Thanks for including my first name multiple times in your tasteful and
empirical viewpoint of the pseudo-science culture.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about what he's written to form any solid
opinions, nor have I viewed his videos. I simply find the 'concepts' engaging
and it is not completely important whether they are valid observations. I've
listened to him speak a few times and I have to say, he's a bit of a nutter.
But he's still *very* entertaining. (-:
btw Hal, Hoagland is "a well known space expert." If what he claims is true,
he's consulted with NASA for a long time. Perhaps not recently, but certainly
at one time.
You know this really brings up another question: "How many of you believe in
the existence of extra terrestrial biological entities?"
I'm not asking this as a UFO nut, I'm sure by this time I must sound like
one. I'm just curious how many of you REALLY believe its likely we're not
alone.
deluxe
Hal Finney wrote:
> jeff@ultraviolet.com writes regarding Richard Hoagland.
>
> I read Hoagland's book about Cydonia many years ago, and it was completely
> unconvincing.
>
> The problem is that the shapes are not obviously artificial. Yes,
> some of them are roughly pyramidal, but I can find rocks that have a
> similar shape. You have to look at the weathering and erosion and other
> factors that carve these rocks. The Martian experts who have done so
> believe that these shapes are the products of natural erosion.
>
> Jeff also mentions Hoagland's video tape analysis of events on a 1991
> space shuttle flight. This is STS-48, and a good resource for information
> about the controversy is http://web2.airmail.net/yogi/sts-48.html.
> You can read there the questionable reasoning of the UFO believers.
> James Oberg, a well known space expert, says that all the video shows is
> particles near the shuttle being pushed by its thrusters. See Oberg's
> analysis at http://web2.airmail.net/yogi/oberg.html.
>
> Hoagland's web site at http://www.enterprisemission.com claimed shortly
> after the Mars rover landed that they had found all kinds of artifacts in
> the surface pictures: military vehicles, technical equipment, cannisters
> of various sorts. Everyone else just sees rocks. Hoagland has also
> claimed to have seen a crystal city on the moon by enhancing Apollo
> images.
>
> In my mind, Hoagland has no credibility. He may be deluding himself,
> or he may just be deluding others, but either way he is not a reliable
> source of information.
>
> Hal