The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

[Northcoaster]

I can't wait for the new pluto pics! They are gonna be so salacious!

[qaddisin]

Disappointed in the lack of gaffes, but it wasn't a bad show. As long as RCH keeps his bullshit spouting to a minimum and actually lets the guest talk, I can see him doing a decent job.

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

....sooooo, what are you trying to say?

several things in the most confusing way possible. Sorry, it's late and I should be in bed instead of typing. See you all tomorrow night.

[ShayP]

He also thinks an Accutron watch is a "scientific instrument", so what else needs to be said?

Good point. 

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Disappointed in the lack of gaffes, but it wasn't a bad show. As long as RCH keeps his bullshit spouting to a minimum and actually lets the guest talk, I can see him doing a decent job.

Hoagland must be perplexed about why his subscription numbers only go up on the days that his show is fraught with technical difficulties and obnoxious callers.

[ShayP]

Hoagland must be perplexed about why his subscription numbers only go up on the days that his show is fraught with technical difficulties and obnoxious callers.

He should embrace it!  he could do it like the old fashioned shows where they employed sound effects people using all types of tools to create weird noises.

[Dixon Bawls]

Disappointed in the lack of gaffes, but it wasn't a bad show. As long as RCH keeps his bullshit spouting to a minimum and actually lets the guest talk, I can see him doing a decent job.

Yap. Keep fingers crossed for tomorrow.

[ShayP]

All in all.....Good show!!!!  Cheers to all in the HoagRap thread.  Haha!   

[ShayP]

All in all.....Good show!!!!  Cheers to all in the HoagRap thread.  Haha!   

Credit to Dixon Bawls on that title, I believe. 

[qaddisin]

Hoagland must be perplexed about why his subscription numbers only go up on the days that his show is fraught with technical difficulties and obnoxious callers.

And the sad thing is, I know that if that kind of stuff happened on any other show, I likely would not be listening. But there is just something about the way he bumbles around that I find absolutely hilarious.

[Dixon Bawls]

Credit to Dixon Bawls on that title, I believe. 

Just a spitball. HoagieJam sounds promising, too.

[HumanBeing]

Only caught the last 30 minutes but, as per usual, it was interesting. Looking forward to checking out what I missed later today. Another Pluto show tomorrow 
I know he loves space but I am looking forward to seeing if he ever covers any topics that is outside of his wheelhouse.



I may be nitpicking, but Hoagland being all scientific really should get his webpage correct.
Anyone who goes to his show webpage to see what show is upcoming could easily miss out on a show.
Potential listeners would look at the date of 'Tonight's Show' and say 'Oh that's tomorrow night then.'

I understand that his show airs from midnight until 2am Pacific, why then does he list his "Show Times" as
Monday-Friday when it is actually airs from Tuesday-Saturday from Midnight - 2am PST.
Contradictory information on the main page regarding show times and show schedule hahaha
All aboard!!!

[Meister_000]

Wow, that was actually riviting -- perhaps the best of this-breed of radio I've heard in years. Richard also did a very good job of trying to make sure the audience could understand and even visualize as many elements, processes, concepts, and terms, as possible -- taking little for granted. Very impressed. Bravo.  A+
[who'da thunk]

[Inglorious Bitch]

I am now both a Time Traveler and Other Side of Midnighter. The pull of RCH was too strong.

[BellBoy]

While I have to admit that, at the moment, I'm finding the background noise to be almost more entertaining than the actual show, maybe someone could suggest to Richard C. that he might try using a good set of headphones as he broadcasts... This might help him become "aware" of the sonic cluster-fuck he's actually turning out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szyht9jc8PE

[ShayP]

I am now both a Time Traveler and Other Side of Midnighter. The pull of RCH was too strong.

[SaucyRossy]

Finished tonight's show. I thought it was fantastic. So much cool in depth talk that only some one like Richard could've pulled off with this guest.

[ShayP]

While I have to admit that, at the moment, I'm finding the background noise to be almost more entertaining than the actual show, maybe someone could suggest to Richard C. that he might try using a good set of headphones as he broadcasts... This might help him become "aware" of the sonic cluster-fuck he's actually turning out.

