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

[trostol]

THERMITE MARTIANS!!!

that reminded me of

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

Braaps, Trey!

BRAAPS!

[AppealPlay]

Oh, dear, having no callers is depressing.

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

Oh, dear, having no callers is depressing.

We need at least 20 minutes of callers and another hour of air time.

[trostol]

what other books did he say he liked...dune..startide rising..which looks..meh

[nooryisawesome]

We need at least 20 minutes of callers and another hour of air time.

Hoagland must get a third hour to allow for phone calls, especially his stalker.

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

Hoagland must get a third hour to allow for phone calls, especially his stalker.

We gotta push him to do an end of week debate show.

[norland2424]

hahhaah his guest wouldn't stfu

[trostol]

lol music is on but imma keep rambling on

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

lol music is on but imma keep rambling on

He could really go. BRAAPS all! Until next time.

[norland2424]

may the braps be with you brothas

[AppealPlay]

Good fun, guys.  Hope to see you all tomorrow.

[Royal_Tenenbaum]

what other books did he say he liked...dune..startide rising..which looks..meh

He repeated Dune. Startide is so so. I wanted Hoagie to answer. Books though, not shows. We all know what show he would have said.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

He repeated Dune. Startide is so so. I wanted Hoagie to answer. Books though, not shows. We all know what show he would have said.

So long as he didn't say 'Contact.'

[ShayP]

It seems I missed another good one. 

[PB the Deplorable]

It seems I missed another good one. 

If you want to hear Hoagie argue with his alter ego.

I wonder how long until this gets stale

[ShayP]

If you want to hear Hoagie argue with his alter ego.

I wonder how long until this gets stale

I feel it may get stale quickly.  I just want to enjoy the ride while it remains unpolished and somewhat clumsy. 

This thread is always fun. 

[BellBoy]

If you want to hear Hoagie argue with his alter ego.

I wonder how long until this gets stale

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a full-blown psychotic break!

[astroguy]

Hoagland and his guest talked about Stuart Robbins (bellgab's astrogiuy) calling him a troll and refused to debate them.

Richard Hoagland is wrong.

Awwwww! He knows of me!  Guess I'll have to listen to the show.  I'll write what I posted in the Hoagland thread just for fun clarification:

To be clear regarding Richard, I have *never* personally interacted with him -- never contacted him, never been contacted by him.  However, I know that some of Richard's more ... annoyed ... detractors will e-mail him with my material and sometimes BCC me (I requested to be BCC'd a few years ago instead of CC'd so it didn't look like I was supporting their e-mail).

Regarding John Brandenburg, he has e-mailed me, he has posted to my blog, and to my podcast, and he's still never proven his case, never answered my questions with actual science.  I was asked by a different radio host (an actual legitimate one) if I would debate him.  That was after I wrote this blog post about his pretty disgraceful appearance at a science conference.  Here is my response to that radio host:

Thank you for your invitation to debate Dr. Brandenburg, live.  I am going to have to decline.  While I stand by what I wrote and my opinion about his ideas, doing a live debate on this topic is not something that I can do.  The reason is subject matter expertise.

For example, if we were to debate about the chronology of the Moon or Mars, especially from impact craters, I’d be all for it because that is my research area.  If we were to debate on the “Face” or “Pyramids” on Mars, I could do that reasonably well because it is something that I have heavily researched over the years and know the topic and arguments well (though I know Richard Hoagland’s and Mike Bara’s arguments about it better than John Brandenburg’s).  The same goes for Planet X, image analysis, the “true color” of Mars, and some other topics.

However, I am not a spectroscopist.  I’m not a nuclear engineer.  When I have addressed Dr. Brandenburg’s claims, I have had to do external research for each claim.  The same goes for the two e-mail exchanges I have had with him.  While I am still confident in my conclusions based on that research and what I know about related subjects (e.g., his implication about the age of Lyot crater and that being one of his favored nuke sites â€" it doesn’t work with the chronology he needs), this method is not conducive to a live debate, and therefore I decline.

If you are referring specifically to my points about how to behave at a scientific conference and Dr. Brandenburg’s presentation there, there is nothing to debate.  What I stated is objective fact, and I have documentation for much of what I stated.

