Saturday, January 31, 2009

When Pseudoscientists Attack

In response to an email from an interested reader of Enterprise Mission.com, David Morrison, the director of NASA’s Lunar Science Institute, had this to say about my venerable co-author:

“I know Hoagland, and I also know that quite a few items in his bio are fiction: namely his references to working for NASA, working with Sagan, and talking at Ames. I would not want to stoop to "debate" with him. My interests are in science, not pseudoscience.”

David Morrison
Interim Director, NASA Lunar Science Institute
Senior Scientist, NASA Astrobiology Institute
Cell phone 408 621 0237

Now, everybody is entitled to their opinion (and we all know what opinions are like, don’t we Dave?), but as usual, NASA does not respond with any substantive arguments on the evidence we present, they simply go to personal attacks as a reflexive response. As I put it in Dark Mission, mentioning Hoagland’s name around NASA elicits a reaction akin to what you get when you place a crucifix in front of vampire. After 30 years of this, you would think that NASA would have a better counter argument then simple name calling or easily rebutted mendacities.

You would think.

But that’s only if you buy their arguments that our work is “pseudoscience.”

As usual, Richard has better things to do than rebut such non-arguments, and frankly, so do I, but since this is my blog more than his I guess it falls to me to point out the obvious.

Again.

Let’s start with the “substance” of Morrison’s diatribe.

“I know Hoagland…” This is actually the only thing in Morrison’s response which is true. They do know each other, from over 30 years ago when Hoagland was covering NASA for CBS and the early years of the Voyager missions at JPL. A decent start, Dave.

“…and I also know that quite a few items in his bio are fiction…” Oh really? Do tell!

“…namely his references to working for NASA, working with Sagan, and talking at Ames.”
Okay, let’s take these “fictions” one by one, shall we? According to you, Dave, Richard never worked for NASA. I’m sure it benefits tossers like you tell people this, in the hopes of damaging Richard’s credibility or making yourselves look good, but it doesn’t really work as an argument for one simple reason: It’s a lie.



Here is Richard’s actual badge from his days working as a consultant at Goddard. You may notice it has a NASA logo emblazoned on it and says “NASA” about 87 times. It also says “GSFC,” which stands for “Goddard Space Flight Center. Last time I checked, that was a NASA facility. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

And yes, despite the 70’s porn-star ‘stache, I can testify that absolutely is a picture of my co-author. I’d recognize him anywhere.

How unfortunate for you Dave that he kept his old badge all these years. I wonder if it would still get him in the door?

Probably not.

It’s interesting you can “know” his claim of working for NASA is “fiction” when it’s quite obvious it is not. I wonder how many other things you think you “know” that you will turn out to be utterly clueless about?

Let’s find out.

Next, you claim that it is also fiction that he ever “working [ed] with Sagan.” Again, you haven’t quite got the story straight, Dave. Let’s see what Carl has to say about the whole thing.

Sagan says in his paper “A Message from Earth,” by Carl Sagan, Linda Salzman Sagan and Frank Drake, that the idea for the Pioneer plaque came from Hoagland and Eric Burgess. In fact the exact quote is:

"... the initial suggestion to include some message aboard Pioneer 10 was made by Eric Burgess and Richard Hoagland ..."

-- Carl Sagan, SCIENCE, 175 (1972) 881.

This paper can be found in any university journal library. A scan of the appropriate page can be found here.

Now, I suppose somebody as desperate (or ill informed) as you are Dave might try to argue that this somehow doesn’t constitute “working together,” but please. If the idea for one of Carl’s most significant accomplishments came from Hoagy, I think most reasonable people (this excludes expat and JimO) would beg to differ with you. And of course, Carl and Richard knew each other much better than that, having several conversations about Cydonia and the Face in various public forums, and they even spent time vacationing together on various science cruises in the 1970’s that were witnessed by hundreds of people.

And lest we forget, Carl saw fit to include a gratuitous money shot of Hoagland in his own Biography Channel Obit episode.


Now, as to the last part, that Richard never talked at Ames (meaning the NASA Ames Research Center in California), well, you’re sort of half right. He never did.

