serious notes, the lack of critical thinking among some has led to political and international policy that threatens to influence the state of world affairs.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Science education..... by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are much more likely to accept something as a fact if it comes from 'a scientist'. It is as if thinking is a chore delegated to a few, and something most people shouldn't be concerned about. I always get a chuckle when reading about the great discoveries 'American scientists have proved' (for some reason, it always seem to be American scientists): children who chew bubble-gum are more intelligent; people who drink kool-aid grow more facial hair, etc etc etc.

      I have recently had a discussion about dieting with a group of engineers (one of them a PhD). It was about a two-week diet where the person only drinks water. It is supposed to clean the body of toxins (very easily true) and improve one's sport performance (WTF?!). 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. And these were educated people. Made me understand why so many people buy the etheric oil and penis enlargement crap.

    2. Re:Science education..... by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget news programs/publications that give "balanced coverage". This frequently amounts to giving equal weighting to crackpots without much in the way of critical analysis. They might say that they are giving all viewpoints coverage and letting the viewer decide, but they first decided which viewpoints got airtime/print space, didn't they? I think it has more to do with laziness.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Science education..... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    4. Re:Science education..... by Bander · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    5. Re:Science education..... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. More attention needs to be focused on the investigation aspect of science, and less on the knowledge aspect of science. The defining aspect of science is the process that's continually gone through to find truth, not the truth itself.

      All to often science is taught as a series of facts. I think science facts are important to know, but the process of discovery is ignored so people never gain the ability to analyse claims. That's probbably the greatest skill we could teach anyone as life is filled with people making claims about something every day.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Science education..... by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good points.

      However, from personal experience I can tell that there is often a huge difference between what "a scientist" has found out (and recorded in a paper) and what a journalist will actually write about it.

      The sad thing is, as a rule the journalist really _wants_ to write an honest, representative piece. The scientist _wants_ to represent their findings as well as possible. But, because of tight deadlines, communication mistakes, misunderstandings and so on, we end up with writeups that bring tears to the scientists, abuse for the reporters, ad bad-will from everybody in the process towards everybody else.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    7. Re:Science education..... by Imperator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more insidious than that. They use "balanced" coverage to cover up a political bias. People of the favored political philosophy quickly learn that they can lie as outlandishly as they want to when talking to that media outlet, because in the name of "balance" they'll be given a free soapbox. It's time we reintroduced "objective" media who are not afraid to call a lie a lie.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    8. Re:Science education..... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    9. Re:Science education..... by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that's one side to the debate, but I'm sure that there are others who would disagree. if they had their heads on backwards and screwed up their a.. Damn, these new subliminal mics are tricky!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    10. Re:Science education..... by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Our school system really doesn't teach critical thinking. It's far easier to demand rote memorization and teach to the assorted Federally and state mandated tests than to actually try to insure that they're teaching their students how to think and analyze new facts based on known ones. It doesn't help that the various superstitions of the day discourage critical thinking as well, and that people get hostile whenever you do anything that might be damaging to their superstitions.

      Scientists are the new authority figures and this bogus science is the new religion. Until we start training people to consider all the facts and not just the ones that happen to prove their beliefs, this sort of thing will continue. Nothing any one person will say will change that. Mr. Plait may as well have attacked the Pope and called him a liar and a fraud.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    11. Re:Science education..... by superyooser · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This has nothing to do with science education.

      Enterprise Mission is neither science nor pseudoscience. It's outright DELUSION! Does this look like a Sphinx?? There's something wrong in person's brain to make that kind of connection. Hoagland claims that some Martian rocks look like stoves and tools. I'm sitting here staring and staring at them, and they DO NOT look like these things! As far as we can tell from the pictures, they're just plain old rocks. To this guy, EVERY LITTLE ROCK AND SPECK is something spectacular. He's never seen an ordinary rock before. It's a face, it's a pyramid, it's an alien fort.

      Science or phony science is not the issue. I don't see anything attempting to be science on that site. There are pictures and blurbs splattered about everywhere, I can hardly navigate it. I think the disheveled structure of the site is indicative of the scatterbrained nature of Hoagland's ideas.

      It seems to me that some people's brains are "miswired" or damaged somehow and form illusory associations where there are none. In the same way that all of our brains trick us all into seeing optical illusions, some people are susceptible to less obvious illusions. Especially when it's FUN to see the illusions. And when you can make a living from it.

    12. Re:Science education..... by theophilosophilus · · Score: 2, Funny

      People are much more likely to accept something as a fact if it comes from 'a scientist'.

      Or if they read it on Slashdot.

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    13. Re:Science education..... by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public."

      Really?! Some guy decides to put forward some crazy theories, and a small fraction of the population believes him, and that's proof that science education is in a sad state? I beg to differ.

      I mean, science education might be in a sad state (I assume you're talking about US), but these situations are not caused by that. No matter how good education is, there will always be a small group of crackpots who create and/or follow crazy cults. You can't blame bad education on that.

      Now... there is a problem with the American media (or perhaps worldwide?) where they get into a feeding frenzy over a certain subject, milk it for all its worth to gain as much viewership as possible and make money, then drop it for the next subject-du-jour.

      Mars is a great example, a heavily-marketed Mars movie comes out, or a probe is sent, and there are Mars news everywhere, for about a month, then it's on to the next war or political scandal...

      That's all this is, yet another media frenzy.

    14. Re:Science education..... by angryelephant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its a problem with the way science is presented. Almost all theories are approached from a very narrow angle, that of the particular researcher's emphasis. This is a fine method for a proof, but ignores that most topics should be approached from a variety of directions. This method of proof gets people used to thinking in a very linear, exclusive sort of way about science. Pseudo-scientists and snake oil salesmen pray upon this by showing a small amount of data that correlates with what they are trying to prove.

    15. Re:Science education..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Does this look like a Sphinx??

      I was going to say it looked like a nipple, then realized you meant the pile of rocks.

