Deep Impact--Desperate Delays

[Celebration]

Anyone listen to Richard Hoagland on Coast to Coast last night? His theories are most entertaining. It seems to me that he has a real point this time, unless I am missing something. Why hasn't the spectra data been released on our impact with the comet? The only thing released have been a few photos from earth--nothing from the fly by spacecraft. Why would NASA be hiding something? The spectra data would apparently tell us the makeup of the comet--is it a dirty snowball, or is it more like an asteroid? Since we (the taxpayers) paid for this mission, shouldn't we have access to the data?

http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm

Anyway, our science reporting seems to be about on a par with political reporting--. Apparently after saying they got sharp images from the fly by spacecraft, they are now saying they are blurry--AND trying to put it up for sale (after withholding raw data???)

Hoagland may not be wholly reliable and may connect dots that aren't actually there, and I may be missing something, but he seems to have a really good point.

[MrBenchley]

1. Richard "Face on Mars" Hoagland?

Uh-HUH.

[Celebration]

2. Sure

He's out there. But let's comment on the message here, rather than the messenger. Why do we have nothing but three photographs taken from earth? Why no data or photos from the fly by craft? First they said they were getting clear images, then blurry, not to mention all the other data supposedly collected. Did this vanish into thin air? Why are we not entitled to see it? All this secrecy only INVITES conspiracy theories. Release the data and let the chips fall where they may.

[MrBenchley]

3. When the messenger is a crackpot, why waste time on the message?

"Why do we have nothing but three photographs taken from earth?"
Because that's all Hoagland is telling you there are?

If you want to read the data, I suggest you hop in a time machine, get a degree in astrophysics and get a job at JPL so you'd be on staff now...or you could wait a couple of months and read some peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

[Celebration]

4. in a couple of months

I assmume that in two months if we still do not have the data you will change your tune? I don't see any reason not to release it now. They could release it and write their articles about it whenever they wanted. This was funded by the PUBLIC. Richard Hoagland deserves the data. I deserve the data. You deserve the data-- as does every taxpayer. It has nothing to do with degrees, but everything to do with ownership.

[MrBenchley]

51. Richard Hoagland deserves nothing but well-earned contempt

"You deserve the data-- as does every taxpayer. It has nothing to do with degrees, but everything to do with ownership."
I wouldn't know what to do with raw telemetry...and I doubt anybody who listens to Hoagland would either.

"They could release it and write their articles about it whenever they wanted."
And then Hoagland would lie about it, and a bunch of gullible pinheads would get their panties in a bunch.

[Pepperbelly]

5. That is a rather odd point of view ...

Because you believe Hoagland to be a crackpot, the public should not have access to data for which we paid? Note, JPL didn't pay for it nor the peer-reviewed journals. Why do you favor a JPL monopoly on the data that we paid for?

[MrBenchley]

50. Jeeze, nothing so odd about it...

It's called "science"...

"the public should not have access to data"
You mean the public that believes the crap Richard Hoagland ladles out? Jeeze, in that case make up some "data"--it's what that loony does to fit his case.

[Pepperbelly]

65. If the public ...

paid for it, why are some more equal than others in access?

Seems like a simple enough question without you resorting to ad hominem and red herrings.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

72. Perhaps there are other things ...

that you don't understand. Clearly it is the case, based on what you write. BTW, such snark is not uncommon on the internets but it hardly speaks to our actual level of testosterone, does it?

I would think that you would at least attempt to keep a civil tongue in your head but perhaps, after reading your posts over these years, I was mistaken.

[MrBenchley]

74. Sure doesn't seem like I'm missing anything...

You're trying to pretend that one of America's most ridiculous crackpots should be taken seriously, and failing badly.

"I would think that you would at least attempt to keep a civil tongue in your head"
Life's too short and its too much fun jeering at gullible "seekers."

[Pepperbelly]

78. like you said before ...

internet tough guys are a dime a dozen.

I can't help but wonder how much whining you would do if similarly barbed jeers were thrown at you. The alerts would be flying.

[MrBenchley]

81. Gee, if you don't want to get jeered at...

don't align yourself with a clown like Hoagland...

I can't help but wonder how somebody dopey enough to fall for Hoagland's pantload draws the line? You seem to think he's on to something with the face on Mars and this dopey plot...do you think the rest of his gibberish is also aces?

How about el Chupacabree the goat sucker? Noah's ark on top of Mt. Ararat? The creationist Institute's talking dinosaurs?

[Pepperbelly]

83. I haven't advocated any position ...

unlike you, I am not left defending a position in this matter. What I despise are the self appointed keepers of the knowledge, those arrogant, generally undereducated buffoons who throw rocks at everything outside their comfort zone. It is also amusing to observe their sophistry and reliance upon the very rhetorical devices that they claim to dislike in others.

And yes, I intend to call THEM on it with as much vigor as I can command commensurate with my level of interest in the matter at the time.

[MrBenchley]

87. That IS rich...

"What I despise are the self appointed keepers of the knowledge, those arrogant, generally undereducated buffoons who throw rocks at everything outside their comfort zone."
What I despise are people with no actual knowledge and a big pantload of self-importance. Funny how that works, isn't it?

"I intend to call THEM on it with as much vigor as I can command"
Keep up the good work...I'm finding this thread as much fun as the zoo....

[Pepperbelly]

88. of course you do ...

it is apparent.

on edit, as I reviewed your posts, you have contributed nothing past namecalling on this thread. How old are you anyway?

[MrBenchley]

91. Old enough to know horseshit when it's being peddled

by a charlatan like Hoagland. I'm even to old to send people really stupid private messages.

"you have contributed nothing past namecalling on this thread"
Actually, I told the original poster how and where to find out all he wanted to know about the Comet Probe....and he seems not to care about the actual science, other than to whine about how little he understands it. Go figure that.

[Pepperbelly]

actually ... no ...

you have sent your share.

[MrBenchley]

98. I gave your PM the reply it deserved...

Now go cry about it to Art Bell...