I believe he said he uses them and actually recommended them to a caller.   I also believe the headset fell around his neck one night and caused a great deal of frustration. 

[ShayP]

Finished tonight's show. I thought it was fantastic. So much cool in depth talk that only some one like Richard could've pulled off with this guest.

Agreed.

I missed the first hour of Art's show....listening now.  6:33 am EST....yeah...I have nothing else to do.   LOL! 

[SaucyRossy]

Agreed.

I missed the first hour of Art's show....listening now.  6:33 am EST....yeah...I have nothing else to do.   LOL! 

Art's show was also brilliant. Great chemistry with a really good guest.

[Meister_000]

Hoagie's reaction to his stalker threatening to "haunt him until he (Richard) kills him".

FYI; Richard has a new page up for Fan-Made art work.
http://othersideofmidnight.com/fan-art-gallery/

The drawing of RCH which you (Tenenbaum) oiginally attached to this post (now some 16 pgs back) was, I though, the best of them so far. It's file-name at posting was:
Screen Shot 2015-07-29 at 5.00.39 AM.png  You probably have a higher-res copy locally.

Anyhow, You or anyone else could submit some stuff if you like. I know there's a bunch of talent in-residence here. So, decorate the Gallery if you're so inclined -- and I'm positive there are more than few "decorators" in the house ;')  He didn't mention a specific email address for submissions that I could find, otherwise I'd include it.

Here's the drawing I'm refering to -- if the attachment works.

P.S. ever seen the defs given for "Tenenbaum" here? Scroll down too.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tenenbaum

[astroguy]

I believe in Hoagey! His show is improving as he is. People just need to give him a chance.

There are two sides here.  There's a "belief" in Richard's right and ability to do a radio show, which I have no problem with.  But there's also the issue of whether having said show and large audience with which to peddle his own brand of hoagwash is a good thing, or whether it's something that should be argued against.

Let's be very clear: Almost everything that Richard Hoagland claims is demonstrably wrong.  He does not understand the scientific process, he does not understand most scientific concepts, and he does not understand how to discern science from pseudoscience.  He is a pseudoscientist by practically any definition.  He also never defines his terms and abuses them.  A good example is his insistence that "geometry" means life.  What does "geometry" mean?  The Colorado Rockies shows "geometry" that's pretty regular.  Erosional landform valleys also show very regular geometry, as do sand dunes -- at very regular wavelengths, actually -- but none of these were produced by life.  His abuse of terms is part of how he twists things to "sound" valid when they are not.  Similarly, his abuse of image processing artifacts that produce regular "geometry" (boxes and rectangles) that he then takes to mean life also abuse popular misconceptions that convince some people that what he says is real.

However, he has been given a prominent voice (10 hrs/week) by a prominent radio show host with an automatic large audience.  Giving him this voice is something that I object to only because it lends him credibility.  The saying goes that all because you read something on the internet does not make it true.  But we still have to keep saying it because people forget.  The same thing about the radio.  Richard makes many things sound correct even if they are not.  He employs common misunderstandings to get people to think he's right, and he makes alleged statements of fact that are wrong.

I swear I didn't intend for this to sound like a rant, so I'm sorry it came out that way.  Let me perhaps mollify it by saying that I think listening to Richard is entertaining and I never wish him ill or necessarily to fail.  What I do object to is the peddling of pseudoscience and the broader platform that he has been given upon which to peddle it.

[astroguy]

I can't wait for the new pluto pics! They are gonna be so salacious!

Pretty much nothing new picture-wise until end of August.

[Inglorious Bitch]

FYI; Richard has a new page up for Fan-Made art work.
http://othersideofmidnight.com/fan-art-gallery/

The drawing of RCH which you (Tenenbaum) oiginally attached to this post (now some 16 pgs back) was, I though, the best of them so far. It's file-name at posting was:
Screen Shot 2015-07-29 at 5.00.39 AM.png  You probably have a higher-res copy locally.