    16. Re:Science education..... by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People when presented with the most superficial of data will adopt as truth the most extreme or absurd of claims with no critical assessment.

      Like those people who see a mimeographed pamphlet at the checkout of the Whole Foods grocery store talking about how ketchup is destroying the ozone layer, then immediately go to their city council to ban ketchup within the city limits.

      It's almost as absurd as that. An aquaintance of mine who drives a twenty year old Toyota that leaks oil and betches blue smoke was busy lambasting farmers for destroying the environment because there weren't strict enough government regulation on tractor emissions. He even had a brochure about it in his pocket he picked up at a health food store. When I pointed out the block of toxic waste he called a car, he proudly announced that Toyotas were good for the environment.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    17. Re:Science education..... by cozziewozzie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry for double post, but before I forget...

      Dieting is generally a bad idea for weight loss (although useful for other purposes). The reason for this is that the body which is starved reacts by breaking down muscle tissue instead of fat. It tries to keep as much fat as possible as a response to the lack of food. This is why you see people diet for a long time and still have fat all over their body even after their muscle loses all definition.

      In fact, the best way to lose weight is to cut down on fat (obviously), eat more carbohydrates and do it regularly (no starving yourself in the evening and such) and eat a reasonable amount of protein. Then do a lot of aerobic exercise (steppers, jogging, long-distance swimming and similar). You need carbohydrates to be able to withstand the exercise without feeling dead (most of it gets burnt during this process) and protein to support and rebuild the muscles as they get hit by the exercises.

    18. Re:Science education..... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Informative
      People are apt to believe weird things for a number of reasons. Here is an Amazon review of a book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer that sums it up:
      Few can talk with more personal authority about the range of human beliefs than Michael Shermer. At various times in the past, Shermer has believed in fundamentalist Christianity, alien abductions, Ayn Rand, megavitamin therapy, and deep-tissue massage. Now he believes in skepticism, and his motto is "Cognite tute--think for yourself." This updated edition of Why People Believe Weird Things covers Holocaust denial and creationism in considerable detail, and has chapters on abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics. Shermer has five basic answers to the implied question in his title: for consolation, for immediate gratification, for simplicity, for moral meaning, and because hope springs eternal. He shows the kinds of errors in thinking that lead people to believe weird (that is, unsubstantiated) things, especially the built-in human need to see patterns, even where there is no pattern to be seen. Throughout, Shermer emphasizes that skepticism (in his sense) does not need to be cynicism: "Rationality tied to moral decency is the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known." --Mary Ellen Curtin

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    19. Re:Science education..... by genecutl · · Score: 2, Informative


      1) Instant (using the ATP stores in the muscles themselves)
      2) Anaerobic (without oxygen): This generally is done by burning carbohydrates in your body
      3) Aerobic (using oxygen): This is burning fat with the presence of oxygen.


      Sorry, that's incorrect. Carbohydrate metabolism has two steps: glycolysis which is the anaerobic part and the citric acid cycle (aka TCA cycle, aka Kreb's cycle) which is the aerobic part. When your body uses carbs it goes through both glycolysis and the citric acid cycle as long as it can. When a tissue starts running out of oxygen, such as when you are running for a while and your oxygen supply can't keep up, you can't do TCA, so glucose metabolism stops at the end of glycolysis and produces lactic acid. The buildup of lactic acid is what gives you the sensation of burning in your muscles. Fat and protein metabolism does not go through glycolysis, only TCA, which happens when you are low on carb stores.

    20. Re:Science education..... by connorbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Randi would agree with you, I would think...

  3. How can this be? by jlechem · · Score: 5, Funny

    Daffy Duck told me Marvin the Martian was there and was going to destroy the earth! Don't tell me television has been lying to me all these years.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:How can this be? by Leffe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Daffy Duck told me Marvin the Martian was there and was going to destroy the earth!

      "TV said that?"
      -Homer Simpson

      I love it ;)

  4. This one I could believe (almost :-) by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    FTFA: (and given the US penchant for 'friendly fire' incidents ...)


    There have been all sorts of silliness happening from the usual groups, including claims that the Beagle II failed because the U.S. shot it down


    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!
    1. Re:This one I could believe (almost :-) by jpflip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My random theory is that the reason that the U.S. gets a lot of crackpots has a bit to do with our history. We're taught from elementary school on up that the U.S. was founded on the democratic notion that the "common man" is equal to (or better than) whoever is in power at the time. This populism is great for a lot of reasons, but it also means its hardly surprising Americans don't trust authority figures. Many people feel that an ordinary person with common sense could walk right in and show the snotty types who think they know everything that they're doing things all wrong. So we get people who think that evolution contradicts the "common sense" of the Bible, quantum mechanics contradicts classical common sense, etc. and that whatever weird ideas they have are better. Some people think that, since they're as good as anyone else, if they don't understand something then it must be wrong.

  5. Total Recall by darth_MALL · · Score: 5, Funny

    WTF? So now Total Recall is all fake too? There's 2 hours of 'science learning' I'll never get back.

  6. Why bother? by dan14807 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why bother debunking something so stupid? Just gives the conspiracy theorists more to talk about.

    Also, anyone capable of rational thought would not believe such garbage in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to believe something that stupid isn't worth correcting.

    1. Re:Why bother? by ToSeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why bother debunking something so stupid? Just gives the conspiracy theorists more to talk about.

      Also, anyone capable of rational thought would not believe such garbage in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to believe something that stupid isn't worth correcting.


      NASA spent millions of dollars and sacrificed opportunities to do some real science just to get woo-woos like Hoagland and his followers the image of the Face they'd been demanding as soon as possible. If these people aren't addressed, we'll be having rovers sent to Cydonia to look for pyramids instead of looking for stuff that might actually be there, like signs of past water.

  7. I'm very confused. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I take off my tinfoil hat now? It's kind of itchy. And hot.

