Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biased Article

If we are going to talk about Gary Posner's article in Skeptical Inquirer, here is the Enterprise Mission's response: [1]

The article can easily be written to exclude bias. I'd present the concepts in a more objective tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.156.159 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean that it's biased in favour of Hoagland or against him? The Singing Badger 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "Objectively, Hoagland is a crackpot who spouts nonsense for far too long on the radio, thanks to producers who are too ignorant to understand the difference between a scientist and a con-man, and uses the public media to beg for cash" ?? --El Ingles

Wow that was harsh! I take it that you disagree with him somewhat?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just me. Anybody with any training in science dismisses his nonsense. The only open question is, Does he actually believe what he says or is he cynically promoting what he knows is fantasy for personal profit? --El Ingles (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all that he gets lots of airtime on Coast to Coast because they don't know any better than to give him airtime. While I admit, George Noory making Hoagland the show's science adviser is a bit on the strange side (and I've yet to hear either Art Bell or Ian Punnett use him in that capacity), both Noory and Bell have said on several occasions that while they know a lot of times that their guests are complete kooks and they don't believe at all what they have to say (including Hoagland at times), Bell deliberately set the show to be the kind where anyone could go on and talk about anything, say anything and not get jumped on, yelled at and/or ridiculed like what happens with most contemporary radio talk shows. Can you imagine people like Hoagland or Alex Jones or any other number of people that's been on Coast to Coast AM like that going on a show like say, just for example, Rush Limbaugh or Neil Boortz or Michael Savage? They wouldn't last a minute before one of those guys ripped them apart and threw them off (although I have to admit, hearing JC call Savage and the two of them tear into each other would be kinda funny, I think). Leandar (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all there is on his TEM website, but I find little to condemn as outright fraud (perhaps the bit kooky visionary), or pseudoscience (some personal judgment comes into play when one applies occam's razor). What I do find over and over is the compelling claim of "hey, this thing over here is really weird, lets go look at it a lot closer". In other words, he presents elaborate hypotheses, with requests for support in testing, and wondering, as I do, at the appearance of stonewalling.

Attacks on the man's character have little bearing on well-documented research. This is science we're talking about here. Why should he make such an extraordinary effort, just to make money selling books? (Spam works so much better). There is an entire realm of fortean, "off-beat" studies, and while there may exist credulous folk who believe anything (and who would benefit from an in-depth elucidation of the scientific method), inquiry into the nature of recurring, anomalous phenomena is itself not a credulous enterprise. Rather, it is the basis for the existence of the scientific method framework, and one should not be attacked because of it.

I would like to see R.C.H controversy focus on violations of Scientific Method protocols. -- Gaia9

Focus on 'The Scientific Method' is a laudable aim, but it will fail in this case. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, 'The Method' starts with accurate observations. Since Hoagland's observations are all inaccurate, the Method never gets a start. There are no 'recurring, anomalous phenomena', either. It's all just fantasy.

In your judgment? they thought newton was a crackpot too.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, Richard Hoagland has no standing whatsoever in planetary science. He has no standing in science journalism either. He's best described as a former science journalist who hasn't been published anywhere for a decade other than on his own website -- and, as we all know, 12 year old girls all over the world publish to their web sites daily (and deserving of about the same degree of public attention). His pronouncements have approximately the same validity as a published letter to the editor of a small town somewhere in Idaho. Quite obviously, the planetary science community has no interest in responding to them. If you choose to call that "stonewalling" I'd say that just shows that you've been conned. El Ingles 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Above comment will soon be has been overtaken by events. Hoagland and Bara have completed a book, Dark Mission -- more a compilation of paranoia than a real book -- that's to be released on October 7th. now published by Feral House. This small publishing house seems to have a speciality: another recent title is Poop Culture -- The Origin of Faeces --El Ingles 16:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that we have a claim that Hoagland worked for NASA as a consultant in here, with the supporting evidence being three web pages on Hoagland's site that off-handedly mention this? I think this should be removed unless there's some actual supporting evidence that it's true. -Syberghost 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gary Posner investigated this claim for the Skeptical Inquirer in 2000. Read all about it... http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html In summary, Hoagland is grossly distorting the truth in making this claim and I support the idea of deleting it. El Ingles 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, why does this con-man have a wiki page at all? I propose deleting the whole thing. El Ingles 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think popular con-men deserve their own wiki pages. Robert Tilton and Silvio Berlusconi have their own. ;)

More seriously. It is sometimes very difficult to find neutral and reliable information about controversial personalities. Even when wiki pages are not always neutral and reliable, the bits of indirect information (mostly on the discussion side) create a picture. (Kind of cockroach theory of information gathering: If you find one ugly fact there are bound to be others hiding...)

Talamus 00:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh. He may be a kook, but he's a famous kook. We can't deny him that. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Navy

Does anyone have anymore information about the Old Navy store basement conspiracy theory? I have a bit of morbid curiosity about it, I suppose you could call it. Cuitlahuac

I didn't hear the C2C show where talked about this. But from what I've heard from people since, he thinks that the store is owned by Masons (or something) and they pass coded information through their ads and hold secret meetings at the company headquarters. 68.234.239.109 10:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This was mentioned during his "birthday tribute" in april 2006. Art Bell said, chuckling, "I'll never forget that Old Navy episode. Whatever happened in the end?" Hoagland evasively replied (non-verbatim but close) "A contingent is keeping watch on that story, and that's all I can say about that." El Ingles 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I heard the original show with good 'ol Dick giving the scoop about Old Navy. Sorry I can't remember the date I'm sure it was quite a few years back. I'm sure some coast-to-coast fanatic has the show recorded to prove me wrong. To continue... Dick claimed the name "Old Navy" actually refers to the lost ancient civilization of Atlantis. I guess Atlantians (sp?) citizens being a seafaring peoples were much advanced long ago before the modern civilization we know today. They somehow got wiped out when the Atlantis Continent sunk into the ocean (or is Antarctica the frozen remnant of Atlantis?) except for a few who essentially are the source of a the Old Navy secret society. The Old Navy advertisements on TV are usually code for meeting dates and times. For instance, a statement like "Labor Day sale Men's shirts only $14.50" says the meeting is on Labor day at 14:50. Also, these secret messages seem to be one of the first things you hear, like a recap, of the most recent upcoming meeting when you call 1-800-OLD-NAVY. Their status levels of membership are simple. Men, Women, Baby. So the last sample meeting would only be for a "Men" level ranking member. Richard also claims that Old Navy does not make a profit. The company is a front for the secret society. Thus, each store exists as a meeting point for members and has secret basements or backrooms where members can meet. At the time of the original broadcast there was some big meeting coming up. Richard challenged the listening audience to go to their local Old Navy store and state "I am here for the meeting" just to see what happens. A day or so later people called back in to Coast-to-Coast and claimed they knew someone who was lead to a backroom meeting... but most just said that the store clerk looked at them as if they were crazy. I'd love to hear the episode again and get an accurate date it was aired. [WARNING: a few possible embellishments above] feel free to completely kill my comments. --EiO 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. Weren't people supposed to be carrying something special when they turned up for "the meeting", too? El Ingles 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Career

I have taken a cautious approach in improving the Career section of the Richard C. Hoagland article. Some of his supporters, such as Jonathan B. Richards III, David Wilcock, Dave Jewett, and Michele Bugliaro Goggia have posted to the Web biographical information concerning his alleged work at the Gengras (1968) and Hayden (1974-75) Planetariums, among other things. For accuracy's sake, those planetariums would have to contacted for verification of employment before including such information in the article. Also, it should not be difficult to verify the claim that Mr. Hoagland was once the Editor-in-Chief of Star & Sky magazine.

Interestingly, I can not find a reference on Mr. Hoagland's website concerning his 1983 Analog Award for Best Fact Article, the two-part article, "The Blivit in the B-Ring." Perhaps there should be a separate bibliography and awards section in the Hoagland article. Alan G. Archer 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I should have noted that the Publisher's Forward in Mr. Hoagland's book, "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever," provides some background details on Mr. Hoagland, such as his time at the Gengras and Hayden Planetariums, his work at NBC, CBS and CNN, his role as "contributing editor and then Editor-in-Chief of Star & Sky Magazine," and other details. Alan G. Archer 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean, one of the sources was an AP story that I obtained courtesy of the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library. The library sent me copies of all of the materials, with exception of an archival 7" 45 rpm vinyl audio recording, related to the Peabody Awards entry submitted by WTIC (AM). And is not Mr. Hoagland's website, such as it is, a primary source? The Career section is not the only one that references Hoagland's website. Should the 'primarysources' tag be moved to the top of the article? Alan G. Archer 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the section concerning the Peabody Awards and reference #9 needs further clarification.