Of course, he’s never claimed he did, either. Ever. Anywhere. So no wonder you don’t think it’s true.

He did however speak at NASA-Lewis. That’s in Ohio, and it’s now called NASA-Glenn. Maybe you’ve heard of it?

It’s really hard for me to figure out how it can be “fiction” that he claimed he spoke at Ames, when he never made any such claim. But I realize you just work for NASA, and logic isn’t really a strong suit for you guys…

So that’s 3 for 3 that you have flat wrong Dave. It’s too bad that you then use your comedy of errors to justify hiding behind your desk instead of debating the issues.

“I would not want to stoop to ‘debate’ with him. My interests are in science, not pseudoscience.”

Translation: “He’s shredded waaaaay smarter guys than me on national TV before. I think I’ll just call him a name and then take my ball and run home. I don’t want to get anywhere near a substantive debate with this guy.”

Pretty smart move here Dave.

Really, Morrison displays the sort of institutional ignorance that permeates NASA at all levels. I could go on, but he’s not really worth my time. I shall pillory him no further.

I do have to say though, being called a “pseudoscientist” by a representative of a science agency that hasn’t noticed that Mars has obvious Tidal Bulges and continues to foist the junk science alarmist bilge of global arming on the public is pretty ripe. They even have to resort to falsifying the data to bolster their idiocy.

It would be kind of romantic to think that this was all part of some big conspiracy on NASA’s part to keep us out of the headlines, but that gives far too much credit to the likes of Morrison, IMO. I tend to think he’s just a garden variety useful idiot that parrots what he thinks he knows about us, while happily taking a salary from the most discredited government agency on the planet (and, given the state of our current government, that’s saying something).

Or, to paraphrase Ronaldus Maximus,

“It’s not that our NASA loving shills are ignorant, it’s just that they “know” so much that isn’t so.”

And yeah, I guess I did pillory him some more. But let’s face it, he was low hanging fruit…

34 comments:

  1. Different day, same tripe...

    As the evidence for life on Mars mounts-- methane plumes, etc.-- I would expect more of this sort of verbal methane to be released as a distraction.

    The question is, what kind of verbal methane is it? Volcanic or bacterial?

    I suspect it will turn out to be geological verbal methane, as there is no life at NASA.

    Peace,

    T'Zairis

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haha I absolutely just love those photos of RCH!

    Can we all take a moment to appreciate the suave of this man?

    Well done, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I personally like "No Anomaly Scene Airbrushed" the best.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This one is mine:

    No Adult Supervision Available

    Mike Griffen has GOT TO GO.

    OBAMA...LOOK UNDER THE HOOD !!!

    Also Kick the Tires at the DOD/DARPA/SWORD connections...also get rid of the Raytheon feller.

    Bob...:D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nuke Another Significant Anomaly ;-)

    "EMAIL98-04-19 09:22:13 EDT Remember the ship we lost a few years ago, (Observer) as it arrived in Mars orbit it just disappeared?...it was a nuke. It exploded 1500 feet above surface...it was supposed to remove the face and pyramids." - from Hidden Mission Forum

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry-I didn't know what to do with this:
    RCH and Hopi Prophecy-Getting closer?
    Shaking on space station rattles NASA
    Vigorous vibrations caught on video during orbital reboost last month

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28998876/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, it's clear to me I need to finish the new blog post... :)

    No more bad NASA puns please...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike Bara said...
    Okay, it's clear to me I need to finish the new blog post... :)

    No more bad NASA puns please...

    ---

    rhw007:

    Okay okay...but it is at least FUN for some of us kinda like Obama must feel like making up RNC puns since his "reaching out" in TRUE "bi-partianship" has only gotten him 0 for 59 so far. We've been at thins longer than he has and our YEARLY record is 33 yeasr this summer.

    But I promise no more long lists here. :D

    btw...to MG and T'Zaris thanks for the new ones :D count is 128 UNIQUE "puns" on the name. I'll keep compliling them because SOMEBODY should do it.