  8. Those reading "Man from Mars, Woman from Venus" by toesate · · Score: 2, Funny
    will easily refutes this theory.

    Oh.. you mean you are talking about the real planet Mars?

    --
    Hey, that's my password you are typing
  9. The worst will be if they actually *do* find life by bc90021 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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.

  10. actually, not really debunked by muyThaiBxr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the claims aren't really debunked, instead, Plait attacks Hoaglands credibility.

    Oh, and this article is old, there's already a rebuttal over at Enterprisemission

    1. Re:actually, not really debunked by jeramybsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here is the deal. Hoagland makes extraordinary claims. It is up to the claimant to provide extraordinary evidence. For instance, Hoagland's proof for life on Mars includes an old blurry pixellated photo of a "face". Plait points out that this is not proof. Plait doesn't have to disprove there is life on Mars to "debunk" Hoagland, he merely needs to point out the lack of evidence for it. Now, even with a high resolution photograph of the face, Hoagland refuses to back down from his claims and keeps selling books on the subject. I think his credibility and motives are open for speculation. Hoagland also misrepresents his credentials and this should be open to scrutiny.

      --
      Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
    2. Re:actually, not really debunked by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you read more than the Introduction? Plait has individual pages for each claim, which get into the actual science of why Hoagland's ideas are misguided at best.

      Oh, and Hoagland's website design is painful. Ow, my eyes.

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    3. Re:actually, not really debunked by technomancerX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The thing is, on some of the things (Crystal Worm, face) we simply won't know for sure until there are actual close-up examinations done. Period. You can argue back and forth forever, but at the end of the day, admit the answer is 'We don't really know'.

      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
    4. Re:actually, not really debunked by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read the CNN article, and that was mostly handwaving and attacking of credibility.

      So let me get this straight: your claim that Plait didn't debunk Hoagland is predicated on the fact that you did not, in fact, bother to read the actual article in which Plait debunked Hoagland, but instead made up your mind based on the dubious credibility of the reporter from CNN's interpretation of events.

      Thank you, sir, for volunteering to so aptly illustrate the "false authority" problem that this story revolves around.

    5. Re:actually, not really debunked by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.


      Certainly, we don't know in the mathematical sense of complete, undeniable proof. But we do not have to forsake sense in the name of fairness. As I recall about the Glass Worm photo, Plait says that perspective is deceptive is many astronomical photos, presents an example that looks like a crater in one orientation and a dome in another, and suggests that a similar perceptual trick is probably at work in the case of the "worm." He also explains the "glassy" appearance in terms of an imaging effect. This is a far better hypothesis than any Hoagland has proposed, and while I would love to be able to explore Mars inch by inch, in the absence of infinite money, work like Plait's is the best we have. And there's no reason at all to fund a mission to go check out Hoagland's assertations about the Martian surface, since they really ought to pin the needle on even a Wal-Mart bullshit detector.

      (Besides, it's clearly a Habitrail left over from the Giant Space Hamsters once plentiful on Mars, and sadly unable to survive the climate change.)

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
  11. Slow News Day? by OECD · · Score: 3, Funny

    And in other news, NASA's Mission to the Giant Turtle has been canceled.

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:Slow News Day? by mblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      And in other news, NASA's Mission to the Giant Turtle has been canceled.

      Dangit, how else are we going to learn what sex the Great A'Tuin is?

  12. Shame about the White Bunny by sczimme · · Score: 3, Funny


    From the linked site:

    A few days later, the Opportunity rover left its lander and started roving across Mars. In images returned after that, it looked like Opportunity had run over the "bunny"! Worse, Opportunity had made a little side excursion while moving, making it look like NASA had run over the object on purpose. Was NASA trying to cover up the existence of an alien?

    No, they were trying to hide evidence of the Easter Bunny! Conspiracy!

    They at least could have waited until after Easter. Bastards.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  13. Content-free cheerleading by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm glad this made the front page. Phil Plait is a force for Good...or at least Sense, and deserves all the recognition he can get.

    If you're going to pound his server, at least click through his advertisers and think about buying his book, huh?

    -Carolyn

    --
    Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
  14. You know it was coming: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Plait: What happen?
    Mechanic: Someone blow up us the Beagle!
    Plait: What!
    Operator: Main screen turn on!

    Plait: It's you!!
    Hoagland: How are you gentlemen!!
    Hoagland: All your mars rover are belong to aliens
    Hoagland: You are on the way to destruction

    Plait: What you say?
    Hoagland: You have no chance to explore mars junk
    Hoagland: Ha ha ha ....
    Operator: Dr. Plait!!

    Captain: Take off every 'Beagle'!!
    Captain: Move 'Beagle'.
    Captain: For great justice.

    Ok... I know it sucks... but laugh. You knew it was coming. At least it wasnt goatse!

  15. Re:Award by falzer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Phil Plait should be given some award for his work in debunking bullshit.
    What suitable options are there?


    World's Best Debunker t-shirt?

  16. Good, we need people with patience to refute this by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hoagland has some wild theories based on the flimsiest of evidence and even doctored photographs (introducing symmetry where none existed for example). He's a guy who just can't let go of his pet theories in the face of mounting evidence refuting them.

    What really gets me annoyed with this guy though is when he starts criticizing NASA & accusing them of dishonesty & coverup when the data don't match his preposterous theories. Half the time it's his own technical ignorance that's the problem.

    The guy just doesn't understand that we'd all like to find evidence of life on Mars, bipedal walking around life most of all, but we can't let that cloud our judgement.

    If mankind ever does find evidence of life on Mars it'll be no thanks to fools like Hoagland, although I'm sure he'll be the first to say "I told you so".

    Claims on the basis of the most tennuous of evidence and outlandish conjecture are worse than useless.

  17. and the retort? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If any of you tinfoil hatters are interested... (via anomalist.com)

    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 ... now 25 years old.