[Ian David]

116. Pseudo-Science is in the eye of the beholder

Who are scientists to say what is scientific and what isn't?

There are real, unexplained phenomenon out there that are truly amazing.

For example, there are still people who do not believe that cats intentionally create art:

Amazing Phenomenon! Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics
Topic started by IanDB1 on Jul-16-05 09:56 PM (69 replies)
Last modified by IanDB1 on Jul-18-05 06:41 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3664593

[MrBenchley]

118. No, pseudoscience is in the mind of the sucker....

"There are real, unexplained phenomenon out there that are truly amazing."
Cats trying to wipe paint off their paws don't seem all that amazing to me...or particularly unexplained.

[Caution]

6. Because that's the way NASA has *always* operated

Seriously people just because some guy who has been making money hand over fist for decades on the gullibility of those who want to believe in the "supernormal" "paranormal", etc says that NASA is "witholding" doesn't actually make it so. This guy is playing on people's fears and natural superstitions in order to make a buck. This has been the modus operandi of C2C guests for a very very long time. Why people listen to this show as anything f=other than a means of entertainment is beyond me.

[Celebration]

7. it is VERY entertaining

First and foremost. Secondly, do you actually *listen* to it? No, not regularly, obviously. They have a wide variety of guests, including a number of visits by Michio Kaku and others with lots of conventional credentials.

Again, though, you are mixing the message with the messenger. It doesn't really matter who Richard Hoagland is, what he thinks, how you feel about him, or what type of show Coast to Coast is. If NASA is not "withholding" data, then where is it? WHERE IS IT? If they always operate in secrecy, it is time they stop. Richard Hoagland would make a lot less money (that seems to be your goal?) when we have open access to publically funded data. Conspiracy theorists thrive in an environment of secrecy, and those who wish for Hoagland's financial resources to dwindle should certainly want the data to be released. Personally, I want the data because I paid for it, and don't give a flip what is in Hoagland's bank account.

[Caution]

8. I listen to it nearly every day actually

I find most subjects to be quite hilarious. Give me a break. Not releasing data is NOT the same thing as withholding data. Give me one single good reason why they would actually be actively withholding? And btw ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? It's a arather interesting story about the messenger versus the message. Credibility is a very important thing, ESPECIALLY in scientific circles. I think I'll take my news regarding science from a reputable source over the laugh-fest that is coast to coast.

[Celebration]

9. Not releasing vs. withholding

The effect is the same, isn't it? I can think of NO GOOD REASON why they would either withhold it or not release it. Can you? Why leave us to speculate? We PAID for it. Release it, already.

[Caution]

10. Here's a free lesson

Scientific data from the Deep Impact mission includes many gigabytes of data. That data has been sent to the University of maryland for analysis. Release of raw data doesn't actually generally occur from these missions. This is a red herring designed to make you ask "why gee, Mr. Hoagland has a point!, maybe I should buy one of his books!"

Once the data has been analyzed (over a period of MONTHS and probably years, not two damned weeks)., their analysis will then be sent on for peer review and finally published in scientific journals. The data that NASA believed would be of interest to the public immediately was released 9the spectaular photos). NASA has also spoken publicly about some of the interesting findings that have occurred to this point. Additionally gigabytes more data frmo this experiment wais also being analyzed from the observations of the Swift X-Ray telescope at Penn State University, as well as data from an observation post in Italy and in the UK.

So you are demanding that as much as 20GB of raw data be released to the public immediately so you can start analyzing it? have you ever seen raw data from these types of telescopes? Do you have an advanced degree in astrophysics and a spare supercomputer lying around with the appropriate programming required to actually create any kind of coherent alaysis of this data? Are you then going to write up your finidings, send them on to other astrophysicists for review?

Have you actually done any reading on this subject since you listened to that complete worthless hack Mr. Hoagland? Here are some places to do some reading about this supposed withholding:

http://www.physorg.com/news5042.html

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Swift-Deep-Impact.htm

http://gtn.sonoma.edu/public/news/07_06_05.php

and the coup de grace, an actual release of data above and beyond that which Hoagland claims was released. A guy who makes his living off this stuff couldn't be bothered to find information that I found in 5 minutes worth of google research:

http://www.physorg.com/news5059.html

A quote from that article:
""The major surprise was the opacity of the plume the impactor created and the light it gave off," said Deep Impact Principal Investigator Dr. Michael A'Hearn of the University of Maryland, College Park. "That suggests the dust excavated from the comet's surface was extremely fine, more like talcum powder than beach sand. And the surface is definitely not what most people think of when they think of comets -- an ice cube." "

[Celebration]

11. So NASA decides

What is of public interest and what is not? I would like to see the pictures from the flyby--no matter how blurry or clear. Anything paid for by the public should be in the public domain. I don't want only information that is filtered.

From the website--

"Expectations for Deep Impact's flyby spacecraft were exceeded during its close brush with the comet. The craft is more than 3.5 million kilometers (2.2 million miles) from Tempel 1 and opening the distance at approximately 37,000 kilometers per hour (23,000 miles per hour). The flyby spacecraft is undergoing a thorough checkout, and all systems appear to be in excellent operating condition."

If the expectations from the flyby were exceeded, they must have some tremendous images. Where are they? I am a partial owner. Point me to these images and I will shut up.

[Caution]

12. Explain to me where this animosity to NASA comes from

Then I'll be satisfied. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Hubble images out there. We see the merest fraction of them, the most amazing ones. When NASA states that something has exceeded expectations does not mean that the images are actually "tremendous" from the standpoint of the lay person. In fact most of the images are x-ray images of a dust cloud. I pointed you to one image that hadn't been released previously but you apparently ignored that one. Have you any idea of the expense that would be incurred by hosting 4500+ images (and this is just the X-Ray telescope images, there aer another three tlescopes that were trained on this event) and then allowing them to be downloaded by every lay person out there who gets nothign out of it except some bizarro satisfaction out of ensuring that NASA is giving them everything?