Current edit:

The show was submitted, unsuccessfully, for consideration for a Peabody Award[9].

Proposed edit:

The program was submitted for consideration for a Peabody Award,[9] but it did not win.

The radio program was successfully submitted for consideration for the award, but it did not win.

Reference #9 section:

The form is held at the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia Libraries in Athens, Georgia, submitted by Paul W. Morency, president of Broadcast-Plaza, Inc.

Proposed edit:

Paul W. Morency, president of Broadcast-Plaza, Inc., submitted the entry form. The entry form, along with an archival 7" 45 rpm gramophone audio recording of the program, is currently being held at the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia Libraries in Athens, Georgia.

Alan G. Archer (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection, as long as you don't use that second version of the first edit. "Successfully submitted" can only mean "They managed to put the correct postage on the entry form and place it in the slot marked 'Outgoing Mail.' Hooray!" --El Ingles (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, El, for your feedback.

There is no second version of the first edit. It was my explanation for the edit. Perhaps I should have made that point more clear. I'm sorry for the confusion. Alan G. Archer (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Angstrom Medal

As mentioned on the Bad Astronomy website, Hoagland's medal is unofficial at best, i.e. not actually awarded by Uppsala University.

Bad Astronomy: [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.169.64.128 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim that he recieved this medal is largely unverifiable outside of Hoagland's own website, and in fact sources point to the contrary. Rather than removing the original claim I included the counter-claim, with source. Anyone disagree for any reason? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Only that the counterclaim doesn't put it strongly enough. It is definitely not the award from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Uppsala University. The link cites several sources; we may take it as proven, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

book sales

We have language that Hoagland's books have sold "very well". Unless somebody has a citation for that, I'm thinking of changing it to "While Hoagland has sold thousands of books, most in the scientific establishment consider his theories to be pseudoscience." I think that claim is pretty safe since he's breaking the top 100,000 on Amazon, but by the same token he's only barely breaking the top 100,000 on Amazon, so even "comparatively well" seems misleading. I don't want to remove it entirely, however, because the man sells a lot of books. Problem is I can't prove numbers. Any of Hoagland's supporters got a link? I'll wait a while before I do this so you can respond. -Syberghost 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Hoagland supporter, but I think the statement that his books sell "very well" is not problematic, especially since you just said "the man sells a lot of books" yourself. Perhaps "very well for a small-press author" would be more accurate, although such a distinction reads like a deliberate attempt to belittle his writing career, such as it is. wikipediatrix 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he sells a lot of books; I can't point to a reference that verifies that he sells a number that I can show in a verifiable way is remarkable. Basically, I can prove he has sold books; not that they have sold "very well". I think the language is therefore unverifiable POV. However, the fact that I can't verify it doesn't mean somebody can't, and so I want to leave tons of time for somebody else to give it a shot. -Syberghost 13:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

American Antigravity

Alan Archer added this reference today, with a link to a web page that describes that old fraud Hoagland as "the museum curator for NASA". What a joke...

El Ingles 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation of money, promotion of media

Since I'm not interested in a revert war with Alan Archer, by default he wins the deletion of Hoagland's solicitation of money. In wiki-talk Archer wrote:

I think that mentioning his solicitation of donations for The Enterprise Mission from listeners of a late-night radio program, and also his promotions of his book, videos and speaking engagements, to be irrelevant and unworthy of an encyclopedia article.

Obviously I disagree. Anyone want to take sides?

El Ingles 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, as it speaks somewhat to his motivations. If he makes money off of his "theories", he is more likely to pursue them on that basis alone. I'd think of going for an RfC or something I were you, or finding one of those people that represent other editors in disputes. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I may try to take it to such a level if you yourself do not. I'm pretty much an outsider in this article, but I don't appreciate the nonsense link Archer keeps adding, and the removal of this critical information. (I don't know what the devil I meant by saying he's at or past his revert limit, I think I meant to warn him not to get to such a point. Too many edit wars to keep track of in my head =/) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert combat quickly becomes tiresome. You are now the new "winner." Alan G. Archer 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was planning to have an actual discussion here and possibly an RfC or arbitration, but if you want to make it easy for me I won't argue. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Merely "unlikely"?

I protest the change by 4.153.20.216 today from "preposterous" to "unlikely". IMHO "preposterous" is already a mild enough adjective to apply to this utter nonsense. El Ingles 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed the wording back. "Unlikely" is not a good word for this part, even if it was done in an attempt to rectify NPOV issues; the section is talking about how incredibly scientifically invalid the jump is, not how improbable the idea itself is. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. El Ingles 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Panspermia & Science Language

I'm taking this whole paragraph out. It seems to imply that science (which is a method which can be used to determine and test rules, not a set of rules itself) somehow forbids the idea of a technologically advanced society transporting itself from one planet to another (within one solar system no less). We can reach the planet with probes, so obviously payloads can be transferred from one place to another. Genetics have reached the point that interspecies mixing goes on today (at least at the cellular level). Neither the directed transportation of a species from one planet to another nor the interspeciating of such can honestly be defined as "not permissible by any stretch of science". The laws of physics, as we understand them, in no way rule such possibilities out. If the intent is to point out that Hoagland's techniques and conclusions do not derive from or conform to the Scientific Method it should be written as such. Even if that is so it does not make these theories impossible by any kind of valid 'scientific law'. The language needs to allow for the fact that these things are possible while discrediting his methods. 28 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.253.171 (talk • contribs) ---- Christopher

Well put. I may try to see if that can be achieved later (edit: unless someone else does it first, as they may just have :p), but I support its removal until that time. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The new entry doesn't really work either. Why even refer to Panspermia in reference to Hoagland's theories if his theory is that it was intelligent directed transportation (IDT)? The fact that Panspermia refers to microbiology does not rule out the possibility of IDT, it just illustrates that calling it 'Panspermia' would be inaccurate. Unless Hoagland refers to an advanced society moving to another world as Panspermia, the point has nothing to do with the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.253.170 (talk • contribs) ---- Christopher

The passage is was wholly non-neutral, I agree. In the process of reverting you (I apologize for not checking the talk page first, but I was hoping you might explain your edit in edit summaries), I've tried to clear some of this nasty language. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This new sentence: "a form of the panspermia theory postulating that life in this solar system may have started on Mars has some support [33], it may not be the most popular hypothesis." Doesn't work. Popular among who? And what does that have to do with Hoagland? He is not postulating Panspermia, he is postulating that advanced intelligent beings deliberately moved from a dying world to another one. Panspermia does not even come into the picture, never mind how popular it is as a general concept. To compare the two concepts is a case of apples and oranges.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.253.170 (talk • contribs) ---- Christopher

I don't know why it was included; I'm not the author of that passage. Nevertheless, Hoagland's idea is, in essence, an extrapolation of the panspermia theory, if a radical one. I only reworded the sentence as I did to give it more neutrality. It's saying almost the same thing as it did earlier, but in a less opinionated way. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Panspermia is unintelligent transfer of microbiological material throughtout the universe. Hoagland refers to intelligent directed migration. That is wholly different from Panspermia. Look it up. Unless Hoagland refers to the migration of the ancient civilization as Panspermia this point is a non sequitur. ---- Christopher