    Bob...:D

    ReplyDelete
  9. If science is defined by trying to come up with every possible explanation how everything is formed by nature, and not intelligent life creating consistent shapes and patterns, then indeed the world is flat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. david nineteenpointfive said...
    If science is defined by trying to come up with every possible explanation how everything is formed by nature, and not intelligent life creating consistent shapes and patterns, then indeed the world is flat.

    ------
    :APPLAUSE:

    REPEAT because It is what we see happen in the MEANSTREAM SCIENCE of "ACCREDIATION".

    Gil Levin will NEVER be recognized "officially" by NASA or MEANSTREAM SCIENCE, or MEDIA nor will Richard and Mike along with ANY of TEM's work be so "officially" recognized.

    And that is just plain wrong as the lone-gunman theory of the Warren Commision's "Lone Gunman" theory...it IS a FLAT world if we don't stop the hagiographers from writing history based on lies, agendas, and politcal expediance.

    Bob...:D

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maxthe knife, that's a reasonable question, and my response is that my activities on this theme have been so distorted and so misrepresented by partisans that I've decided all exchanges on the subject must be in written, verifiable form. I can't believe that Ken is unaware of these issues being raised. Why doesn't he respond on the record here?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well Jim, look at the bright side; at least they didn't compare you to Keith Olbermann...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Mike..in all kidding...but seriously I don't think Keith would have JimO on..even though it's still MSNBC...besides that's an insult to Keith. again imho

    HOWEVER...I am SURE MSNBC would "LOVE" to have a JimO vs Richard debate 10-15 min of some HONEST BRUTAL TRUTH discussions about NASA, images, and the Never A straight Answer agency.

    Sorry about using the 'original' NASA pun...but sometimes it's required for the point to sink in.

    Bob...:D

    ReplyDelete
  14. On February 6, 2009 6:27 AM JimO said Ken was an "E-5" (Lance Corporal). Not so, as an inactive Marine I know that Lance Corporals are E-3's, E-5's are Sergeants............keeping the record straight, at least in this regard

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frederick, thanks, in reviewing the documents from FOIA, Ken's official portrait (dated "7 Jan, 1964") lists him as L/CPL, but his official discharge papers state that on Aug 30, 1966, he was discharged at rank of CPL (E-4). Apparently in my statement that he attained the rank of E-5, I was exaggerating his record -- I withdraw that claim and apologize.

    Now, Frederick, have you ever known an E-4 to be a Marine fighter pilot? Ever?

    Have you ever heard anyone dismiss an official military 'Record of Service' as "innuendo"?

    How can we reconcile Bara's claim that Ken was a veteran jet fighter pilot, with the military records? I'm not interested in speculating about motives or character traits, just what can be established as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lol... When do we get to the part where you actually address the data?!

    Which, btw, JimO... is the HEART of the book!

    Oh yeah... and as Mike said in another thread... "There is that Face thingy too."

    I don't envy you the embarrassment you're going to suffer, JimO.

    Soon enough...

    ~~~Muahaha~~~

    ReplyDelete
  17. Max: "Isn't there some sort of an ethical breech there insofar as a responsible and unbiased journalist would be concerned?"

    Uh, Max, before you give lectures on journalistic ethics, have you noticed -- I haven't written anything for publication on this subject. You seem to be suggesting that in ALL my private communications I should follow a form that YOU think is proper for journalists -- even though you've surely noticed that when it comes to comments about me on this blog, those 'standards' are violated more than they are followed? Hence any pious lectures from you to ME just makes you look comically hypocritical, at least, perhaps, to some. You can see my complaints even at the end of 2007 about fantasy accusations about me and my motives and my actions, nasty stuff that still seems to have passed mike's standards.

    Can't we focus on what we can determine to be TRUE? And can't you see why some people posting here DON'T want that to happen?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am kind of curious how an enlisted Marine was a fighter pilot, if that is JimO's new assertion here. Still, seems to be a red herring for the real issues - those heavily documented thingies on the moon and Mars.

    ReplyDelete
  19. On February 9th JimO wrote:

    "Frederick, thanks, in reviewing the documents from FOIA, Ken's official portrait (dated "7 Jan, 1964") lists him as L/CPL, but his official discharge papers state that on Aug 30, 1966, he was discharged at rank of CPL (E-4). Apparently in my statement that he attained the rank of E-5, I was exaggerating his record -- I withdraw that claim and apologize.