There would be no benefit to society, to public accountability, or to science from simply throwing everything up. By the way, the images are only a small portion of thee total data, do you want to see it all? Why? Because you have some grudge against NASA?

Answer me one simple question. If NASA is actually withholding the information as you and the inimitable Hoagland allege, WHY ARE THEY DOING IT? Seriously, what do you think this data shows? It's a comet. It's a big giant ball of junk hurtling through space in an elliptical orbit around the sun. What could NASA poossibly be hiding? Give me some reason why you think this is happening.

Please explain to me why this matters? Do you seriously think that NASA isn't held accountable? NASA is second only to the NEA in terms of constantly having to justify their budget. This comet project was one that had to be fought for tooth and nail because it ould only advance science with virtually no commerical benefit coming from the mission. The right-wing fought it because they don't want the government to be sponsoring missions which continue to undermine the position of the religious right on the origins of the universe. I suggest that rather than whinge about something you clearly have no real knowledge of that you go out and educate yourself regarding the funding processes behind NASA and the standard opertaing procedure around the data. It's been two damned weeks fer crissakes! Have you checked out the Mars rover information recently? Do you seriously think that all of the data from that mission has been thrown out into the public? Well guess what it hasn't. Do yo know why? No it isn't because they are hiding something, it is because the general public ISN'T INTERESTED except in the case of a few people who think NASA is hiding something. The data is utterly USSELESS to you and ˆ because we couldn't hope to actually understand it and the expense of making it available is better spent on actually funding the analysis of the data.

[Celebration]

13. how would I know

Why they aren't releasing images from the flyby? For all I know it is so the right wing won't be pissed off by whatever it shows. Haha. Who knows? I am a little ticked off at NASA for sure-- I think the shuttle is a waste of money for one thing. Keep Hubble and drop the shuttle. And, not to beat a dead horse, but can't they get beyond the bullet points in power point presentations? (IIRC Power Point was given as an excuse for the Columbia disaster--I CHOKED ON THAT). Then there are little errors like not meshing feet and inches with the metric system. It doesn't matter if I can use the data or not-- it should be available to anyone who wants it or requests it. Now here is a question, is it subject to the Freedom of Information Act? I honestly don't know. Could people get the data and images if they filed a lawsuit?

By the way justifying budgets has very little to do with scientific merit and everything to do with politics.

If someone has some sort of crackpot conspiracy theory about why images aren't released, they cheapest and easiest way to combat that is to release them-- and it shuts the person up!! That is the best and only way to deal with crackpot theories.

Of course I feel the same about Sept. 11. Release the information about the put options and it will shut a lot of people up. That's fine with me.

[Caution]

14. I'll just leave it here.

You obviously have no interest in education yourself about this and if you think the shuttle is useless you clearly have no idea what NASA actually uses the shuttle for and clearly have no idea to just what a degree sceience and the betterment of mankind on so many levels has been advanced by the shuttle program. And you comment about powerpoint shows a clear ignorance of the facts (not to mention the bit about inches/metric system). Ever hear the term "rocket science" it's usually used to convey that the science is incredibly difficult...well that meaning is pretty accurate. {People make mistakes all the time. I'm done with this argument. feel free to jump in and get the last word. Please also feel free to call me "closed minded" to label me as a kool-aid drinker and to say that clearly I'm just allowing myself to be fooled by the government's nefarious plans.

[Celebration]

16. last word

I didn't make up the Powerpoint thing--far too surreal for me-

http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000Rs&topic_id=1

The shuttle has been useful but again I am not the only person saying that unmanned voyages would be a better way to spend money, particularly when they won't be fixing Hubble.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078104/

But look what I found? Apparently there may be money for Hubble after all. If the shuttle is needed for that, then go for it (just watch out for those powerpoint presentations)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nasa23jul23,1,563611.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

[Pepperbelly]

17. self delete nt

[beam me up scottie]

20. Too late.

nt

[Pepperbelly]

21. who rang your bell?

[beam me up scottie]

24. I'm glad I read it.

Explains a lot.

[Pepperbelly]

26. not to you ...

nothing explains anything to you.

[MrBenchley]

52. "It doesn't really matter who Richard Hoagland is"

Considering you're the one who brought him up, it seems to matter to you.

"Richard Hoagland would make a lot less money (that seems to be your goal?) when we have open access to publically funded data."
And he'd make even less if gullible idiots didn't try to pretend his nonsense was anything but nonsense.

[Igel]

15. I've known astrophysics grad students at UCLA that

had jobs processing old data and worked them into dissertations and paper. Sometimes the data were years old. They'd produce stunning images of CO2 or CH4 gradients, emission lines from H+ in a certain nebula. (BTW, "stunning" is a highly sarcastic word here.)

Sometimes they'd take weeks or months to produce a couple of useful images; sometimes the data would be bad, sometimes it would be irrelevant to what they were after, sometimes it would take a while until they figured out how to factor in calibration or approach the data with the right kind of analysis to separate out the noise from the useful data. (Keeping in mind that 'useful' presumes a 'use'.) I had a several hour discussion with a neighbor concerning one picture he was producing--what colors would make the most spectacular picture (since everything was infrared, and he needed to select a false color palette, he wanted to produce the maximum impact on looky-lous at the conference, while preserving the actual scientific value of the graphics).

Images that were visually impressive--eye candy, in other words--would get released from their research. Sometimes it would take a while, for somebody else to make sure they were accurate. But usually these are to science what Pepsi is to nutrition or a pretty new variety of rose is to serious plant genetics. Their use is to get people going "ooh" and "aah", "let's give NASA more money to provide neat public domain pictures for posters."

The truly stunning findings can take a while to come up with; and they usually a bit of explaining, even within the astrophysics community. Frequently they're color images, but boring looking; sometimes they're numbers or graphs.

As for releasing all the data from this kind of thing ... it would be a waste of time and bandwidth, on the one hand. Then again, almost anybody that can prove they have a use for some specific data can get in line: but what you don't want is some researcher to get assigned data for processing, have him farm it out to a student, and then nine months later find out that somebody else got the same data and already has his processed data published.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. this astro grad thanks you for your thorough explanation!