    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 ... such as Plait and Greenberg.

    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 ... and a lesser tidal input maintaining a current possible "liquid ocean for Europa."

    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,

  18. A joke? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:Good, we need people with patience to refute th by mtrupe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The guy just doesn't understand that we'd all like to find evidence of life on Mars, bipedal walking around life most of all, but we can't let that cloud our judgement.

    On the contrary-- I think he understands this fact very well. I think people want there to be life in space, especially close to home. Hoaglad feeds off of this, and uses it to his advantage. And he makes money in doing so... I would be very surprised if he honestly believed his own crazy ideas. People believe because they want to, not because there is any substantial evidence...

  20. Adult Swim Rules! by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the article: And remember, "Coast to Coast" has an audience of 10 million people.

    I had no idea Space Ghost has that many followers... must be the Martians watching Adult Swim via satellite...

    --
    Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
  21. This isn't about science - its a religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree with your assessment on the state of public education, for the Hoagland's of the world this is not about science, this is about religion. These extraterrestrials amongst us believers need to live a world with an external purpose and reason for being. They will never get that from science and feel conventional religions are beneath them or just too unbelievable. For these folks its not just about extraterrestrial life, which rational science types like me find totally plausible, it's the whole they live amongst us, they are so much more advanced, they created us and have a purpose for us (that is only reveled to the occasional abducted prophets), and they have given us all the technological advances since WWII. This is a new-age religion that had nothing to do with science education.

  22. Must be debunked by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People like this nutcase must be debunked for the damage they do to serious astronomy. By allowing this kind of infestation to manifest just because you know how ridiculous it is you end up giving credibility simply by way of not having debunked it. Much as eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF damage the environmental cause, people like this guy (not saying he's a terrorist) damage the credibility of things like SETI.

    Think how many people now believe in crap like Roswell and little green men. Now think how people like this make it hard for the public to take this science seriously. The idiot wants pr, but by not giving him the smackdown he so desperately needs, they'll get unearned credibility instead. The lack of pr will of course just be proof of a conspiracy against them.

    Just think, to believe this guy you'd have to accept that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on this one one mission to look for signs of life and that we would then turn around and ignore it when we found it. Too bad they don't teach logic in schools anymore.

  23. Re:Theres a straightforward way... by The+Queen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, not a juvie, but... I thought step i was "collect underpants"...? :-)

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  24. American Education Period.... by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public."

    Not just science ed, but the basic skill of critical thinking. I can't speak for how things are going in the rest of the world, but here in the US it's gotten particularly sad. People as a whole just don't seem able or willing to be bothered by thinking for themselves.

    Seems to me that many moons ago, even those who lacked formal higher education could be counted on to have "horse sense" - the simple ability to call "Shenanigans" when faced with something fishy, and run the snake oil salesman out of town.

    These days it seems everyone's simply lining up for snake oil subscriptions. What's up? Too much "Reality" TV? Sure folks have always been duped, but damn it seems like a national pastime these days.

    1. Re:American Education Period.... by eric2hill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, but take it up on a whole new level. America's education system is going down the toilet. For christ sake, people threw a fit over testing third-graders for their reading ability. My two-year old is quickly learning her alphabet. She'll be reading books by the time she's 4. My wife and I are seriously considering home-schooling since the moron-to-normal ratio in public schools has gotten too high. There are just too many gangs, drugs, and sluts in school today. (I'm not terribly disgusted with the sluts, but as a guy, I digress.)

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
      LOADING...
      READY.
      RUN
    2. Re:American Education Period.... by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In large part, this problem can be placed squarely on the shoulders of American parents. The ones who are too busy working long hours to afford SUVs and big-screen TVs to spend time with their kids. Love is shown, not through sitting down and reading a book to your six-year-old, but by purchasing them a PlayStation.

      Education begins at home; the schools can't be expected to inspire kids, especially when the two biggest influences on their lives are nominally apathetic towards everything but material acquisition. Few children will ever learn to love reading in a house where the parents don't, and critical thinking skills can't just be taught in the classroom, because the environment is just too limited.

      Many parents also have this nasty habit of riding the educators long and hard, basically dictating what and how the school will teach. Nevermind the fact that the educators have spent years studying How To Educate -- the parents always know how to teach their kids better.

      The end result is that schools have crippled their curriculums, by and large, because of the insane number of frivolous lawsuits brought on by irate parents, who were 'concerned' about what their kids were learning. They didn't want their kids learning about things that might upset them, or that might conflict with their religious beliefs, or that might seem racist in any way, shape, or form.

      History teachers have to walk on tiptoes because they have to present a politically incorrect subject (human history) in a politically correct fashion. Evolution is under fire in biology classes because it contradicts religious doctrine, nevermind that it is the accepted theory for how life originated. Philosophy classes are never taught in high schools, and we don't have much art or music because they are unimportant next to teaching the kids how to use a word processor...which they already learned how to do at home.

      Hell, students nowadays are rarely ever failed or held back a year, because of parental uproar -- there are kids that make it to high school without being able to read beyond a fourth-grade level. My father quit teaching because he was tired of having to explain Shakespeare to people who could barely make it through Dr. Seuss.

      What's the solution? Change our culture. Get people to stop worrying about nice cars and expensive clothes, and instead start spending actual time with their kids. Read to them. Tell them stories of your youth. Help them figure out when advertisements are bull, and praise them for accomplishment. Punish them when they misbehave. Above all, just be there.

      But this will never happen here.

      Grr. Okay. Done now.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    3. Re:American Education Period.... by daVinci1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have this strange assumption that the parents are somehow any more intelligent then the children.

      Its not going to make it any better if your dad is (for instance) Richard Hoagland.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    4. Re:American Education Period.... by Bluesman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's because there is no real consequence today for getting screwed. In fact, get a decent lawyer, and it's probably the best thing that can happen to you.