    Now, Frederick, have you ever known an E-4 to be a Marine fighter pilot? Ever?"

    Yes, until the early to possibly mid-sixties there were still a few enlisted pilots left over from WWII and Korea. However, most of the guys I knew were senior enlisted personnel.

    In the late fifties enlisted Marines who qualified could enter the NavCad (Naval Air Cadet) program with less than four years of college. It is possible (although I can't confirm this) that those enlisted candidates approved for the NavCad (and later I believe MarCad) program carried some type of enlisted rank until they advanced through the Marine Officers basic course and later passed flight school by earning their wings and commissions as 2nd Lieutenants in Marine Aviation.

    I would think that accessing a former service persons military record would be quite difficult without permission of the individual or failing that presenting as a legal entity investigating a federal or local felony crime. With that I'm bowing out of this tug o' war but hope I answered your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Max: "Nice try, but this is a blog, you ARE a journalist, and this 'counts' as published material."

    You can't really believe that. Show me you do, by citing all your complaints to other posters (including published authors who almost made the NY Times Best Seller list -- envy, envy...) who filled these threads with venomous fabrications about me and my motives and my actions last year. Of course you never complained -- I'm the only one being held to these imaginary 'standards'.

    ...and you still dance and dodge around the questions of fact being discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I really want to understand JimO and I have to say that is hard. I spend a lot of time reading again and again his posts.

    So...regarding Ken Johnston.

    I don't care if Ken Johnston is a pilot or a limo driver. Why?

    JimO said

    "The ground zero of this line of exposition is that you portrey him as a man with the authority to purge the original Apollo image files, and claim he did so after being so ordered -- a clear case of major coverup."


    Lets pretend that Ken Johnston is the limo driver of director manager of the Data and Photo Control Department at NASA’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the manned Apollo Lunar Program.

    And in one night, when he stay in the car in the parking lot, the boss came to him and tell him

    - Ken, I need to ask you a favor...
    - Shoot boss!
    - Do you mind if you take this pile of paper and photos and go bag in the alley and burn them?
    - Eh...heh..so the private eye that your wife contract finally caught you last night with that dame?
    - What?
    - Ha! Ha! Ha!
    - No moron! Stop it! This is serious men!
    - Oh! Sorry sir!
    - Now, can I trust you?
    - What's in the documents?
    - Is not your damn business Ken. Just go and burn this.

    And Ken Johnston take the stuffs, find a dark corner in that parking lot and decided to burn those files.

    Let's say that he burn the documents but keep some photos that he find interesting.

    And after years he decided to pickup the phone and call George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and tell the world the truth

    You, JimO, you simply don't believe this man just because his a limo driver and not a US Navy Seal Officer, or to be more correct because his enrolled in MARCAD training, but do not have a certificate?

    What if instead of Ken Johnston it was Chuck Norris? Have you thought about that?

    :)

    Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.

    :)

    There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29134295/page/2/

    When the economy is in the red, can we justify spending even more billions into Mars exploration? Particularly after a handful of people have only had full access to the best information (see Dark Mission)? Hard to see money well spent, when you factor in the past returns to the public. I think NASA will have be more forthcoming with the artifact evidence it has had, and thus earn more dollars like everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sphinx: "What if instead of Ken Johnston it was Chuck Norris? Have you thought about that?"

    I did reply, but Mike apparently disallowed it. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't spike it. Try sending it again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. JimO,

    I've made my point. To put it mildly, you're ethically challenged. Until you're ready to look at and address ALL the data... IN CONTEXT, I shall waste no more energy on you.

    Mike,

    If it makes you feel any better, I saw potential in both candidates insofar as DM's subject matter is concerned. But the refelction I see of JFK in Obama was too great for me to ignore.

    That said, I know it may have taken me a while, but I haven't let you or the Professor down yet, have I? ;) Trust me... Have faith even... everything is going to change.

    Especially NASA.

    Because ultimately you are correct in that NASA funding would create a boom similar to that of a war time economy. Probably far more sustainable and useful too.