Thanks!

You're exactly right: the people who have first access to mission data are the ones who spent countless hours writing science proposals and are among the few percent whose ideas get funded. And to reach the point of being able to write a successful proposal, they've gone through at least nine years of schooling after high school and have likely had a series of low-paying, no-benefits postdoctoral positions all over the world.

Data from these missions are always released to the public at some point, typically a year after they're collected. To do so any sooner would be grossly unfair to the people who pour their lives into getting the data, analyzing it, and publishing the results.

To all you armchair conspiracy nuts in this thread and elsewhere, here's the Hubble data archive:

http://archive.stsci.edu/hst

And here's Chandra's:

http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda

I'm eagerly awaiting for a post where someone presents evidence of some massive NASA coverup based on their forays into the public archives. If you need help manipulating FITS cubes, just pm me; I have some decent routines.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I was hoping you'd show up.

Philip Plait, the astronomer who created the website Bad Astronomy has quite a bit of information on Hoagland and his particular brand of pseudoscience:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html

Let me add this, because it's pertinent: years ago, when I wrote my page debunking the Moon Hoax, Hoagland wrote his own page. Amazingly, to me, he also debunked the Hoax, saying the Apollo landings were real! In fact, his debunking is quite excellent and thorough, and, I'll point out, even corrected a mistake I had on my own Moon Hoax page! Since he appears to hate NASA so much, and has stretched the truth in the past, his debunking was shocking to me.

But then I realized why: he claims that alien bases exist on the Moon, and uses NASA imagery to "prove" it. So he was really stuck: he had to support NASA on his page, because if he said the Moon landings were faked, how would he have those pictures he'd been touting? The irony of that situation is delicious to me. One of NASA's biggest detractors, forced by his own nonsense into supporting them.

Richard C. "Face on Mars" Hoagland

And you know what? I've let this fester long enough. This kind of pseudoscience is like a virus. At low levels, it's no big deal, but when it reaches a certain threshold it becomes sickening. I don't think Hoagland has reached the level of, say, the Moon Hoax, but he might someday if ignored. I run a risk here of actually giving him the press he clearly wants so desperately, but it's also a risk to ignore his nonsense, again like the Moon Hoax.

And let me be very clear here: Hoagland's claims are insulting. I really don't like it when the devotion and hard work of scientists is unfairly impugned. These scientists are people who are doing what they do because they love it. I get irritated when the subject I love -- astronomy -- is abused, and Hoagland is indeed treating it in an ugly manner. He has the right to say such things (up until it becomes fraud), but I also have the right, and the necessity, to show where he's wrong.

Introduction to Hoagland's Claimed Credentials:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html

[Pepperbelly]

22. I read his material ...

he's a bullshit artist. He and Hoagland should double date.

[beam me up scottie]

23. No, he's a scientist. But I understand why you're confusing the two.

First, yes, I am a real live astronomer (when people ask me what astronomers do, I tell them "They astronom!"). My name is Philip Plait and I work at the physics and astronomy department at Sonoma State University, a member of the California State University system. The campus is about 60 kilometers north of San Francisco. I am currently working on a NASA-sponsored public outreach program for a satellite named GLAST (Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope). I just started this job in December of 2000 and I am very excited to be a part of such a great program to educate people about high-energy astronomy. Let me state here that I am not a NASA employee, and anything I say, pretty much ever, is not the official word from NASA! I always speak for no one but myself.

I spent many years as a research astronomer and programmer supporting other astronomers' work (and I still do this a bit now). In my last position, at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center I worked on the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). I help calibrate STIS, which means I analyzed test images taken by STIS and figured out how well it was working. I also did some actual science with STIS, which means I also got to analyze actual observations of astronomical objects. So far I have helped analyze the first ever brown dwarf discovered (a brown dwarf is an object that is too small to be a star but too big to be a planet), and also helped analyze images and spectra taken of a star that blew up in 1987, called Supernova 1987A (you can read my web page about that). I have also worked on data taken of asteroids, quasars, galaxies, normal stars, dying stars, and stars being born.

I received my PhD in astronomy at the University of Virginia in 1994. While there, I helped teach introductory astronomy classes and for three years (six semesters) I ran a nighttime lab where students used binoculars and telescopes to observe the sky. I wrote several of the exercises for that lab, which helped me learn how to communicate difficult astronomical techniques to people unfamiliar with the jargon. UVa also has an observatory located a few kilometers away from campus, and twice a year would hold Public Nights so people could come and look through the telescopes. I usually volunteered to stay outside the dome and answer questions people had about astronomy. The bug to teach basic astronomy to the public got a hold of me during those nights.

http://www.badastronomy.com/info/whois.html

[Pepperbelly]

27. just another bullshit artist ...

If PhDs impress you, perhaps you are very young.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

28. Enlighten us, O wise one!

So, Plait's a bullshit artist. Why is that, exactly?

[Pepperbelly]

30. Did you read the material at the link?

Do you require having a picture drawn for you?

Specious, sophomoric and at times, just plain silly. I know that he refuses to meet Hoagland face to face in a discussion. Perhaps he wouldn't want to defend them in person. Hoagland is a formidable debater. I suspect that he would make Plait cry for his mama. In addition, his criticisms which just lends credence to the fact that the internet allows people who are ordinarily polite in conversation to become shrill and confrontational when posting from the safety of their homes.

He cannot perpetuate it in person because the object of his scorn can not only support his own position but point out the problems in that of Plait.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

33. Gosh, I didn't know debate skills made you automatically right.

Come on.

Hoagland's a "formidable debater." Yeah, uh-huh. Whatever you say, man. I swear, all that high-school debate and "formal logic" courses you bleat so proudly about have warped your mind.

More to the point, you don't explain why Plait is a bullshit artist. To be a bullshit artist, he ought to be selling bullshit. So, what out of Phil Plait's arguments can you call false? Take your time...