If you would like me for a different program to discuss something I named in the second paragraph or is aligned with my research (http://about.sjrdesign.net), then I’d be happy to discuss it further.

Interestingly, Dr. Brandenburg's recollection of his appearance at said science conference completely conflicts with my memory - and my physical documentation.  Here's what he said last week on C2C:  "I was most recently at the Lunar [and] Planetary Science Conference, the premier conference on planetary science.  I presented the paper as a poster paper for two hours.  I got a lot of people [who] came up and looked at it.  And uh, other planetary scientists, and no one contradicted me.  No one said, 'Oh, you got this wrong,' or 'That's because of this,' or something like that.  Finally, one fellow just said, 'Did they do it to themselves, or did somebody else do it?'  And I hadn't even mentioned the term 'aliens' or 'civilization' at all.  But it was obvious to him that something had targeted Mars for absolute destruction."

Nobody contradicted him because he's a crank, and we tend to not give people like that attention.  That's why whenever some crazy says, "I've contacted real scientists about this!" or something to that effect, "And they've never refuted me!" that's because the vast majority ignore them.  I'm one of the very few rare ones who will sometimes engage.

[astroguy]

Starts at 1 hour 21 minutes 25 seconds into the episode on my recording, which started just before the opening music and did not remove any bumper music.  Transcript lasts 1 minute 50 seconds.

JEB:  "Ive had one, one uh Mars blogger go after me."

RCH:  "Who?"

JEB:  "I challenged him-- This guy named Stuart Robbins."

RCH:  "Oh!  Yes!  [grunts/groans]"

JEB:  "Well I challenged him for-- to a debate--"

RCH:  [chair squeaks on floor]

JEB:  "He won't debate me."

RCH:  "He won't debate you?  Now that's interesting.  Because he has challenged uh Bara to a debate. [laughs]"

JEB:  "Well.  He should cha-- he, you know, I-- I'm-- I've challenged him to a debate, he won't debate me!"

RCH:  "Uh, does he say why?

[Either the stream loops, or they just repeated verbatim the last two sentences.]

JEB:  "Um. [pause] He-he-- he basically told a third party he felt he didn't have enough expertise."

RCH:  "Wait-wait-wait a minute.  He doesn't have enough expertise, but he can-- [during this time, JEB was talking over/under RCH, here's where JEB started to dominate]"

JEB:  "[reconstructed: he has enough expertise to criticize my work] but he doesn't have enough expertise to-- He's just a [unintelligible] troll."

RCH:  "Well yes, he is a troll.  You know-- is he--"

JEB:  [again, here's where JEB started to dominate over RCH since they were speaking at the same time] "and I so, anyway so, um--"

RCH:  "John, John, hang on.  Is this the same Stuart Robbins astronomer who is attached to the New Horizons mission in Boulder, at Southwest Research Institute?"

JEB:  "Oh, of course he is!"

RCH:  "That's the guy."

JEB:  "Yes!"

RCH:  "He mentioned me and Keith Laney in connection with our Pluto discussions the other morning.  Out of all the people in all the gin joints et cetera, [JEB laughs] for some reason he brings up us because we're discussing arcologies visible-- John, you gotta look at these Pluto images!  Everything we've seen at Cydonia that's in ruin, horrible ruin, is in such better condition at Pluto, and the images are not the highest res!"

[PB the Deplorable]

Richard C Hoagland - fraud, prick, and - until very recently - Noory stooge

[GravitySucks]

Thinking of RCH

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

...

Nobody contradicted him because he's a crank, and we tend to not give people like that attention.  That's why whenever some crazy says, "I've contacted real scientists about this!" or something to that effect, "And they've never refuted me!" that's because the vast majority ignore them.  I'm one of the very few rare ones who will sometimes engage.

That's about what I pictured when he made the same claims last night.  The guy who talks the loudest and longest, without ever properly addressing what anyone else has to say, usually wins the argument and claims that no one could contradict him.  Everyone else has just given up trying to point out reason, logic, and evidence to the guy. 

Thanks for clarifying that astroguy and verifying my assumptions.

[zeebo]

...
JEB:  "[reconstructed: he has enough expertise to criticize my work] but he doesn't have enough expertise to-- He's just a [unintelligible] troll."