    One thing needs to happen first though...

    The Face.

    It is the only thing which can pull this world out of it's current economic crisis.

    The Face doesn't just mean something, it means everything.

    It is, "The Way, the Truth, and the Light".

    But you already know that, don't you, Mike? ;)

    So stop worrying then.

    Soon everybody will know.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mike Bara wrote:
    '[Carl and Richard] even spent time vacationing together on various science cruises in the 1970’s that were witnessed by hundreds of people.'


    I participated in the 'Voyage Beyond Apollo' launch cruise aboard the 'Statendam' due to a chance meeting with RCH a few months before. We had a fantastic view of the Launch of Apollo 17. Carl gave an inspirational talk while a slide dissolve unit showed his transparencies. That cruise was quite a gathering of space luminaries, and stands out to me as the best thing Hoagland was ever involved with. It has been said the 'Space Movement' was born there, now manifested in organizations like the NSS (http://ssi.org/), whose list of board members include some who were on that cruise.

    Bara also wrote:
    'And lest we forget, Carl saw fit to include a gratuitous money shot of Hoagland in his own Biography Channel Obit episode.'


    I was also in that auditorium at JPL at the same time. That was quite a moment.

    It seems unlikely that Carl had anything to do with the editing of that posthumous tribute...

    Don Davis

    ReplyDelete
  27. DD,

    That Biography appeared within a day or so of his death, and was already in the can, obviously. And Carl carefully guarded anything that had to do with his public persona. I tend to disagree with you on this. I think he was probably quite involved in the creation of his own TV epitaph.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just to be a stickler for verbal accuracy: David Morrison is not a 'pseudo-scientist'. He is a real scientist and he has the documentation and authentic work experience to prove it. Arguably he spoke carelessly and beyond the range of his reliable knowledge when he bad-mouthed Richard. His opinions, and factual foundation for them, are always subject to criticism, on this and any other subject, as I'm sure he would agree -- it's how real scientists operate, or are supposed to.

    But to repeat: perhaps unlike other names percolating around this debate, Morrison's own credentials as a true scientist are legit. He is not a 'pseudo-scientist' (we know of other potential candidates for that label) and to try to portray him as such is an ad hominem smear.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dear Donald

    Have you seen the photos taken from the Chandrayaan that have bean realesed to the media?

    I mean.....c'mon...there is not a huge difference from what we all see from the previous Apollo Mission.

    Is useless if Richard C. Hoagland or Mike point out some locations on the Moon or Mars. The thing is, so far, every agency that dealing with space research have strong conections with NASA, and as long that NASA keep us far away from the truth, give us even now BLACK & WHITE photos from Mars or diff satellites from the solar system, many of the color photos have been re-adjusted so Mars still going to look RED
    ESA, the European Space Agency, that give us the most poor black & white photos that I ever see, from Rosetta in September last year.

    Not to mention the camera failure...error recevig data, unknown errors, camera malfunctions and after a few minutes by magic the cameras geting back....and so on..

    There r so many examples...I don't want to copy/paste all the enterprisemission web page here.

    So, my dear Donald, I admire your work, I'm an artist to, I love drawing and do animation but you still have an innocence even at your age and I find that kinda cute. Do you really think that soon as Mike point out a place on the Moon, the next day all the space agency, or lets say only one, one space agency come up and tell us:

    LOOK FOLKS! WE FOUND STRUCTURE ON THE MOON!

    Peace!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yeah, LRO, a mission run by NASA. Riiiiiiight.

    I trust that about as much as I trust Lunar Orbiter data being "processed" by Jim Oberg and his pals.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Your latest delusional fantasy has lost me, again. Since when have I -- or any of my "pals" -- ever been involved in processing Lunar Orbiter data? In your dreams?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think Mike is playing a magician that can see in the future.

    LRO will launch in April ( that if all the thing will go OK ) and you, James Oberg, will be invited on NBC as a space consultant, and you gonna tell us how the structures that is on the TV screen is not actually structures, but large volcanic mass of stone forming a cliff...you know...stuff like that.

    :)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.