Hoagland does not mention Panspermia on his site. His theory draws directly off of the exploding Mars idea, nothing else. So, yeah, the IP person seems to have it here. If something is to be written dealing with controversy around this, it would have to take a wholly different approach (ie. directly trying to debunk Tom Van Flandern's theory, or pointing out that this is all extremely wild speculation on Hoagland's part, which would probably require a whole different section of its own). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To 208.3.253.170 (some person or other in Knoxville, TN): Hoagland's ideas in this regard are totally unscientific because he has not even advanced anything recognisable as a scientific hypothesis, let alone tested it by examining evidence (of which there is, of course, none). You say, from your anonymous IP address, that "these things are possible". Oh really? How do you know that? What prior instances of a civilisation evolving on Planet A and then successfully migrating to Planet B do you know of? You write parenthetically "within one solar system no less" as though survival of such a civilisation is more probable than if transfer was from one solar system to another. In fact, the reverse is the case. If Planet A and Planet B are within the same solar system, we can predict with close to certainty that ambient differences would make survival impossible for a migratory species. There may be a hypothetical possibility that Planet A in System A has the same ambient temperature, gravity, and atmosphere as Planet B in System B, but nobody is entitled to go on a national radio programme and assert that this event has actually happened. It's laughable. I stand by my original paragraph and I'd like you to restore it please (I only revert my own contributions in exceptional circumstances that I consider vandalism). As for the reference to panspermia, that was a good-faith attempt on my part to give fair credit to the New Scientist reference and it is not in the least irrelevant. El Ingles 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Hoagland's site in detail to verify, but if what Consumed Crustacean says is correct about the basis for Hoagland's theory, then it is, indeed, scientifically impossible on other grounds. An "exploding Mars" in times recent enough for it to have supported a civilization (as opposed to the routine collision of protoplanets during the formation of the Solar System) is completely ruled out by astrophysics and celestial mechanics. It didn't happen. "Preposterous" is not too strong a word. Neither, for that matter, is "absurd", "ludicrous", "ridiculous", and "laughable", but I won't insist on them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 28 June 2006 UTC)

Arr, my point was partially that the paragraph, in its current state, was not adequate. It was actually slightly nonsensical, jumping around between theories. Of course Hoagland's idea is complete rubbish, but the paragraph wasn't completely satisfactory in explaining why. Now, if all the arguments here could just be compiled into something a little more improved, it would be grand. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea can not be un-scientific. Methodology can, however. The arguments against Hoagland's methods of forming conclusions are justified. Ruling out planetary migration, on the other hand, is unscientific. The reality is that we are sending ever larger and more sophisticated payloads to Mars. Assuming technology continues to move forward those payloads will eventually be able to handle life support and such. The US government thinks they can get people there in the next 15 to 20 years. Nothing in Physics rules it out. Your original entry seemed to attempt to criticize his methods (valid) but failed when you muddied the waters with the unscientific implications about what is possible and the totally misplaced Panspermia definition (Hoagland never said anything about that). ---- Christopher, 28 June 2006

Certainly an idea can be un-scientific. Please sign comments on talk pages, per wiki-policy. Thanks. El Ingles 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't. The scientific method consists of four steps -

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

An idea is a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be proved to be incorrect by the scientific method, but it can not be inherently unscientific. There is a difference between wrong and unscientific. Science is a method of testing ideas, not a set of rules. Sets of rules are often formed as a result of the use of the scientific method, but those results are always subject to further scrutiny and testing. An idea can be in conflict with rules that were created as a result of the scientific method, but that does not make them unscientific. Is the distinction clear yet? ---- Christopher, June 29th, 2006

Yes, yes, I've read Karl Popper too. Richard Hoagland doesn't understand science or logic, and hasn't even taken the first of your four steps. Ergo, his assertion is unscientific. Van Fladern's idea, on the other hand, is scientific in that he observes and describes gross variation in cratering of the Martian surface. His hypothesis seeks to explain that. El Ingles 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoagland's ideas aren't unscientific, his methodology in testing them, however, is highly unscientific (and in my opinion the work of a con man, charlatan and profiteer). There is nothing inherently wrong with a hypothesis that suggests there has been past intelligent life which has migrated from one planet to another. The process of comparing observable data to what would be expected if the hypothesis were true and then making testable predictions based on such is where the breakdown is for Hoagland. To rule out planetary migration and interspeciation as a matter of dogma would be inconsistent with the scientific method, and therefore, unscientific. ---- Christopher, June 29, 2006

It is unscientific to make such a claim without valid evidence to back it up. Since this is what Hoagland is doing -- claiming not merely that such a thing is possible, but that it actually happened in the case of Mars -- his ideas are indeed unscientific.

His claiming they are proven or supported by evidence may well be unscientific, but the concepts themselves are not. You can discredit his methods and conclusions all you like, but there is no basis for implying that planetary migration and inerspeciation are somehow forbidden by scientific principals (which the original entry did). ---- Christopher

You are, incidentally, mistaken when you say that science is nothing but a method. It's also the rules derived from it, and the data too. See [3], especially "Science is Content as Much as Structure". TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The knowledge gleaned via the method is subject to change when better theories come along. The method, however, is static. For clarity it is better to use language such as "_____ idea does not conform to current rules of physics (celestial mechanics or whatever body of knowledge works best)as we understand them", rather than calling the idea itself unscientific. Just because an idea flys in the face of the current body of knowledge does not make it unscientific - in fact some of our greatest advances have come from questioning dogmatic views - and dogmatism in general achieves the opposite of what is intended by the formulators of the scientific method. If you use the word 'science' to describe a body of knowledge, then the definition of science may change over time. What is science in this sense today may not be science tomorrow (ie the world is flat), and as such, this usage isn't really good for an encyclopedia attempting to withstand the test of time in regards to clarity. ---- Christopher

Looking back over the history of this paragraph I see that it was at one point achieveing the sentiment I think El Ingles wants to achieve (a sentiment which I agree with, I just don't feel that the entry was communicating that sentiment properly). I think something like this would work: "Tom Van Flandern's theory of an exploding Mars companion is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Hoagland's extension of it -- to a Martian civilisation fleeing the catastrophe and inter-speciating with the human race, while still unable to be ruled out, is devoid of supporting evidence and not in line with proper scientific method. ---- Christopher Robinson

I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. No one is saying that the idea of planetary colonization is inherently unscientific. Hoagland's claim that this actually happened and that it happened because of a global catastrophe on Mars is, however, unscientific because there's no data to support it. One is, of course, free to formulate hypotheses and test them. One is not free to spout ideas that fly in the face of observations that are consistent along a number of different lines, or which are at best the among most improbable explanations for the data we have, and then claim you're formulating a scientific theory. This is not dogmatic. This is how science is done.

Of course the parameters of "science" change, both in terms of method and the data collected. I have no idea why you would think either is fixed. Methods must be adapted to circumstances. This is why chemistry is not done in the same way as evolutionary biology. (And "the world is flat" was never science. It was once believed by some, but not on any grounds we would call scientific.) You can argue this point all you want against working scientists, but I don't think you'll convince them.

And I have to tell you that celestial mechanics and the other sciences that disprove Hoagland's claims are very well-understood indeed. If it wasn't, we'd never be able to land probes on Mars in the first place. This is why we can indeed rule out an exploding companion for Mars. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"No one is saying that the idea of planetary colonization is inherently unscientific." - Actualy, that is exactly what the original entry implied. In fact, no one here is saying that Hogalnd's methods aren't unscientific. The whole problem is that the way the entry was worded, it did in fact imply that planetary colonization (and interspeciation) are by nature unscientific. Again, I support the premise that Hogland makes claims of proven knowledge with no evidence (actions that are unscientific) but the language did not achieve effective communication in that regard. It needs to be written in a way that criticizes his methods without claiming that the concepts are "not permissible by any stretch of science". Even Nasa's page in regards to the question of a broken-up planet acknowledge the possibility while stating that the evidence seems to support one option over another: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980810a.html - The possibilities must be acknowledged (or at least not discouted) or else we are guilty of the same type of behavior that Hoagland is being accused of. ---- Christopher

I'd accept Christopher Robinson's rewrite, albeit grudgingly. But why don't we just write "Hoagland's extension of it is poppycock" and leave it at that? El Ingles 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(Replying to Christopher) That's a clear misreading of the original paragraph, which says nothing more than that generalizing from panspermia on the bacterial level to colonization (and interbreeding) by an alien civilization is not permissible. That is absolutely true. And Hoagland does indeed cite the first as support for the second; I've heard him do it on Coast to Coast.

You have also misread the NASA page. When a scientist says "more likely" in these terms, he means it's pretty damn certain. Scientists almost never speak in absolute certainties as a professional habit, but this can give a misleading impression to a layman who is used to hearing such language from politicians and such to give themselves wiggle room. Given the supporting statement about the total mass and composition of the asteroid, what is clearly meant here is that an exploding Mars companion is not at all supportable from the evidence. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"More likely" does not mean certain by any reading. If you choose to extrapolate absolute truths from statements abou probability based on incomplete data sets, that is your perogative, but it's foolish IMO. And if you'd like to cite Hoagland referring to an intelligent civilization migrating between worlds as Panspermia I'd love to see it. ---- Christopher

As I said, scientists habitually avoid phrasing conclusions in terms of absolutes. Please tell me how the data cited in the NASA page allows any room for an exploding Mars companion.