[Pepperbelly]

35. Read the part on glass worms ...

that's silly enough for even you to see. Read it or not, think about it or not, i don't care. Convincing you is not a priority for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Well, I've read it, and Plait sounds a lot more scientific

than Hoagland. Where's the bullshit?

[Pepperbelly]

56. LOL

"Sounds"?

Is that your criteria?

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. All I've got to go on are their words

so, yes, 'sounds' is what I go on. Would you rather I used tarot cards?

You described Plait's page as 'bullshit', when it looks like a true explanation of the pictures. Hoagland, on the other hand, just seems to say they're made of glass, without any reasoning, and claims "the arches are regularly spaced, nearly identical in length and breadth", when they are clearly not. Hoagland loses.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Why should he debate that batshit loon ?

That would be like Stephen Hawking debating Sylvia Browne.

[Bill McBlueState]

29. I've met Plait

He's a cool guy. It's rare to find someone who has such a gift for explaining science but also understands the day to day realities of research. I met him at a AAS (American Astronomical Society) meeting in Atlanta. Like a lot of web personalities, people tend not to recognize him, but he has a lot of respect among research astronomers.

To hear him summarily dismissed as a "bullshit artist" is laughable.

[Pepperbelly]

31. His material speaks for itself.

Did you read it?

I certainly did. Laughable.

Perhaps he should stick to tuning spectroscopes.

[Celebration]

32. Yes he is erudite

I actually like listening to him. I wish he would debate Hoagland. But you know how Rove said that he didn't "out" Valerie Plame because he didn't even know her name? But it reminds me a little of Plait. So Hoagland goes on C to C and talks about two NASA scientists talking about methane on Mars at an informal meeting. Then Plait debunks this..................HOW?? He says it wasn't a meeting but a party!!

I mean, you gotta love that "debunking"--which had to do with how you characterize the setting of the discussion. That is no way no how any kind of major debunking. He is first and foremost a professional debunker. Not knocking it-- we need those types, but he has an agenda--some would call that "bs artist." It all has to do with "framing the discussion."

[beam me up scottie]

38. No, he does a lot more than debunk.

Again, check out his itinerary.

What debate? Science trumps woo woo beliefs by itself.

Besides, anybody who believes Hoagland cannot be reached by logic and reason, they need medication and therapy and that still might not be enough.

[Celebration]

25. I love the face on Mars!!

Someone watching over us!! Are you kidding?

Edited to add an even better picture--

Edited to take it out since it didn't show up in the final post

Plait is the one who refuses to debate Hoagland, right? Now THAT I would tune into. Seems like Plait thinks he has a ton of material on Hoagland. Bring it on!! What is he afraid of? Seems he did agree to debate some nutcase Hale Bopp type. I think they should at least debate, if not double date.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Why should he debate him ?

Did you look at his itinerary ?

Besides, anybody who believes Perfesser Woo Woo would never listen to an actual scientist.

[Celebration]

40. why not?

Plait debated that nutcake Planet X person. He should be able to make mincemeat of Hoagland if he is as bizarre as you say. Hoagland takes a lot of chances with his speculations--funny thing, he often turns up right!! So the debunking takes another form-- the party vs. the meeting, was Hoagland the "first" to theorize a sea on Mars and life on Mars and does he "claim" that--all this instead of the more logical way to frame the debate-- is there life on Mars and did Hoagland predict it before most others? Don't get me wrong-- I think Hoagland is way out there, very entertaining, more intuitive than scientific, wildly enthusiastic, sincere, but at the same time self promoting. Plait would have a very tough time with him. I think he should debate him because I would like to listen!!

[beam me up scottie]

41. Have you been to Hoagland's website ?

He's a professional woo woo !
You think that people pay attention to him because his predictions are sometimes right ? Is that why psychic hotlines are so popular, because they're accurate ?

This clown may be popular but he's a laughingstock.

The only reason Plait debunks some of his ideas is because he believes that pseudo-science is dangerous.

And a lot of scientists agree with him.

Do some reading about his Hyperdimensional Sumatra Earthquake and
Hyperdimensional Hurricanes. I won't even call them theories because they're not worthy of that term.

[Celebration]

42. I like pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is fun and necessary. Debunkers are un-fun and necessary. I prefer fun. I just love to poke fun at the establishment I guess-- be it government, religious, scientific. People take themselves too seriously. The outrageous is attractive. All this rationalism stuff makes no sense to me. Nothing in the world seems rational. So this scientific nonsense is trying to fit a square peg in a round box-- plus add a few dimensions. If scientific rationalism is your thing, though, go for it!! Keep in mind though-- THE FIX IS IN!! People pay attention to Hoagland because he is passionate and articulate and willing to take risks. It is refreshing. Very few people these days are risk takers--ooooh, it might destroy a CAREER.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Thank you.

I understand perfectly.

[MrBenchley]

54. Why is pseudoscience "necessary"

Because without it uninformed people might still have nickels buring holes in their pockets?

"The outrageous is attractive."
In that case, go to a transvestite bar....

"All this rationalism stuff makes no sense to me."
Sigh.

[Celebration]

55. scifi, pseudosci

Speculation, whatever you want to call it. Changes in science all begin as speculation. Some of it works out and much of it doesn't. Lots of pseudosci going on in Einstein's brain before he published anything. We need scientific dreamers even more than we need the debunkers. Without the speculators, we are stuck. When we have things like superstring theory not working without something like eleven dimensions, the implications are absolutely mind boggling, and mechanistic rationalism based on linear thinking makes zero sense to me.

[MrBenchley]

60. Sicence fiction is fiction, pseudoscience is a con game

"Changes in science all begin as speculation."
Yeah, and there's a sucker born every minute...

"Lots of pseudosci going on in Einstein's brain before he published anything."
Bullshit. Everything Einstein did was grounded in science.

"When we have things like superstring theory not working without something like eleven dimensions, the implications are absolutely mind boggling, and mechanistic rationalism based on linear thinking makes zero sense to me."
But a babbling imbecile like Hoaglund does...ho-kay.