Anyhow, You or anyone else could submit some stuff if you like. I know there's a bunch of talent in-residence here. So, decorate the Gallery if you're so inclined -- and I'm positive there are more than few "decorators" in the house ;')  He didn't mention a specific email address for submissions that I could find, otherwise I'd include it.

Here's the drawing I'm refering to -- if the attachment works.

P.S. ever seen the defs given for "Tenenbaum" here? Scroll down too.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tenenbaum

http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/Mars_Hoagface.html

New Evidence(?) re: the "Face on Mars"




A  Grainy photo capture of Richard Hoagland from a TV (CNN) broadcast
B  Hoagland's face layered on a background similar to a B&W of a Mars photo
C  Blurring of features and merging of layers
D  Continued blurring and reorienting of face, with colorization
a  1998 view of the "Face" from the Mars Global Surveyor
b  Negative enhancement of same MGS image
c  This version was constructed by Mark Kelly, a computer graphics specialist.
     It shows the "Face" illuminated from the upper left, a more normal lighting
     direction for viewing a face (as opposed to the "flashlight-under-the-chin"
     effect in the actual MGS image), and one which more closely matches
     that of the original 1976 Viking image.
d  The famous 1976 Viking 1 image, colorized
e  Merging layers D and d suggests there may be more than a coincidental resemblance
     between Richard Hoagland and the "Face" on Mars.
X  The unscrupulous TBS member who compiled the graphics for this page suggested
     that NASA resurvey the "Face" of Cydonia under different lighting conditions.
     The resulting image -- never released by NASA but obtained by TBS -- bears much
     more of a resemblance to a familiar human face (or is he really an alien?).

[expat]

He employs common misunderstandings to get people to think he's right, and he makes alleged statements of fact that are wrong.

Here's an easy-to-grasp specific example of Richard's pseudo-facts. He has said and written many times that glass is an ideal material for lunar construction because on the Moon glass is twice as strong as steel. Sounds plausible -- total dryness = better covalent O-Si bonding.

To support this, he cites a paper by Rowley & Neudecker, "In Situ Rock Melting Applied to Lunar Base Construction." The problem is that Rowley & Neudecker say NO SUCH THING. The paper is about vitrification of tunnel walls and nowhere mentions steel.

Meanwhile, in the very same publication, a paper by J.C. Blacic does discuss the strength of lunar glass. The title of that paper is Mechanical Properties of Lunar Materials Under Anhydrous, Hard Vacuum Conditions (1985.)

And guess what? Blacic gives these figures:
Young's modulus of lunar glass: 100 GPa, cf. alloy steel 224 GPa, terrestrial glass 68 GPa.

CONCLUSION: Hoagland's oft-stated "fact," that he makes sound so convincing, is the reverse of the truth.

[chefist]

And guess what? Blacic gives these figures:
Young's modulus of lunar glass: 100 GPa, cf. alloy steel 224 GPa, terrestrial glass 68 GPa.

CONCLUSION: Hoagland's oft-stated "fact," that he makes sound so convincing, is the reverse of the truth.

This is exactly why I really suspend belief with RCH. I'm a chemist, so when someone makes these claims I ask, "where is the data?". It would have been just as interesting to communicate the fact that glass would be 50% stronger on the moon than on the Earth...but of course he has to go beyond fact and make an outrageous and false statement of "fact"...

[zeebo]

He should embrace it!  he could do it like the old fashioned shows where they employed sound effects people using all types of tools to create weird noises.

Haha this is such a good idea ... Hoagie, more wacky sound effects please!

[zeebo]

This is exactly why I really suspend belief with RCH. I'm a chemist, so when someone makes these claims I ask, "where is the data?". ...

I can see why this stuff makes legit scientists crazy.  I love good hard science shows but I also like hearing about fringe ideas too.  I treat these more as speculation, as if I'm reading some sci-fi story. 

Or as MST3K put it:

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax."

[Tarbaby]

Yeah, we could call this the other side of midnight 3000.

[Northern Nights]

Haha this is such a good idea ... Hoagie, more wacky sound effects please!

He could play up the whole Enterprise angle with some Star Trek TOS sound effects, they're easy enough to find online.