As for the other, that's not what I wrote. I never said Hoagland called an alien invasion "panspermia". I said he used the theoretical possibility of panspermia (e.g. the probable fossil Martian bacteria found in Antarctic meteorites) as support for the idea of an alien invasion. Not directly of course, becuase Hoagland is a master of weasel words, but if you listen to him talk about it he clearly thinks (or wants us to believe) that the probability of the one means the other is possible. But I'm not going to wade through that morass of a website to see if he wrote things similar to what he's willing to say to George Noory. And I admit I haven't heard him recently. His tone of voice is so irritating I switch stations whenever he's on these days, as he's no longer sufficiently amusing to keep me listening. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoagland is indeed a master of misdirection. If you can cite that particular misdirection it may be worth inclusion, but it doesn't appear on his site and you remembering that he said something like that indirectly is hardly enough evidence.

For clarification in regards to Nasa's willingness to entertain the concept of a destroyed 5th planet (Planet V) please see this recent article from April, 2006. In light of such, it seems to be wise not to speak in absolutes about this particular topic, even if some of the alternatives are 'higly speculative', they can not honestly be said to be ruled out. And scientists speak that way because intellectual honesty demands it. Even if a theory is strongly suspected to be true, they must leave room for the possibility of misinterpretations and account for new data as it comes in. The idea that such language is simply "professsional habit" and actually implies absolute truths while giving them wiggle room seems insulting to scientists in my opinion. ---- Christopher

Black Spot on Jupiter

The citations listed here don't back up the assertion that there is "photographic proof that the "black spot" was present in imagery of Jupiter for several years prior to Hoagland's "discovery" of it." They do speak to the unlikely nature of the spot being caused by what Hoagland suggested, but not to the existence of this particular spot prior to the Gallileo crash. There is some info about other black spots that have been seen, but they do not refer to the particular one to which Hoagland addresses. I'm changing the language to indicate as such. ---- Christopher (208.3.253.170) 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply Wrong

In regards to the changes made by Cernica. The thought that you are trying to insert (mainstream scientists disagree with most of his theories and methods)is allready addressed in a neutral fashion at the end of the paragraph. The sentence you keep changing is a seperate and different statement. While the adjective offbeat in the text 'a propounder of theories on astronomical topics that are considered offbeat by many mainstream astronomers' can be read as referring to topics or theories, it makes more sense to refer there to topics (ie offbeat topics) and later in the paragraph to the pseudo-scientific allegations, lest the intro paragraph become POV in regards to the 'wrongness' of his theories. And making statements (or implications - which your added text definitely does) that he is wrong is definitely not in line with a neutral point of view.24.90.35.185 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Christopher

More than that, it was somewhat odd sounding. The way it was written before that addition seems perfectly fine, and it does address the fact that he's considered a pseudoscientist. I'm all for keeping the opening of the article as clean as possible. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keep changing?" I reverted it once, today, and added no text. Please don't overstate the case. In any event, I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue much about it, only that you not mischaracterize an edit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not notice that the rv'er and the original poster were not the same person. 208.3.253.170 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Christopher

Edit on 4 aug 06 by 70.170.79.6

In principle I have no objection to this edit but, in the introductory paragraph, we now have "....considered offbeat by many mainstream astronomers" and ALSO "...the mainstream scientific establishment consider his theories to be pseudoscience and completely without merit."

Something needs to be done about that -- I suggest deleting the first. El Ingles 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"completely without merit" is unnecessarily vehement and POV-pushing. I don't really think the "mainstream scientific establishment" even thinks about Hoagland at all, nor do most people anyway, so there's really no need to use a sledge hammer here. I don't think there's any danger of anyone reading this article and coming away from it thinking Hoagland is a serious or respected scientist. wikipediatrix 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but unless it can be proven to be true, and referenced with maybe high profile respected scientists names, then it really has no business being in the article. His theories are not supported by mainstream astronomers, and these astronomers widely view him as a fraud or pseudoscientist at best. Whose "professional" opinion is this? Is there a reference/source for this? At best... it seems its nothing more than a persons opinion. DragonFire1024 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation on Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP) is one example of a body that views Hoagland as a fraud (see the link at 'Claimed biography'). I'd have to (for once) agree with wikipediatrix that real working planetary scientists give no thought to him -- may not even be aware of his existence, since he hasn't published anywhere except his own web site for a decade or so (and as we all know, teenage girls in Vladivostok have their own web sites these days, so it doesnt count as publishing). I stand by my description of him as a 'former science journalist' but it didn't achieve consensus. El Ingles 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot call ONE committee "these astronomers." That is ONE organization and still a person's POV. Prove he is a fraud, lack of publishment does not establish a "fraud." DragonFire1024 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The main article, quite correctly in my view, already documents numerous false claims that have been made by Hoagland from time to time in an attempt to create the standing in planetary science that he does not in fact have. I believe that is sufficient to establish that he's a fraud, without even getting started on his ridiculous assertions about mass migration from Mars, astronaut murders, and the like. El Ingles 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss what he does or does not think. I am here discussing what is said about him, and not backed up by any names, let alone any solid proof that this is the truth about him. Just because you don't believe him does not make him a fraud. So what. He was proven wrong a few times...Like NASA was never wrong? DragonFire1024 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did back up with one name, that of a fairly well-respected scientific committee. I give you another: Phil Plait, an astronomer whose analysis is linked from the article. I give you another — mathematician Ralph Greenberg of Washington U, whose analysis of Hoagland's math is here [4]. I believe the Planetary Society repudiated him at some point, too, but I can't give you chapter & verse about that. I will research the question when I have time. My point is that it's not just that he was "wrong a few times" but that he has been caught making claims about himself that are false. This is what fraud is. The "solid proof" is already in the article — read it again please. I don't know why you bring NASA into this — NASA and Hoagland have nothing whatsoever in common. One is a federal agency charged with space exploration and planetary science, the other is a former science writer who is no longer published and whose ideas about the solar system are the very opposite of science. El Ingles 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it was not I who added the word FRAUD to the intro. Article history shows that this was added on 28th April by somebody at the IP address 68.63.188.11, a Comcast IP. This is the only contribution to wikipedia made from that address. El Ingles 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Numerology

In late Sept 2006 the expression "...frequently supported by numerological justifications" was added from an IP address in Texas, USA. Does anybody know if that phrase has any useful meaning, and, if so, what the meaning might be? El Ingles 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerology. In any case, the statement was completely nonsensical, and not backed up the the source. I also scrapped the statement before it, about some "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever" book; which nets me 700 GHits and most definately is not a reliable source. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Claimed biography

• [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.70.33 (talk • contribs) 19:28, October 1, 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing bees and "hyperdimensional" physics

I ask about one of the most recent claims of Richard C. Hoagland, regarding the May 12th claim on Coast to Coast that torsion field physics are somehow making honeybees disappear all around the world. Honestly, I have tried listening to his pseudoscience explainations in order to add to the claims, but I can't make heads or tails of what he's actually claiming... So, if anyone wants to take a stab at it, I applaud you for your efforts. I just suggest taking some Aspirin if you do indeed try and listen. --Sturmwehr 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the incomprehensible twaddle at enterprisemission.com on this topic is the first of a multi-part essay. I'm reserving judgement for now. El Ingles 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit by 91.108.76.33, 8th June 07

This user is from Bristol, England and today's edit is his/her sole contribution to wikipedia. I'll let it stand for 3 days in case he/she wants to justify it, then I intend to revert. El Ingles 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he hasn't, and no, they don't have any validity. Don't claim it, especially without citation. Titanium Dragon 20:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a similar unsourced claim by 209.89.38.72 (British Columbia, looks like) should also be excised. I'll leave it for a few days in case he/she wishes to defend it. El Ingles 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? This really does have to be cut. Any citation 209.89.38.72 could come up with would obviously be from the Enterprise Mission. Self-published web sites are specifically cited by wiki-policy as unreliable sources, and not to be used. Somebody else do it please, or this brazilian dude is going to accuse me of bias. El Ingles 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

El Ingles

I think rather unfair that a person visibly and violently biased against Richard Rogueland is the self-appointed guardian and protector of his victim's page! Does anyone agree with me? How can I fill a complain? 201.19.176.24 01:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, get an account so that you aren't just an IP address issued in Brazil. Then, read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability WP:V. Note that, in the case of articles about living persons, unverifiable or unsourced information is supposed to be deleted immediately, not left for a few days hoping that the editor who added it will come up with a valid source. Having done that, the complaints process starts at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Good luck. El Ingles 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The overall lack of neutral emotion in tone, and lack of actual discussion of Hoagland's ideas on their merits clearly indicates that this wiki entry is a farce. I don't really support Hoagland's ideas. But I do support people suggesting new hypotheses to explain scientific questions - whether or not they are esteemed to be scientists.