[Celebration]

67. linear thinking

I supposed EVERYONE before Einstein began publishing just AUTOMATICALLY knew that time was relative, right? The second that he thought of it, totally grounded in science--not speculative at all. Give me a BREAK.

[MrBenchley]

70. No, actual thinking, as opposed to desperate gibberish...

Einstien had a grounding in scientific principles and his work was an extension of what had gone before...

"In recounting his discovery of special relativity, Einstein recalled a debt to the philosophical writings of Hume and Mach. I review the path Einstein took to special relativity and urge that, at a critical juncture, he was aided decisively not by any specific doctrine of space and time, but by a general account of concepts that Einstein found in Hume and Mach’s writings."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002149/

"Give me a BREAK."
Get a clue.

[Celebration]

76. You know what they say about hindsight?

By the way very cool that his creative thinking process derived from philosophical writing. BTW, I am NOT comparing Hoagland to Einstein. We need a whole LOT of people guessing, and guessing wrong. We need people making leaps, based not just on equations but on intuition, and yes, on philosophical writing. What's the matter with conjecture, and what is the matter with being wrong? A person who only says things that turn out to be correct is taking no risks and is bound by the already known. The problem would only be if someone claims that something is PROVEN true when it isn't. Even then it's not all that great of a problem because there are zillions of people waiting to jump on him/her. Hoagland may strongly believe that there is a face on Mars and want to investigate it. So what? Does he say it is proven? I don't think so. It's ok to be wrong-- it really, really is. Well, maybe not in academia. That's another story altogether.

[Pepperbelly]

79. thank you ...

very perceptive.

These self-appointed "keepers of the knowledge" crack me up. Trying to safeguard their positions as rigorously as temple priests back in the day.

[MrBenchley]

80. I know what they say about one being born every minute...

"We need a whole LOT of people guessing"
Be sure and call Art Bell...he neesds more guesses about Chupaabree the goat sucker...

"Hoagland may strongly believe that there is a face on Mars and want to investigate it. So what?"
No skin off my nose if you want to tag along with his crackpot crusade. Just don't be surprised when people start jeering at the spectacle presented..

"It's ok to be wrong-- it really, really is."
Good thing you feel that way.

[Celebration]

82. suggestion

Try thinking out of the box sometime. It can be a wild ride.

[MrBenchley]

85. Here's an out of the box suggestion...

Try not to be such a chump...

[Pepperbelly]

43. because he is afraid ...

and because he is a bullshit artist.

Period.

It's easy to ridicule someone from the safety of your bedroom. It is entirely different to face them in public.

[MrBenchley]

61. Because Hoagulnd is a waste of time

which is why he appeals to the Art Bell tinfoil hat crowd...

[Pepperbelly]

63. whatever ...

speculation on the part of both of us.

You say waste of time, I say he's yellow. Whatever.

[MrBenchley]

66. Not speculation on my part...

Plait is an actual stronomer; Hoaglund's "career" consists of wrestling nickels from the very very stupid in exchange for gibberish.

[Pepperbelly]

69. old chestnuts roasting on an open fire ...

Plait should've stuck to tuning instruments and stayed away from critical writing. I only hope that he tunes with more intelligence than he writes. It is a very easy thing to mock something from home, descend to ad hominem and make leaps of logic that would embarass most people. It is entirely another thing to do so face to face.

I don't blame Plait. Hoagland is an accomplished speaker who would no doubt light a fire under him for those very things. No one likes to be embarassed in public. I submit, however, if Plait has big enough mouth to assert it from the safety of his basement, then he should have enough balls to do so in a public forum when the object of his scorn has an opportunity to defend himself.

[MrBenchley]

75. When something's as stupid and silly as Hoaglund's writings

It's easy to mock it from everywhere...

"Hoagland is an accomplished speaker"
Yeah, he's practically co-host of Art Bell's nightly nutfest...

"I submit, however, if Plait has big enough mouth to assert it from the safety of his basement, then he should have enough balls to do so in a public forum"
I think there's nothing so funny as an internet tough guy....

"the object of his scorn has an opportunity to defend himself"
Gee, what a shame Hoaglund doesn't have a website, or guest appearances on a radio show, or a bunch of disciples howling giberish about his claims.

[Celebration]

71. and that should give him

the edge in a debate? Plait should do quite well--oh, until he starts making distinctions like "party" vs. "informal meeting."

[MrBenchley]

73. Again, why waste time on a "debate"?

Who but the desperately screwloose actually thinks there's a face on Mars...or that there's a secret tunnel being dug under the Great Pyramid, or any of the other idiotic gibberish he peddles to Art Bel fans.

[Celebration]

77. to reach the group and convert them

Plait goes on the show all the time-- he doesn't seem to feel it is a waste of time, like you. He just refuses to be on the same show with Hoagland. He may have a good reason but the reason obviously isn't time.

[MrBenchley]

84. Again, why waste the time...

It's clear that you and the other "seeker" don't much care for actual science....and I doubt the rest of Art Bell's loony tune audience do, either...

[Pepperbelly]

86. Do you ever do anything more than merely ...

attack those that you do not like. Have you ever considered actually trying to make a case against a particular matter?

I have not seen any such effort on your part. It seems to me that you have somehow replaced namecalling with analysis. It does not elevate any discussion. In fact, it stops discussion. Perhaps that is your intent, no?

[MrBenchley]

89. Yeah. I actually try to learn about real astronomy, for one thing....

For another, I try to poke holes in pompous frauds like Duane Gish and Richard Hoagland...

"In fact, it stops discussion."
Of what? Discussion of why some people are dumb enough to swallow what Richard Hoagland said? Discussion of why anyone should give a rats' ass about the crackpot's newest silly claim?

[Pepperbelly]

90. enough is enough ...

I am always glad to have a certain class of folk jump out into notice.

Bye-bye.

[MrBenchley]

92. No downside to me...

Does this mean you're going to stop sending me unwanted private messages too?

[Pepperbelly]

93. yep ...

and I hope you do the same.

[MrBenchley]

95. I didn't send you one, binky...

I just gave yours the reply it deserved.