      The assumption is that there will always be some organization that will watch out for the "little guy" and protect him. If there's not, there is a tremendous uproar.

      It's nice to live in a society where there are no real risks, but we're all paying for it with freedom to make mistakes, and the experience that comes with it.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    5. Re:American Education Period.... by DietVanillaPepsi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not just science ed, but the basic skill of critical thinking. I can't speak for how things are going in the rest of the world, but here in the US it's gotten particularly sad. People as a whole just don't seem able or willing to be bothered by thinking for themselves.

      Additionally, those who do think for themselves are considered a bit of a weirdo. I can't tell you how interesting it was to grow up in Smalltown, USA in the Bible Belt. During a debate with someone who presented me with Bible scripture, I said, "I don't believe in the Bible." There was a collective gasp that echoed throughout the room.

      Ignorance is rewarded in this [part of the] country by way of social acceptance.

      I think what I appreciated about Europe was that there was little dumbing down of news stories. While on American new stations, you get newscasters saying, "Now what does that mean, exactly?" to everything an 'expert' has to say on a subject. Television news in England seemed to be something that educated people could watch without wanting to pull their hair out.

    6. Re:American Education Period.... by innerweb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In large part, this problem can be placed squarely on the shoulders of American parents.

      Or, as I prefer to put it, we the voters have a moral obligation to ensure that the people in power do what is right for our country, and our children.

      Dang! One of the few posts I would give a +5 to and I don't have the point.

      I come from a teaching family and I have worked in the schools. I have been able to see children grow from 0 to 30 in my life. The neat thing about that is I see patterns. Those children whose parents were passionate about education and were available to their children tended to be passionate about education themselves. Those parents who were not home, or did not spend time with their children on a daily basis (not 5 minutes, but hours per day) tended to have learning and life problems. Not a one size fits all thing, but certainly true enough most of the time. It is amazing how often the teachers can observe a child and then tell you exactly what the parents are like. No, you will not hear them do it in public. They value their jobs as well. But, the fact that they rarely miss the mark, says a lot about the connection between parents and children.

      If you really want better schools, it starts with better parents. If you want better parents, then you have to let it be known what your standards are to the parents around you. If they do not like it. Tough! They are not good enough to put in charge of your child, and their child may prove to be not good enough to be around yours at that point. It is not their child's fault, but their child's parents. Still, do you want your child being influenced by the their lack of parenting?

      If WE ALL demanded more from parents around us, and we all demanded more from our elected officials, we would get more. People are like water, they tend to sink as low as they can and do as little as possible to get where they are headed.

      What does this have to do with nutcases like this one? If people demanded more from their media, the same thing would happen as well. It all begins with a proper education where you learn to hold yourself and the world around you to higher standards. Goes for software too.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    7. Re:American Education Period.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      snake oil

      You realize, of course, that you're able to use the term "snake oil" because its salesman were so common (and presumably at least a little profitable) that everyone knew what it meant.

      In other words, back when people really were selling snake oil, there was a large enough percentage of the population who were willing to buy the stuff that it actually had a market.

      There have always been stupid people, and each generation has always thought that the next was headed toward certain doom. Just something to think about.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:American Education Period.... by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The neat thing about that is I see patterns. Those children whose parents were passionate about education and were available to their children tended to be passionate about education themselves. Those parents who were not home, or did not spend time with their children on a daily basis (not 5 minutes, but hours per day) tended to have learning and life problems.

      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.
    9. Re:American Education Period.... by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Book-love isn't just literature; it's comic books, and science fiction, and stories of all types. Reading is also like any other form of exercise; it makes you a better reader, and has the side effect of making you a better writer. Considering how much information in our society is imparted through the written word, you would tend to think more people would look at reading as a valuable skill.

      Furthermore, reading a book is not a passive experience -- you have to flip pages and use your imagination to 'fill in the blanks', whereas when watching a film, the entire experience is passive, and your body even drops (from a biochemical standpoint) down into the first stages of sleep. Playing games is better, but all you do is improve your skill at that one game, which isn't useful in the real world (for the most part). Games also do improve hand-eye coordination, but there are better ways of doing this -- they're called 'sports', and they not only improve coordination, but they provide exercise as well.

      Films and video games do have their place, but it is more important to read.

      There's a short story by Charles Sheffield titled 'Higher Education' -- you should read it. In this story, all schools can only teach the barest minimum of facts, and are almost totally crippled because of the threat of parental lawsuits. Most people no longer learn to read, instead relying on electronic readers which read text aloud for them.

      In the story, one student gets kicked out of his school for playing a prank on a visiting congresswoman (oops). He signs up with an asteroid-belt mining company, who get full parental rights over him, because his real parents don't bother to read the contract -- they're more interested in the large chunk'o'change they get for signing him on.

      He complains and whines about his training, and at one point questions his needing to learn to read. His instructor takes him into an ore transport, and reads out the section in the procedure manual which describes proper coupling with an ore carrier -- it's a technical process that would fill two hours' worth of video, but which can be described a single page of text.

      The instructor tells him that the reason he needs to read is because he needs to be able to understand instructions quickly, or he will probably get himself killed. That the book can withstand more radiation, heat, and pressure than a human body, and will still be functional in environments that would destroy a reader.

      Reading is survival, because information is survival.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
  25. Whether he's a crackpot or not... by errxn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.
  26. Coast to Coast AM by Komi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Has anyone else heard Coast to Coast AM (the show which gives Richard Hoagland air time)? It's actually pretty entertaining. It's a talk show that pretty much believes everything that happened on X-Files. You listen to these people call in about soul vampires, shadow people, galactic societies, cities under the Denver airport, etc. and it's fun trying to figure out if these people are just flat out lying or actually believe this stuff. They sound pretty convincing. Not only do they believe in aliens, but they have names for the different sides in this glactic war going on out there.

    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.
  27. You know you're a computer geek when... by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...You see this Slashdot headline and the first thing you think of is a new Sid Meier game.