If Hoagland's ideas are so ridiculous, it would seem that they could be easily and quickly refuted by an appeal to logic and evidence. Instead, we get this ridiculous wiki article that appears to be motivated by non-scientific, possibly political motivations.

When supposed scientists lose their ability to remain objective and communicate issues in strictly factual terms (remember, the scientific method?), then we are facing a threat to science itself. This is the basis of my objections to this article. Philosopher8 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox?

I wouldn't mind adding an infobox. However, as instructed, I have referred to list of biography infoboxes, and there isn't one for former science writers who make ridiculous claims about subjects they have no training in. El Ingles 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

Instead of having two long lists of "claims" and "controversies", it would be better to make each topic a paragraph or subheading. — Omegatron 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Kind of project that might suit someobody really brilliant, such as Omegatron . El Ingles 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Badly written sections

The Claims section, for example, is very poorly written. I can't be bothered to clean it up myself, though, because I'm just clicking through ;) --69.17.164.159 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific approach"

Sorry, I have no dog in this race, but I don't think the term "scientific approach" (intro) can be left unexplained. It is NOT self-evident what exactly it is, you know?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.68.9 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: how to file a report

I am not the original poster (who complained about the perceived bias of the author), but I am a human being and a Wikipedia user, so I am entitled to add a word myself...

"First, get an account so that you aren't just an IP address issued in Brazil."

Not only was that uncalled for (as in RUDE) - it is not a very bright answer, is it?

I mean, IP addresses in Brazil (or anywhere) filing reports all by themselves... my, that would actually equal a paranormal event!

Let's not offend each other intelligence - OR (most especially) human dignity, please.

My comment was not in the least rude. 201.19.176.24 needs to register with wikipedia in order to pursue a complaint about my editing. The complaints process requires this — I was being helpful, not rude. --El Ingles (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly-broad, essentially non-scientific, non-factual tone to this entire entry

As science is about the entertainment of new hypotheses and representations of the truth, and is not about dogma, orthodoxy, and consensus; I find the overall tone of this entire wiki entry to be non-scientific, histrionic, and nothing other than blatant propaganda.

The very first paragraph flatly asserts that his theories are completely non-scientific and have no support from the scientific community. Obviously, this is pure hyperbole. Some minority of the scientific community finds these views at the very least to be worthy of consideration to some degree.

Since when is TRUTH determined by consensus? Is science a democracy? Are insight and wisdom traits that are ubiquitous within humanity? Was it just for Socrates to be put to death, upon the mere consensus of the supposedly wise?

I have no specific agreement or disagreement with these theories as yet, but certainly we should be free to entertain other possibilities in our minds that contravene established understanding. Such is the essence of science, itself. Without this tendency, science will never gravitate towards maximally-complete understanding, but will remain trapped within sub-optimal pools of orthodoxy on the error-surface of reality.

The criticism crudely spouted here reminds me of what Catholic-Aristotalians would have said about Copernicus and Galileo a few centuries ago. Whether or not these views are actually true, shame on those who have written this unintelligent and biased hit-piece.

Philosopher8 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But wikipedia isn't about Truth, it is about Verifiability. See also WP:NOT. Unfortunately, nothing of what you added provided and sources, so is unlikely to remain long in the article, unless you can provide them. Ashmoo (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is the verification that NO scientists agree with Hoagland's view? Where are the sources proving that NO scientist upon the earth thinks as he does? My statement is MORE verifiable than the original simply because it is not absolute. And absolutes are only possible for religious dogma and fact proven by thorough proof. Where is the proof supporting the article? The statement is not a scientifically valid statement, but a statement of a faith mindset.

As for truth, wikipedia is about truth because that is the function of an encyclopedia. Also, logic itself reveals that verifiability tends to reveal truth, and so is only just a process of obtaining truth. Indeed, looking at science, we can see that this is nothing more than the rational investigation of truth, while spirituality is the irrational investigation of truth. You seem to have forgotten the whole point of what this is all about. User:Philosopher8 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be more productive to show evidence that there are some scientists that take his views seriously (this is a smaller task than canvassing every single scientist on their agreement with Hoagland). The best (= the most notable and most verifiable) sources for this would be scientific publications, since these is the primary mode by which scientists communicate their findings to one another. An example of this could be: Carlotto, M. J., 1988, Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features, Applied Optics 27, 1926-1933. However, bear in mind that while this analysis used the best data available at the time, this data is now superseded by that collected on later missions.

Finally, as an aside on truth, you might like to read a Wikipedia essay on the Truth. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all the absolute statements need to be modified to something verifiable and have citations added. Regarding Truth, please read WP:Verifiability, specifically the 1st sentence.

And the solution to the current problem on Unsourced Point-Of-View statements is to request sources, not to add unsourced POV in the opposite direction.Ashmoo (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Balance Provided

I have made some modifications in the beginning of the document to provide a more balanced presentation.

I should like to point out that I am not a Hoagland supporter. I merely object to the ridiculous bias taken in what is to be an encyclopedic entry. Scandalous indeed, and full of much inappropriate passion as well.

And so my modifications will be found to be just as valid, potentially true, and even in tone as the whole document itself.

Philosopher8 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your reference to Richard Hoagland's "genius" as being in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. I don't agree with your other edits either, but let's attempt a consensus on this. The article states (and cites, where possible) facts about Hoagland's claims. If you think that the mere tabulation of these claims amounts to criticism, that tells its own story, don't you think? --El Ingles (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read my text you will see that I did not call Hoagland a genius. Rather, I merely pointed out that those who are geniuses are routinely assaulted by spurious means such as presented here. 'He didn't even go to college <HORROR!>' does nothing to rebut the man or his ideas, which is the tone of this entire document. There is no refutation of these theories, only assaults upon his credentials and character. Should we call Newton a lunatic because physical units are named after him? What about Ohm? This is ridiculous criticism presented here. Philosopher8 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To start the attempt at consensus, could you elaborate on your statement that Some minority of the scientific community finds these views ... to be worthy of consideration please? A few names of working, actively publishing, scientists who find this would suffice. Thanks. --El Ingles (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all, YOU provide the proof that ZERO scientists agree with Hoagland and then we can talk about verifiability and balance. To flatly assert that 'Nobody on the planet who knows about this subject' agrees with him is preposterous on its face. Philosopher8 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article lacked balance. Obviously, Hoagland is controversial, so people are not going to agree on the Truth of the matter. That is why we must insist of notable 3rd party sources for everything that is asserted in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Philosopher8's concerns by deleting the entire paragraph about Hoagland's claim to be a physicist. It was unsourced and not well drafted IMO. I have also clarified the later reference to his lack of standing in science. To be sure, people with no college education are capable of doing fine work in science. The test of a scientist is regular publication in peer-reviewed journals — a test that Hoagland has not passed (I do believe he has stated that he has submitted to journals, but I can't substantiate that and therefore it is not in the article). I see no implied criticism of the fact that units in Hyperdimensional Physics are Hoaglands. It is simply stated without comment. As to Philosopher8's wish for more discussion of Hoagland's theories, that's a problem. I took a look at some possible models for this — Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, Lynn Margulis — and really came back empty. Sagan, Kaku and Margulis represent some controversial ideas, but they arise from scientific observation. Hoagland's ideas seem to be manufactured for the express purpose of creating controversy, selling books and tapes, and soliciting a gullible radio audience for cash. It's not as if there's an accepted scientific mystery ("Wow — what the heck is that thing that looks like R2D2??") and Hoagland has contributed a daring and possibly correct theory. On the contrary, no person trained in interpreting planetary photography would give it more than a passing chuckle. I'm afraid an attempt to "discuss" Hoagland theories would be depressingly repetitive. "He says A, but there is no evidence for A. He says B, but there is no evidence for B. He says C, but there is no evidence for C"..... etc. Philosopher8's wish that I prove that no scientist on Earth supports Hoagland is ridiculous. I merely repeat that the onus is on him/her to name a few that do. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Very disingenuous claptrap. The test of a scientist is not publication in PRJ, but in the fact that he is right! Amateurs face enormous obstacles to such publication, and certainly cannot publish an unorthodox opinion in this way. Mentioning 'Hoaglands' were simply 'stated without comment', but the only possible reason for doing so is to imply a fanatical arrogance in Hoagland. Anybody with a few functioning neurons can see this. As for my request about proving no scientist supports him - If you are going to say absolute things such as you have, you need commensurate proof to go along with it. No such proof is apparent, and so you should modify you comment.