[Pepperbelly]

97. whatever ...

bye-bye.

[MrBenchley]

99. Telling that you weren't even honest about THAT before...

hahahaha

[dwckabal]

105. Talk about projection...

Pepperbelly said:
"Do you ever do anything more than merely attack those that you do not like."

Ummm...

Pepperbelly said:
"Have you ever considered actually trying to make a case against a particular matter?"

Uhhh...

Pepperbelly said:
I have not seen any such effort on your part. It seems to me that you have somehow replaced namecalling with analysis. It does not elevate any discussion. In fact, it stops discussion. Perhaps that is your intent, no?

Earlier in thread, referring to Plait:

Pepperbelly said:
"I've read his material...he is a bullshit artist."

Oh sweet, delicious irony!:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

114. And by the way, after saying he wouldn't send me any more PMs...

He sent me another PM...

[Celebration]

96. frankly I don't care

It just makes Plait look a little silly. He goes on Coast to Coast and says things like the NASA scientists were talking at a party and not at an informal meeting when they were discussing methane. Hoagland has some completely outrageous ideas, and finally Noory found someone to debate him. It was some Irish scientist, if I recall correctly. He had some outrageous ideas of his own, but not as far out there as Hoagland. I thought it was an entertaining discussion, and the audience learned a lot. I believe it had to do with Saturn's moons. I forget now what it was, but I pretty much realized Hoagland was 100% incorrect and full of it. I actually think I knew that even before the debate. Of course, I have no monopoly on the truth. I REALLY distrust people who think that they do!! Oh, no names mentioned.

[MrBenchley]

100. Sure you do....

You trotted this silliness out because Hoagland sold you a bill of goods....but it's noticeable you ain't even got question one to ask when the thread attracted somebody who is actually working on the data you claim is being "suppressed."

"the audience learned a lot. I believe it had to do with Saturn's moons. I forget now what it was"
Well said (snicker)....

[Celebration]

101. you forget

I am taping the Discovery Channel!! There is no possible way to remember all of Hoagland's nonsense, especially when it comes on in the middle of the night. Still, he is a taxpayer and we should all have available raw data to analyze if we have the need and desire, irrespective of what the government feels our needs are. That is all I was saying, and all I am saying. If it becomes available soon, I have no gripe.

I find Hoagland very entertaining and have absolutely no objection to his bringing up outlandish ideas. He also may have been correct about life on Mars long before most thought it possible. So kudos for that. And yes, we NEED people with outlandish ideas. I, too, would love closer, higher resolution images of the face on Mars. That doesn't mean I am making claims (and what if I was??--woo woo) If you would look at my first post in this thread you would realize that I don't place a lot of scientific merit in everything he says (reference--connecting dots that aren't actually there). That is beside the point. It would have been clear to you if you had actually read it. However, you seem to selectively quote and take things out of context.

I happen to feel he has a huge point about data being made public. When data is not released it encourages conspiracy theories--whether "suppressed" or given only to people with "credentials"--the effect is the same. If it is just late getting out because people are busy, well FINE!! I actually could not and cannot imagine why data from the flyby would be suppressed. I was actually asking if anyone could figure that one out. I hope the Discovery Channel has some high resolution flyby images and everyone is happy. And give anyone that wants to analyze the data from taxpayer funded scientific missions whatever information they need, or THINK they need!!!! I have really had it with the government filtering information.

[MrBenchley]

102. Hahahaha....

"Still, he is a taxpayer and we should all have available raw data to analyze if we have the need and desire"
Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-ight....

"And yes, we NEED people with outlandish ideas."
Comedy value springs to mind--but other wise, no we can live without pseudoscientists misleading the gullible. It is a national tragedy when people who don't know any better take such charlatans seriously.

"I, too, would love closer, higher resolution images of the face on Mars. "
They're easy enough to find...and they show that the "face" is an optical illusion...





http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm

"It would have been clear to you if you had actually read it."
I read it...and I told you why Hoagland's claims can be dismissed as the ravings of a loony. You want to pout about it.

"I actually could not and cannot imagine why data from the flyby would be suppressed. I was actually asking if anyone could figure that one out."
And you got the answer more than once....

"give anyone that wants to analyze the data from taxpayer funded scientific missions whatever information they need, or THINK they need!!!!"
Any more wastes of taxpayer money you'd like? Would you like NASA to hire an astronaut to hold each person's hand while they stare at data they don't understand? How about if we put the data in gilt edged leather binders?

[Celebration]

104. Thanks for the faces!!

Must be some wind on Mars with all the erosion!! What would be the cost of making the data available to someone? A computer download perhaps? It has to be gathered together and organized anyway, right? I am talking marginal cost.....it should be available to the public, that public paying any marginal cost associated with provision of the information (reasonable computer time cost, etc.) Would you have objection to that? I am being serious. Would you actually want to withhold data from a member of the public willing to pay the marginal cost of supplying the information? Or is this more than a poor taxpayer issue, having to do with the government deciding on the credentials of the person wanting the info? Then it is a political decision, right? So, absent the poor taxpayer as an excuse, you are for open information? Or are you for political decisions on information release? I am trying to get at your real motivation, because I strongly suspect it is deeper than a taxpayer issue for you. However I could be wrong--it is simply impossible to tell because you have not made yourself clear.

[MrBenchley]

107. And so we see the "faces" were bullshit....

"Must be some wind on Mars with all the erosion!!"
Why not ask Richard Hoagland to explain the conspiracy behind it? After all, it's not like data about the Martian climate hasn't been readily available.

"I am trying to get at your real motivation"
See me rushing to answer?

"it is simply impossible to tell because you have not made yourself clear."
The lack of clarity is not on my end.

[Celebration]

108. LOL

Didn't answer the question............. who cares. Hide behind a poor taxpayer argument when the poor taxpayer paid for collecting the data to begin with--something many here forget.

[MrBenchley]

113. Actually, I asked NASA to suppress my answer to your question

"the poor taxpayer paid for collecting the data to begin with"
We also paid to have real scientists work on the data...there's no reason to turn it over to crackpots, liars and conmen.