  28. it has nothing to do with science by hak1du · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:it has nothing to do with science by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      At the fringes, yes -- there is a point where all some scientists do is the intellectual equivalent of mastrubation. There's also the crackpot fringe whose diplomas by-and-large come from mail-order diploma mills, but who write convincing-sounding books on the scientific validity of numerology in the bible and staple a 'PhD' at the end of their name -- just to sound credible.

      Mainstream science, however, is all about proof, and if you don't have it, you get reamed. If you rely on unstated assumptions that turn out to be false, you get reamed. If you make errors, you get reamed when someone double-checks your work. This is why all of the Cold Fusion nuts have been sent to the fringes, along with the 'young earth' and 'flat earth' types -- because they refuse to acknowledge their mistakes.

      Seriously. Show me an unfounded belief, error, or unstated assumption that has stuck around in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field for a signifigant period of time. Something that is clearly and demonstrably false, yet which the mainstream community refuses to correct. Good luck.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
  29. Debunked!!! Not hardly. by Chromodromic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Giving this guy attention, in fact, lends credence to his claims.

    I remember when I scored my first writing job. My uncle, who is a successful journalist, tried to give me some good advice.

    He asked, "What's the first job of a reporter?"

    "To tell the story as accurately as possible?"

    "No," he said. "The first job of a reporter is to create controversy."

    Controversy, he explained, sells the news, engages readers, sparks conversation, and leads to follow-ups. Oh, and it sells the news.

    So if you throw this nincompoop on "Coast to Coast", with 10 million readers, and you give him a voice, even if you do take shots at him, does this really count as "debunking" given the massive exposure he received?

    I think it only counts as idiocy. Come on. The guy points at pictures of geological features and calls them faces. In a Communist society he'd be locked up and his family would be shamed. In America he's used to boost advertising rates.

    Not that that's a criticism, mind you. I think we're all guilty of nuttiness here and there, so thank God we can be used to boost advertising rates ...

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
  30. people by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >> People are much more likely to accept something as a fact if it comes from 'a scientist'.

    you'd love an intro polysci class.

    yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"

    People tend to trust and believe things said by persons they identify with. People on slashdot are probably more likely (as a group) to identify with "scientist"s than are say, people in a baptist church in dixieland. Just like people in that church would be more likely to agree with their minister that "the plight of coconut harvesters in equatorial guinea has got to STOP!" based on who said it than say, a crowd of random people on the street. (don't read too much into these example... as far as I know there are no coconuts in Eq Guinea).

    It's just an information processing shortcut.

    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).

    PS: I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people. I also don't think I am shocking parent's author with blinding wisdom. Just sayin'.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:people by cozziewozzie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 :)

    2. Re:people by hypnagogue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist".

      Folks: this bookmark parent as reference material for future moderations. Any post that is as patently offensive to millions of people as this one is clearly a Troll.

      (Prejudice != Interesting)
      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    3. Re:people by de+Selby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if you're serious or just trying to bother people by being pedantic.

      Born-again means Christian.

      Perhaps under one definition, or under the original definition. But the colloquial definition of "born-again" means to be part of a "born-again" movement, not just a Christian.

      he probably meant Christians who evangelize, which is a large part of the doctrine of most Christian faiths, if not all (I can't think of a reason a church would be non-evangelical, since spreading the word is one of the most basic tenets of Jesus's teachings).

      First, if I remember correctly, the Bible says to make the teachings "available", not necessarily to evangelize.

      Second, this might be the same problem as the first thing I quoted from you. The colloquial definition of "evangelical" is not the same one you are using. It means a small extrememly vocal and radical subset of protestant Christianity not necessarily of the proper name "Evangelical".

      However, I can't even pretend to know what the poster was actually thinking, so maybe he really did think he was making a distinction somehow.

      He was making a real distinction, but you two were speaking a different common language.

    4. Re:people by re-Verse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a strange choice - i could either mod you down, sending a message with no meaning behind it. I'mstead I will tell you why D'd mod you down. Here it is:

      You see, you get quite high and mighty about being open minded - and then in the next sentence, you force a blessing on to the poster. I mean, as a non christian, i find it quite offensive and disturbing that you'd add that blessing/prayer to the end. Don't force prayers and blessing on people that don't want them, and people will probably be less likely to "lump all Christian together"

      I know a lot of great christians that would never be so crude as to force their conceptions upon those who have decided differently. They don't stand out, so no complaints are generated... but we have to appreciate them for being truely respectful and open minded.

    5. Re:people by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Saying that anyone with an IQ under 100 is stupid would be patently offensive to approximatly 3.25 billion people. It would also be true, at least from a certian point of view. Stating an unpopular or unpalatable truth is not trolling.

      Offensive != False

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    6. Re:people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately his definitions are wrong.

      I am a born-again evangelical Christian. That is to say, those are the terms I would use to describe myself, and my church describes itself as Evangelical.

      I also believe that creationists are nuts, that modern science makes it impossible to take the whole of the Bible literally, and that God may only have played a minimal part in evolution, although I still find Him irreplacable as an explanation for what caused the Big Bang to happen.

      Please don't use the term "evangelical" when you mean "fundamentalist". The two mean entirely different things. It's as bad as saying "socialist" when you mean "Stalinist", or using "capitalist" to mean "oppressive and exploitative", or "gay" to mean "stupid"... or "stupid" to mean "ignorant", come to that.

      All those words are used in those ways in colloquial contexts, but that doesn't mean it's at all acceptable to use it that way when you're trying to make a serious point about real issues. There are indeed fundamentalist Christians who believe that everything scientists say is a direct assault on Christianity and probably directly inspired by Satan, but using "evangelical" to describe that group does nobody any favours.

    7. Re:people by Eil · · Score: 4, Funny


      I know a person who was convinced that dogs in Egypt say 'meow meow' instead of 'bow wow'.