While Hoagland may indeed be crazy or disingenuous, it is quite obvious that you El Ingles are a propagandist, using innuendo and stilted words to cast the image you desire. No other explanation fits with your behavior. And while Hoagland's ideas may end up being nothing but a big joke, YOUR actions here are not a laughing matter. I consider them to be serious breaches of intellectual ethics. Philosopher8 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher8 - please be nice to your fellow editors. Describing their comments as "disingenuous claptrap" and suggesting that that don't even have "a few functioning neurons" is neither polite nor helps us resolve the content dispute here. As a new user, you may be unaware that Wikipedia has official policy on personal attacks. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago, calling these arguments disingenuous claptrap is not a personal attack. It is a statement about the logical fitness of the comments themselves, not the author of them. Also, I never made any references to anybody being deficient in any way with my "a few functioning neurons" comment. Rather, this was a statement intended to indicate that anybody at all would perceive the obvious innuendo of the article. I reject your assertion completely, and I don't appreciate yet another disingenuous, out-of-context use of wikipedia policy as a tool to squelch my opinion. Philosopher8 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Suppression afoot

Hi Philosopher8, I know you mean well, but please stop adding your own opinions into wikipedia articles. WP requires WP:SOURCES. Ashmoo (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philosopher8"

I received the above as I made clarifications to the article. The only thing I have done is tone down the hyperbolic language used. I removed references to "Pseudo-Science". How do I need a SOURCE to do that? Preposterous! Who the hell decides what a pseudo-science is anyway?

One does not need "sources" to erase the propaganda and bias of the authors.

Also, some of my edits were erased in near-real-time as I made them, allowing nobody to even look and see what I did. Thus, any debate about the merits of my edits are neatly quashed. This is obvious suppression.

I am new to wiki, so please somebody tell me how to:

1) Mark this article as biased

2) File a complaint about the suppressive behavior of these other member(s)

Thank You

Philosopher8 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking an article as biased is best left to an Administrator. The complaints process starts at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Please take note of the fact that, as one of the editors of this article, I have today responded in good faith to (some of) your concerns. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philosopher8. I'm surprised you took my comment so badly. I didn't mean to discourage you from editing, but since you are new I just wanted to let you know how wikipedia works. It is a good idea to Assume Good Faith when reading other people's comments. I don't have any problem with you chopping out Unsourced material. My comment was only in regards to material that you were adding that lacked sources. Ashmoo (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I was not adding any new content. What I was doing is called 'editing', which is what an editor does to raw content to increase clarity or provide a more intellectually balanced presentation. Such activities do not require sources, for they do not present any new topics. Instead, previously-referenced topics are more appropriately worded, and clarity and balance are enhanced. Philosopher8 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My only issue is with additions such as the following text, with counts as new content and requires a source, according to wikipedia rules.

His assertion that there are artificial structures on Mars, which may have become more indistinct due to erosion and the passage of time, cannot be verified until mankind has a more pervasive presence there, and has access to more data. Ashmoo (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No Ashmoo, you are wrong. This paragraph only EXPANDS and CLARIFIES the previous paragraphs that declare Hoagland's theories. No new ideas are presented, only a full, balanced presentation of the original topic. The part about the lack of verification is more balanced than the original article's obvious sarcastic tone, and neither supports nor rejects the theories. Also, it indicates that we cannot definitively know the reality of the situation until more data is present, which is an intrinsically unbiased comment. None of this requires any new sourcing, nor proposes any new ideas. Clearly, you don't understand the need for neutrality and objectivity - just "SOURCES". Philosopher8 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else here see what I mean? A disingenuous complaint of 'lack of sourcing' is being used as a tool to suppress ANY modifications to the article that alter its bias and tone. If you people are going to ridicule Hoagland's ideas, the least you could do is let me fully clarify what he is saying. Philosopher8 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Philo8, you're wilfully ignoring the edits I've made today in response to (some of) your concerns. I'm not going to respond to epithets like "Very disingenuous claptrap". Specifically regarding the so-called "face", have you actually followed the links embedded in the article to the high-resolution Mars Express images? There's even a stereo "fly-around" for your amusement. --El Ingles (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Philo8, Please read the 1st paragraph of WP:Verifiability. In the text I quoted the assertion that a '[Hoagload's theories]] cannot verified until mankind has a more pervasive presence there' is introducing a new idea that requires a 3rd party source. And I'd ask you to stop calling other people's comments 'disingenuous', it implies that people are not being honest, which violates WP:AGF and could be considered a WP:Personal Attack. Ashmoo (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashmoo, IMO the comments I have described as 'disingenuous' evidence either a fundamental lack of logic, or an affectation of logic as a cover to achieve suppression on this issue. Since I have perceived that you people seem to be capable of a reasonable dialogue, and since the article itself is so very highly biased; the most logical conclusion I can come to is that the assertions made against my opinion are not motivated out of desire to protect wiki policy and content, but to achieve ideological control of this issue here in wiki.

I consider this propaganda. And as such, I find it inherently incompatible with both the function of an encyclopedia, and the INTENT of wikipedia policy. You and your associates' constant obfuscatory citings of wiki policy seem to be nothing more than out-of-context procedural objections to my comments, while little attempt is made to actually converse about the content of my opinions.

I reiterate my view: Hoagland may be a crackpot, or he may have one or two interesting ideas. But this article about him is massively biased, and uses inappropriate means of convincing the reader to come to a single conclusion that you apparently want - that of scorn for Hoagland. IMO, regardless of Mr. Hoagland's value or non-value to science, this article itself is more obviously in violation of scientific principles than anything he has said. And since this is an encyclopedia, and not some speculative book, the dangers here for humanity are far greater than anything you may feel Hoagland has done. This is the basis for my opposition to both the article, and the multiplicity of objections about 'policy violations' alleged against me. To me, the evidence supports the conclusion that they actually are not voiced in good faith, and that devious means are being used to achieve ideological control of the discussion about this issue. This does not constitute a personal attack of any kind. Rather, it is the content of my observations meant to protect the neutrality and utility of wikipedia. Philosopher8 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philosopher8. Reiterating Ashmoo, I would encourage you to read our policy document on assuming good faith. Given your comments immediately above, it seems like you haven't taken the polite hint I dropped before (although I note that you have removed an earlier remark you made suggesting that this article's editors would make "excellent employees at Oceania's 'Ministry Of Truth'").

Concerning the subject of this article, Hoagland, you might find that this section of the NPOV policy, or this short essay on the scientific POV, gives some helpful guidance. Hoagland's ideas fall well within the provenance of science so should be reported with this in mind. That means prominently noting the majority scientific view of his ideas. While one is unlikely to find many scientific papers that articulate specific negative opinions of his ideas (scientists have usually got better things to do), the topics that he deals with (e.g. solar system planets and moons) are otherwise well-studied by the scientific community. That a large number of broadly independent and self-interested individuals reach a general consensus about these topics that is radically different from the singular view of an independent and self-interested individual is notable, and should be recorded here.

On the specific point of pseudoscience, the Wikipedia article on this topic defines it as: "any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method". You mileage may vary, but Hoagland would appear to fall into this (admittedly rather broad) description as far as most of the editors here are concerned (that he spouts scientific arguments but is conspicuously absent from the scientific literature is also notable). There are certainly problems with the way in which Hoagland is presented in the current draft of the article (e.g. labelling his views as "ridiculous" in the lead), but, as has been pointed out already, merely adding opposing hyperbole is not the solution (e.g. implying that Hoagland is a "genius intelligence").