RCH:  "Well yes, he is a troll.  You know-- is he--"
....
RCH:  "John, John, hang on.  Is this the same Stuart Robbins astronomer who is attached to the New Horizons mission in Boulder, at Southwest Research Institute?"

JEB:  "Oh, of course he is!"

RCH:  "That's the guy."
...

Bold man, bold!  Calling out as a troll a guy working on New Horizons, one of the most amazing feats of science and engineering ever accomplished!  Wow I'm actually kind of impressed in a weird way.

[Claudius]

b]and my physical documentation[/b].  Here's what he said last week on C2C:  "I was most recently at the Lunar [and] Planetary Science Conference, the premier conference on planetary science.  I presented the paper as a poster paper for two hours.  I got a lot of people [who] came up and looked at it.  And uh, other planetary scientists, and no one contradicted me.  No one said, 'Oh, you got this wrong,' or 'That's because of this,' or something like that.  Finally, one fellow just said, 'Did they do it to themselves, or did somebody else do it?'  And I hadn't even mentioned the term 'aliens' or 'civilization' at all.  But it was obvious to him that something had targeted Mars for absolute destruction."

Nobody contradicted him because he's a crank, and we tend to not give people like that attention.  That's why whenever some crazy says, "I've contacted real scientists about this!" or something to that effect, "And they've never refuted me!" that's because the vast majority ignore them.  I'm one of the very few rare ones who will sometimes engage.

I've been to several conferences like this and typically when the cranks take the stage some stay because it's interesting in the same way that a train derailing is interesting, others leave in disgust and other take their lunch breaks.
My question is, was he actually there? And how many people were laughing/calling him out?

[Claudius]

Bold man, bold!  Calling out as a troll a guy working on New Horizons, one of the most amazing feats of science and engineering ever accomplished!  Wow I'm actually kind of impressed in a weird way.

/sarcasm HEY!! Don't you DARE malign Hoagie! He was a science advisor for Cronkite. I'm sure he knows what he's taking about.

[astroguy]

My question is, was he actually there? And how many people were laughing/calling him out?

Yes:  See my blog post here.

Alright, so, John Brandenburg clearly does not remember (or is lying, I don't know which) about the March conference.  Here's what he said on Coast last week:

"I was most recently at the Lunar [and] Planetary Science Conference, the premier conference on planetary science.  I presented the paper as a poster paper for two hours.  I got a lot of people [who] came up and looked at it.  And uh, other planetary scientists, and no one contradicted me.  No one said, 'Oh, you got this wrong,' or 'That's because of this,' or something like that.  Finally, one fellow just said, 'Did they do it to themselves, or did somebody else do it?'  And I hadn't even mentioned the term 'aliens' or 'civilization' at all.  But it was obvious to him that something had targeted Mars for absolute destruction."

Is it just me, or does that directly conflict with what he said this morning on Hoagland's show?

"I went and presented this stuff at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston in this March, and I got a lotta-- I presented as a poster, they-they let me present it as a poster, and, uh-- The best and the brightest, I could tell, came to my poster and argued with me and uh, we went back and forth, and finally nobody had any other explanation for the pattern of data on Mars."

Of course, not to mention conflicting with what I wrote in my blog 4 months ago.

[BellBoy]

Fun Fact:

"Richard C. Hoagland" is an anagram of "Rich Lad. Arch Gonad"



Braaps!

[Claudius]

Yes:  See my blog post here.

Alright, so, John Brandenburg clearly does not remember (or is lying, I don't know which) about the March conference.  Here's what he said on Coast last week:

Is it just me, or does that directly conflict with what he said this morning on Hoagland's show?

Of course, not to mention conflicting with what I wrote in my blog 4 months ago.

I read most of your blog and I'm sorry that guy is just a total kook. His board looked like it was made by an 8th grader and not referencing his sources and photos and therefore plagiarizing and stealing others work is beyond disgusting. He should have been banned for that alone.

As you know in real science papers/ papers you get published, if you simply steal others data you'll basically get ostracized from most major publications.

[astroguy]

He will not be at that conference in the future.  The program committee and others will be using my documentation and other things to use as justification.