      I got one better. (And it's almost on-topic too!) My wife, until a few months ago, honestly had no idea that the moon didn't generate its own light. When I first learned of this, I picked my jaw up off the floor and tried explaining to her that it was really the sun's light reflecting off it. Unfortunately, she couldn't comprehend how it could still be illuminated at night, so true enlightenment didn't come until I made a mockup of the solar system with skittles and a flashlight.

      She also didn't know that stars were suns and vice versa. She's a great person and usually has common sense by the truckload, but I've come to the conclusion that her teachers in elementary school must have been Bastard Science Educators From Hell or something.

    8. Re:people by Schemat1c · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    9. Re:people by phyruxus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      >> Someone wishes you something good you weren't responding to him... it was me...

      >> 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
  31. The annual convention of conspiracy theorists... by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...has been cancelled due to unknown forces trying to keep the truth hidden from the people.

  32. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Still better than 'Fox News' though...

  33. The Face by TrentL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  34. Mindless /. groupthink by kfort · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Mindless /. groupthink by ai0524 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Fundamentally everything comes down to the evidence and which theory best describes the evidence. The difference in the claims are that Hoagland indiciates that the best explanation of the evidence is that there is (was) an advanced civilization on Mars and that there is a vast conspiracy to conceal this discovery. That is a pretty extraordinary claim and needs some pretty extraordinary evidence to support it.


      Maybe this claim is true. Maybe it isn't. However since for the moment all evidence of this claim has explanations that are much simpler we are required to accept this simpler explanation that fits the evidence.


      We are skeptical, as science requires us to be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there doen't appear to be any such evidence for the moment. Furthermore the burden of proof is on Hoagland and others who make such claims.

      --
      Share bicycle touring info worldwide: http://wheretocycle.com
    2. Re:Mindless /. groupthink by tuffy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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!!!.

      To NASA, an actual fossil of something on Mars means big headlines and (more importantly) big funding. I can't find any reason they would destroy one that doesn't involve donning a tinfoil hat first.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  35. Cost to Cosat AM by astrashe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hoagland regularly appears on Coast to Coast AM, an overnight syndicated talk show with something like 12 million listeners.

    They get the listeners to email NASA demanding ridiculous things. Another poster pointed out that they got a Mars probe to drop other important work to take more photos of the "face on mars."

    When NASA did it, Hoagland went on the radio and accused NASA of faking the photos to hide the evidence. He's a classic delusional type, who sees any evidence that proves him wrong as proof that there's a conspiracy.

    A lot of the problem is the radio show, which is irresponsible, in my view. During the whole Y2K scare, one of the hosts hyped the hell out of it, and sold people overpriced bunker food on the side.

    I understand the appeal of the show, and I enjoy that sort of thing myself. The argument for it is that it's sort of like pro wrestling -- it's just a show, everyone knows it's just a show, and the few people who don't just make the whole thing that much more entertaining. I can buy all of that.

    The problem comes when these guys start scaring people and exploiting them (with the bunker food), or when they create real problems for NASA. NASA has enough troubles now, they don't need this crap.

    I'm *NOT* calling for any kind of government action, or any sort of censorship. I don't support what's happening to Howard Stern, and I wouldn't support anyone hassling Coast to Coast AM.

    I do think it's appropriate for other people to wake up to how many listeners these guys have, and to try to keep them relavtively honest. These sorts of articles are a great start.

  36. Moon landing was faked in 1969 by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Funny

    The photos aren't real. According to some authorities in the know, the pictures were genrated using Pixar which is based on alein technology found at Roswell. But, if you look closely at the photos, you will see definite proof of the exitence of alien moonbases. This proves that aliens exist and inhabit the Moon and Mars.

  37. Re:Doesn't matter.. by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

    the cooks will still believe what they want to believe

    Thawing meat in the microwave, using crappy store-bought herbs.. Theres no reasoning with some of those guys!

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  38. Re:Award by jeffshoaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    What? You mean a mention on Slashdot isn't award enough?

    --
    Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
  39. Con-artist by Kenrod · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hoagland is a con-artist who got lucky a long time ago and decided to parlay his scant credibility into an industry built on duping clueless dreamers out of their money. He's the Wade Cook of science.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  40. Scientific Compacency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isaac Asimov once wrote:

    quote:"For one thing Velikfovskianism, and indeed, any exoheretical view that becomes prominent enough to force itself on science, acts to puncture scientific complacency-and that is good. An exoheresy may cause scientists to bestir themselves for the purpose of reexamining the bases of their beliefs, even if only to gather firm and logical reasons for the rejection of the exoheresy-and that is good too. An exoheresy may cause scientific activity which, in a serendipitous fashion, may uncover something worthwhile that has nothing to do with the exoheresy-and that is very good, if it happens."

  41. Greetings, Mr. Hoagland by MooseByte · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I'm extremely disapointed in the reactions here. The space.com article was clearly a character assasination of Hoagland."

    Nice to see you joining us on Slashdot, Mr. Hoagland. Now go away.

  42. George Noory not responsible? by kfort · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should have heard the show last night. Two guys were on saying that 97% of population is going to die this year. We need to build underground bunkers, buy their books & videotapes etc.

    Well they were on last month saying the same thing, and the purpose of last night's (this morning actually) show was that the fellow who has had these visions supposedly met with Sister Lucia, the Carmelite nun who is the last surviving witness to the Fatima miracles.

    The fellow said he met with the nun for 5 minutes, but wouldn't tell us what she said because it was personal! George told him he would not allow him and his audience to be exploited in this manner and cut off both guests in the middle of the show! I think it showed a tremendous amount of integrity.

    Guests on c2c do not get paid so in general they are allowed to plug their website or book but they cannot use it to scam people. The topics on the show are not presented as the only objective truth but rather many different viewpoints that a person can listen to, be entertained, and make up their own mind.