Anyway, I hope this helps clarify the general tenor of the article. Best regards, --Plumbago (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Plumbago, I originally held to an assumption of good faith, per wiki policy. But subsequent events have changed that original opinion into the view I hold now. Aren't wiki members supposed to oppose propaganda, and not let it corrupt the wikipedia? Should we all just remain silently holding on to an imposed 'assumption of good faith' after disturbing new facts come to light? Doing so would ENSURE that propagandists eventually overrun the entire wikipedia. In good faith, I have come to the conclusion that propaganda is in effect here. Is such a conclusion 'taboo' here? Who shall censor my honest opinion about a matter of significance to wiki members?

I never said Hoagland was a genius. Rather, I pointed out that geniuses are often attacked by lesser minds in the ways that the authors have done here with Hoagland. This comment was meant to criticise the authors' inappropriate tactics and tone in the article.

I view it the duty of all intelligent people to be vigilant in opposing propaganda, wherever it may be found. If Hoagland does this, I will oppose him. If wiki members do it, I will oppose them as well.

I would be glad to discuss the other topical elements you presented pertaining to Hoagland, but first we must address the issue of propaganda or such discussion would be fruitless. I would like to discuss all the elements I see as inappropriate in this article. But previous attempts to begin this process have resulted in only a flurry of out-of-context allegations of policy violations whenever my ideas have conflicted with others' ideas. I haven't insulted or assaulted anybody, by my ideas should be free to openly battle with others' ideas. Thus far, this has only resulted in whiny, spurious protestations and red tape. Such is the tactics of those who use propaganda as a tool to win debate. Whenever I make a logical point, I am asked for sources. Since when does logic require a source? I am not citing concrete examples of anything; that would require some sourcing. But somehow, merely by saying that 2+2=4, I am required to provide a source for such conclusions. This is a very authoritarian/illogical mindset, one that is often used by propagandists to discredit logic they cannot disprove or rebut. And so I have come to my present conclusions. I do hope that we can work together to sort this all out. - Best Regards. Philosopher8 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is a great word. Everyone's against it. But how does one define it? One person's propaganda is often another's balanced view. Speaking pragmatically, labelling the views of others as propaganda is simply not useful, and it's liable to just get people's backs up. As an aside, considering that you're a new user, you've assumed up your supply of good faith pretty quickly!  ;-)

Concerning so-called logical points, the changes that you've made to the article certainly aren't confined to logic as I understand it, hence the need for sources. We're editing an encyclopedia here, not creating The Truth. I would certainly agree that several of your edits served to balance dodgy opposing views, but ideally neither should be there.

Regarding your insertion of "genius", you may not have intended to suggest Hoagland is a genius, but this is how many people would read the text. Only insert material that's sourced, or so obvious that no sourcing is needed: hyperbole is unencyclopedic, usually unjustified, and liable to make people suspicious of content. Also, noting that, for instance, "everyone laughed at Isaac Newton / Albert Einstein / <insert famous thinker here>" is not an argument. Everyone laughed at Coco the Clown too.

Continuing to respond to one another at great length here probably isn't the best use of our efforts. Perhaps we need to pick a section that could do with improving (the lead suggests itself straight away), to both tidy it up (formatting) and improve NPOV (while avoiding undue weight). Purely from a style perspective, the separation of the article into "Mars" and "Claims" sections (the latter of which is repetitive of the former) is bad. Also, the "Claims" are organised fairly randomly, and there's some dubious original research in there about R2-D2. Anyway, these parts of the article may be good places to start improving it. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. My only comment would be, when you said Only insert material that's sourced, or so obvious that no sourcing is needed: , I would say that if something is so obvious that it doesn't need sourcing that it is so obvious that it doesn't need mentioning. Ashmoo (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Propaganda: Application of faulty, impassioned, or incomplete reasoning (pseudo-reason) in an attempt to convince the public or groups of people to adopt prescribed views on matters of public discourse or controversy.

I agree that we should start to fix these things. And I apologize for some of my less-than-helpful edits in the past. I become very indignant when I see instances such as this. Henceforth, I will try to remain more balanced.

As for now, sleep calls me away. And so these edits will have to wait until tomorrow for a beginning. -Best Wishes, Philosopher8 (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Philo8, I believe you are out of order with your "whiny, spurious protestations " comment. I see no sign that you have paid any attention to the editing I did and the comments I wrote in response to your violently expressed concerns. I appreciate Ashmoo's ongoing efforts to re-order the article but I doubt you'll be satisfied. Malicious lies, such as the accusation of murder of the Apollo 1 astronauts, cannot be discussed as though they were sober scientific hypotheses. You haven't said whether you actually looked at the Mars Express images of Cydonia, even. If that's an artificial structure, I'm a Dutchman. Dank u wel. --El Ingles 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to communicate with El Ingles for the reasons I have elaborated above. I believe it to be a waste of time for both of us. Philosopher8 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, Philo8. Could you please get into the habit of posting an edit summary with your edits (that's that text input element down \/ there). Those of us watching the page would be greatly helped. Dank u wel. --El Ingles 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stu, I reverted your edit, because it was an intpretation of a primary source (the source itself didn't say that Hoags uses 'sci journalese') , which is forbidden according to WP:PSTS. This article already relies too much on primary sources (Hoags website and editor's recollections of his radio show), we need to insist on 3rd party commentaries. Ashmoo 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war, but if you insist on 3rd party commentaries, you might as well go for an outright deletion right now (a proposal I'm on record as favouring). The only 3rd party commentaries I'm aware of ridicule Hoagland, and that's going to upset Philo8 even more. Cheers. --El Ingles 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, this article is mostly primary sources and insisting of 3rd party sources would greatly reduce the article. If that is the result of abiding by wikipedia policy, so be it. Personally, I think Hoagland is notable enough to warrant an article. My impression is also that most 3rd parties are skeptics and scientists debunking his ideas, but if we make sure we attribute all criticisms, rather than stating them are universal fact, that would help alleviate POV problems. If that upsets Philo8, that is unfortunate, but we can't break WP policies to make editors feel better. Ashmoo 09:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims/Mars section

Plumbago, regarding your comments on the Mars section: Do you think splitting the Claims up by section is bad in principle, or just the repetition? I created the section in an attempt to organise the long list of claims and am currently removing the repetition. Personally, I think splitting his Claims by topic (Jupiter/Mars/Moon/goverment murders etc) is the best way to organise his huge list of claims over the years, but I don't want to set out to do it if other editors disagree. Ashmoo (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick response for now - gotta go! I'd favour dividing his claims by topic too. I guess that we just have to avoid subsections with only a single claim in them (i.e. choose topics such that there are 3+ claims in them; shoehorn smaller topics into uber-categories like "miscellaneous"). Easier said than done I suspect! Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. That was my intention. Obviously, it'll take a bit of time. Ashmoo (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New suggestion

I thought the short essay on the scientific POV that Plumbago drew our attention to was excellent, and highly relevant to the task we jointly face. Noting that the essay suggests prefacing any section on pseudoscience with the consensus view, why don't we see if, with the new sectioning now in progress, we can do something like that?

The easy one would be the moon, and it might go something like this:

The consensus view among professional scientists who study the moon is that it is, and has always been, lifeless [6]. Although a certain quantity of water ice has been detected by the Clementine mission of 1994 in high-latitude craters, selenologists are fairly certain that there is not sufficient to support microbial life. Macrobiology, such as a technology-building civilization, is, by this widely-accepted view, out of the question. No trace of biology has ever been detected in the moon rocks available for study on Earth.

Richard Hoagland rejects this view, and vigorously promotes the following alternative ideas:

[insert existing list]

--El Ingles 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, I have implemented this, and I'll add the Mars equivalent later today. --El Ingles 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting before you started work on this, but I'm actually against it. Number one, the short essay on the scientific POV is historical, having failed to gain any consensus as a policy. Two, I think it was written to refer to general articles, not articles on pseudo-scientists themselves.

The fact is, pretty much everything Hoagland says contradicts the scientific consensus. If a reader wants to know the scientific consensus about say, life on the Moon, they can go to the Moon article. Repeating it on Hoagland's article seems redundant, unless someone notable in the scientific community has specifically rebutted Hoagland.

A reader would come to this article to find out about Hoagland and his claims (as I did, when I first found it). Cydonia, Europa etc, all have their own articles to explain the mainstream point of view.