[MrBenchley]

53. Hoagland reminds one of Duane Gish

the loony from the Creationist Institute, who keeps insisting he's "proved" evolution is false because no reputable scientsts bother to waste time "debating" him.

Of course, the one time Gish did get a debate, he bussed hundreds of true believers into the hall to shout down anything the scientist said--some debate.

[Celebration]

57. not like that

I don't think so. Hoagland freely admits that the outrageous stuff he talks about is CONJECTURE that he would like to see put to the test. It is *really* hard to attack conjecture scientifically-- that is why he is so frustrating, and why so many people, when they attack Hoagland, have to set up straw men.

[MrBenchley]

62. Exactly like that....

Except Gish claims to have more authority....

[electron_blue]

34. good grief, people calm down

Now this is really funny. I have spent the last few weeks working doggedly hard finishing up my spectra for the Deep Impact project and submitted it yesterday. We're not hiding anything - we're just slow with other things going on in our life.

If you want a short-version of what we found - yes, the comet is still more like a dirty snowball rather than an asteroid. The images of impact craters indicate that the comet was sturdier than we expected (and certainly not a loose rubble pile as a few suggested). The optical, uv and infrared spectra showed significant increases in emission, while radio spectra showed very little, or no, increase. We don't know what all that means, except for perhaps the obvious - the impact kicked up more dust than ice.

I do agree that there has not been near enough press coverage for this. The media seem to be distracted by other things these days, gee I wonder what.

I'll make inquiries and find out what is the best site for public info about the project. For now, this is all I could find:

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/collab_pub/index.shtml

[beam me up scottie]

39. Thanks for the link.

And I'm sorry that the conspiracy hobbyists have focused their attention on NASA and legitimate scientists.

Must be a slow week for chem trail analysis and ufology.

[Bill McBlueState]

45. hey look, a real astronomer!

Thanks for the link; maybe this will satisfy the tinfoilers. Ah, who am I kidding? :crazy:

We're not hiding anything - we're just slow with other things going on in our life.

I know how it goes. I always have to remind my advisor that yes, I do have a wife I like to see from time to time, and no, I don't live in my office, so there will necessarily be periods of at least several hours a day when I don't have anything new to show her.

What spectra have you been reducing?

[MrBenchley]

94. And look how lonely he is, too....

Funny, isn't it? Guess some people didn't really have all that many questions about the comet probe, after all...

[Celebration]

46. Good website

You need to correspond with the Enterprise Mission and maybe everyone can eventually get on the same page. I think RH wants to see the thing explode from the flyby. However it won't be nearly as much fun when everyone agrees with the data.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Did you just say that EB should correspond with the ENTERPRISE MISSION ???

We need to start a group for the purpose of furthering science.
THis forum is a joke.

[Celebration]

48. Just a suggestion

Take a few long, slow, deep breaths.........and........lighten up.

[rman]

58. You should have learned that Enterprise Mission can not be trusted

And that your whole 'cry wolf routine' had no basis. Given the track record of Enterprise Mission, you could have known that.

And now you act as though it's all a joke or something?
You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Pepperbelly]

64. LOL

What is your basis for that remark?

[Ian David]

103. I am tired of how skeptics immediately pooh=pooh everything

There are real, unexplained phenomenon out there that are truly amazing.

For example, there are still people who do not believe that cats intentionally create art:

Amazing Phenomenon! Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics
Topic started by IanDB1 on Jul-16-05 09:56 PM (69 replies)
Last modified by IanDB1 on Jul-18-05 06:41 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3664593

[rman]

106. skeptics turned out to be correct yet again though.

the fact that not all phenomena are explained does not mean there is a nasa consipracy to withhold the deep-impact spectral data.

[Ian David]

110. True, but skeptics were definitely wrong about Cat Painting

Many skeptics dismissed as a "hoax" the fact that cats create expressive art.

Unfortunately, there are hoaxsters that create fake Cat Paintings, and it muddies the water for those who wish to sell legitimate non-primate art.

I have personally seen my friend's amazing cat, Randi, produce several beautiful paintings.

[rman]

111. nice, but that's not the topic of this thread

-

[Ian David]

115. Tangentially, yes. And I'm offering to discuss it in another thread anyway

I'm not intending to debate the whole Cat Painting phenomenon here in this thread.

I've already pointed to another thread where the so-called "skeptics" have been eviscerated once again, this time on the issue of Cat Painting.

However, this thread does touch upon the stubborn refusal of "skeptics" to accept valid scientific phenomenon such as Crop Circles and Cat Painting, as well as the government conspiracy to hide the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide from the public.

I'm not going to go into details about the paintings made by my friend's amazing cat Randi. There is a whole other thread for that.

But of course, the typical "skeptic's" mind is too closed to even look at something which might conflict with their narrow belief system which is premised upon a Universe with knowable and predictable laws.

The Universe is much too strange to be constrained by things like math and physics.

See Related Thread:

Amazing Phenomenon! Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics
Topic started by IanDB1 on Jul-16-05 09:56 PM (69 replies)
Last modified by IanDB1 on Jul-18-05 06:41 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3664593

[rman]

117. You could add: Tsunami created by Bush

Or would you agree that it is not productive to place all CT's under the same umbrella?

I for one do not accept -every- CT simply because it is rejected by the mainstream.
Do you?


Lets see... "Dihydrogen Monoxide"... 2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen = H2O...
And you claim there's a conspiracy to hide the dangers of water? Dangers such as, what happens when you drink 10 liters of the stuff in one go?
Just how gullible do you think people are?

To me you come across as a parody of a distractor operative.

[Celebration]

109. cute but

I hope they are non-toxic watercolors or tempera.

[Ian David]

112. Although the scientific and scholarly literature recommend oil paints...

modern Cat Painting investigators and enthusiasts are now saying you have to use precisely that-- non-toxic paints.

[Skinner]

119. I'm locking.

This appears to be linking to a conspiracy website.