    Sometimes I find art gets a little over his head with highly scientific or technological discussions, which is funny because hes a genius radio engineer. He hosts the show, runs the board, reads the commercials, takes the calls, all from his trailer in the middle of the Nevada desert and all by himself! How many of you could do that? He has never allowed himself to be influenced by the suits, and how many DJs distributed by ClearChannel can you say that about?

    The show covers a wide range of topics. Many of the topics are not and will not be covered by any other major media. I think it is a valuable service and certainly entertaining. I think both George and Art though, make it abundantly clear that the rule of caveat emptor always applies.

  43. What I don't get is... by mangojuice · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...why in earth would NASA want to cover up such a thing?

    1. Re:What I don't get is... by stwrtpj · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...why in earth would NASA want to cover up such a thing?

      Mod this up, for crying out loud.

      This hits the nail on the head. We have all this talk from the conspiracist nuts claiming that all this evidence of civilizations and life on Mars is being covered up without really giving us any coherent idea as to why.

      If NASA sent up a probe and really DID find ruins of a past civilization, there would be no way it could be suppressed. There is no way they would want to suppress it. Hell, a discovery like that might lead to NASA's budget being tripled due to public interest in the matter. There would be a mad scramble to find a way -- ANY way -- to get a real live human being up there to explore it, or at least to send up a probe that could actually take something back to Earth.

      So what reason would the government/NASA have to cover it up? If anything, the US government would love for such a discovery to happen. It would divert the people's attention from things the current administration would like us to forget, such as Iraq and dubya's invisible WMDs and our so-called "jobless recovery."

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
  44. Buy his book, it's quite good. by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you enjoy his web site and the service he provides to the public buy his book, Bad Astronomy.

    The link to his book on Amazon can be found here

    He covers a wide range of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods about astronomy and associated topics. My favorite topic he covers is the "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax". He gives the subject an excellent treatment.

  45. What if Richard C. Hoagland was right? by Guysdrinkingbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  46. How will the Martian langauge affect Unicode? by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since the limitation of Unicode is up to 1 million characters, won't we run into problems with Unicode once all alien character sets are added to it? ;P

  47. water on mars by sawmillnc · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they find solid H2O on Mars I wonder what we will find in Uranus?

  48. Because he has no facts by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was a HUGE fan of the idea that the Face and other things were artifacts when all we had was the Viking data, but I always kept as a hypothesis, never a definite fact. The data was too unclear.

    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.
    1. Re:Because he has no facts by GeoGreg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you being honest with me about the 'fossil'? Have you looked at it closely? It seems to me that they didn't take a cross section, they ground it up, simple. You can see the structure, then its gone.

      Sorry... I've seen many crinoid stems and other fossils; that just doesn't look like one. The "structure" fades imperceptibly into the overall fabric of the rock. These are cracks, not evidence of fossil life. There are plenty of inorganic structures in rocks on Earth that look more like fossils than this Martian feature does.

      As for the face, the (recently damaged) Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire was remarkably face-like. Our brains like to see patterns and tend to impose them on images. Whether faces or fossils or witches, just saying "it looks like one" is not enough.

  49. Plait Debatung RCH on the facts by MooseByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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!"

  50. Very entertaining, even if it is bogus by ishmalius · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I am surprised that there are so many people voicing righteous indignation at this fellow, and at Coast to Coast. It is pure mindless enjoyment. All of the posters seem so outraged that the people who believe in this stuff take it so seriously. It seems that the debunkers need to take a pill, too. It is just a radio program, not to be taken seriously. Besides, the endless parade of "special" people on the show is a treasure trove of entertainment. I don't listen to it anymore, but it was a great time-waster in the 90's.

    And it has an unintended benefit, actually. Don't you realize that by getting so many people to argue these silly facts, the producers of the show have inadvertently, as a side effect, caused many people to believe in logic and the scientific method?

    My favorite theme on the show, by the way, was Bottomless Holes.

    God bless the chupacabras, the inventors of perpetual motion machines and engines that run on water. Give thanks to the guys that walk the streets dressed as Killer Bees. They make life a bit more interesting.

  51. It's not a fossil by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  52. From the source by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I checked with Elvis (he lives next door to me) and he pointed out that if people want to believe something, there's not a lot you can do about it. Look at how many people believe that Hoover damn is full of dead construction workers, or that the Apollo program only happened on a Hollywood sound stage. That's not just bad science, that's a total defiance of common sense. But these urban legends appeal to people, and all the debunking in the world won't change it.

    What's really disgusting is the way the media is cynically exploiting these beliefs. But I view that as just another symptom of the "1000 channels and nothing's on" syndrome. Which is a result of so much media being controlled by so few companies, so that real creativity or insight has no chance in the mass media. Crap is easy to produce and has a high profit margin, so that's what the media monopolies give us. That's of a lot more immediate importance that any silly arguments over the Mars Face.

  53. The face was just a mesa by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Informative

    This was proven almost 3 years ago. And the terrain on Mars isn't exactly flat, either.

  54. Re:The Face was not just a mesa by towatatalko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did you check what NASA did to "prove" their point? Those pictures where manipulated with the high altitude filer to give the appearance that the Face is just a natural object. Earlier photographs showed something entirely different.

    Check another proof on this matter at: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia /proof_files/proof.asp

    --

    IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
  55. Shai'Hulud by quantaq · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude, the "glass worm" explains everything. Now we know where all that water that used to be on Mars went: little makers keeping it deep inside the planet. And, we know why Mars is red: all that spice. All praise Shai'Hulud! Death to the non-believers!

    Now I feel all pseudo-sciencey.

  56. Happy moose on Mars by ToSeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Excellent site. If you poke around, you can find that there's a happy moose on Mars!

  57. Re:P. Plait should be ashamed of himself... by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  58. That's ridiculous. by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everyone knows all the Marsian water was used to produce Russian vodka. Russians found vodka on Mars, now that's more like it.