If you really want readers to have easy access to the scientific viewpoint on the matters, I think a See Also: in the section header would be better.Ashmoo 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it as it is. I have in mind a reader who has no prior clue who this person is — perhaps the name came up in conversation round the water-cooler and this reader is intrigued. For this reader, a brief summary of the consensus view, with links to more info, is highly valuable. I've written those sections extremely tight and I now wish to defend them. --El Ingles (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that your writing isn't good. It is. But this article is on Richard Hoagland and should be about his views and 3rd party commentary of his views. The work you have done is good, but is better placed on the relevant pages. Ashmoo (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we need a tie-breaking opinion, then. --El Ingles (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"This entire body of knowledge"

Ashmoo, by promoting that sentence to the lead you've divorced it from its subject. I can't make sense of it in the new context. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, I have restored the sentence to its original position. --El Ingles (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got busy at work. Putting it in the Mars/Cydonia section seems like a bad idea because it is not specific to the Mars claims, but applies generally to all his claims. Maybe put it at the top of the Claims section, if you think it shouldn't be in the lead. Ashmoo (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you also respond to my thoughts in the New Suggestion section above? Ashmoo (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of us had valid points. I've change/moved it again, and responded to your other comment above. --El Ingles (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation

Just as what is happening with Linda Howe and others, the "skeptics" and the govt. actually want them to shut the fuck up and comply with the Party Line, which is to ridicule people who have had bizarre experiences, by making witnesses out to be loonytoons, full of shit, crazy, all fucked up. See Operation Mockingbird, which is about media control by the govt., and the Robertson Panel, another CIA program designed to make witnesses, experiencers of bizarre phenomena look like shitheads, loonytoons, full of shit. Someone placed a UFO Watchdog link on the Philip Klass article, and it got tossed as vandalisim or some such shit, while the SAME link is used to discredit Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland, and yet it remains. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You took the link to the UFO Watchdog site out of context, or maybe you missed it. Regardless, it's used to verify that Hoagland talked about the Old Navy conspiracy on Coast to Coast, nothing else. --Merovingian (T, C) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

UFO Watchdog...

...is a unreliable source. This should be removed, along with matter used from it as well. See discussion on Wikipedia:Project Paranormal's Talk page. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Other stories

There are a lot of other stories that could be told about Richard, but few of them have made it into a quotable source. He was involved with space colonies and Dr. O'Neill about 1975. In those days Richard could talk the birds down out of the trees. Ah that's been a long time ago. 24.117.41.56 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's still very articulate, even eloquent — nobody could deny that. He's mastered the art of putting on a persuasive, sincere-sounding manner while talking absolute nonsense. --El Ingles (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New HiRES photo of "The Face"

Admittedly, the new HiRES photo of "The Face" is far less human-looking than the old, lower resolution image. But the photograph in this article is upside down. If you rotate it 180˚ it is at least comparable to a face. gergis (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merely an example of pareidolia; besides, this talk page isn't meant to be used to discuss the validity of the face having face-like features.--十八 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to rotate one or the other of the two images so that they are aligned in the same direction? I find it a bit difficult to eyeball the two and see how the features correspond. Phiwum (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might possibly add useful information. I think it should properly be done on the Face on Mars page, and xref'd here. I'll have a go some time this week. --El Ingles (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it, but my edit was reverted by Plumbago. I tried. --El Ingles (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Missed this till now. I did delete El Ingles efforts, but I reinstated them later (in spirit at least) so that the Cydonia Mensae article shows images of the "Face" from a disparate range of spacecraft sources. My bad. Apologies. --Plumbago (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've appended the caption of the HiRES image to include the fact that its orientation is rotated 180 degrees from the original 1976 image. Without this information, the side by side comparison is useless and even misleading. Nathanscruggs (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedom to disagree

The opening paragraph stated that Hoagland being "a non-scientist who is not subject to peer-review, he is free to disagree with [scientific work]". I changed this to emphasize his choice to disregard it. Otherwise, one is missing the point of the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.197.38 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NASA connect to Kennedy Assassination

The passage on this is not correct. According to Hoagland's latest book, the tie-in stems from JFK's intention to link the Soviet and US space programs in a common goal, a move that in the prevailing political climate was very questionable. Because the US and Soviet Russia were engaged in disputes that took the US to the brink of nuclear war, Hoagland posits Kennedy's intent as controversial in many official quarters and of course with the general public. I point this out not as a defense of the criticisms of Hoagland but as purely informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.212.87 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've edited the section. --El Ingles (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Richard C. Hoagland formally trained in any scientific discipline?

I listen from C to C sometimes, strictly for entertainment. I've heard this guy on air, making his claims. He was critical of Edgar Mitchell for not following the scientific method in determining that the earth had been visited by space aliens. I think that's a real hoot, coming from Hoagland.

Does anyone know where\if he received any formal education in any area of science? I didn't see anything on his web site. Mbarrieau (talk) M. Barrieau July 31, 2008

No, Mr. Hoagland has no qualification or standing in any branch of science. He has no college degree of any kind, actually. See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040315.html. --El Ingles (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Face on Mars photo

The "NEW" face on Mars photo looks like a Grey Alien. Has anyone noticed this?! 65.173.105.133 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC) :0

This sentence is ridiculous

"Coast to Coast AM has given him the title of Science Advisor, despite his lack of science credentials[10]."

Totally biased! Also, this sentence:

Hoagland served as a "curator of astronomy & space science"[6] at the "Springfield Museum of Science," located at The Quadrangle in Springfield, Massachusetts, and was science adviser to Walter Cronkite and CBS News during the Apollo program.[7]

These should not be in quotes.

71.185.47.149 (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that the sentence is ridiculous. It's a legitimate matter of interest. I do agree about the quotes, however, and I've removed them. Thank you. While I was there I also removed the reference to Walter Cronkite. We can be certain that his consultancy was on behalf of the entire production staff (certainly dozens) and not particularly oriented to the anchor-man. That's what would be ridiculous. --El Ingles (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1965 press accounts of the WTIC (AM) radio program, A Night of Encounter, variously identified Hoagland as a "curator," a "museum curator" or an "assistant curator" at the Springfield Science Museum. (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/2242-hoaglands-undergraduate-astronomy-degree.html#post33534) Hoagland uses the term "Curator of Astronomy & Space Science." Unless there is any evidence contrary to Hoagland's claim, it's probably best to use Hoagland's term in quotations along with a reference pointing to http://www.enterprisemission.com/absence.html.

The original name of the Springfield Science Museum was the Springfield Ethnological and Natural History Museum. In 1961, the museum was renamed the Springfield Science Museum. (http://www.springfieldmuseums.org/the_museums/science/about)

My proposed edit:

Hoagland claims that he served as a "Curator of Astronomy & Space Science"[7] at the Springfield Science Museum, located at The Quadrangle in Springfield, Massachusetts, and that he was a consultant to CBS News during the Apollo program.[8]

As for the Coast to Coast AM sentence, what exactly would qualify someone to be the science advisor to talk show hosts Art Bell and George Noory? Perhaps Hoagland having held some sort of curatorship at a science museum, winning a Swedish science award, such as it is, writing a book, and having a style that Bell and Noory liked was all that was necessary for him be given the title of science advisor. If the producers of Nova had made Hoagland their science advisor, that would be different.

My proposed edit:

Coast to Coast AM has given him the title of Science Adviser.

--Alan G. Archer (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to think it was the producers of Coast to Coast AM -- Lisa Lyon et al -- rather than the mere front-men, who dubbed Hoagland. Maybe not. But anyway, I think some kind of standing in some branch of science would be the minimum for a credible science advisor. Normally a science education, but perhaps that would be considered elitist. Hoagland has neither the education nor the standing that might be accorded a talented "amateur." Thus, it's a surprising choice and worth noting, in my opinion. --El Ingles (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this biography, the more unsettled I have become. Please do not take offense, El, but I believe that there is a serious lack of objectivity and neutrality being displayed here. I'm even unsettled by what I wrote yesterday concerning the producers of Nova. Yes, if they had made Hoagland their science advisor, that would be hard to swallow, but to state in an encyclopedia article that Hoagland was unqualified for the position presumes too much.

Examples from Hoagland's Wikipedia biography:

Springfield Science Museum: "...despite having no education or training for such a position."

CBS News: "...despite having no education or training for such a position."

Coast to Coast AM: "...despite his lack of science credentials."

My proposed edit of the first paragraph of Hoagland's biography:

At age 19, he served as a curator at a small science museum in Springfield, Massachusetts. He claims to have worked as a science advisor to CBS News and Walter Cronkite during the Apollo missions to the Moon.[1]

--Alan G. Archer (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is overkill, I agree (and not all mine, I must add). Let's reduce the "no education or training" references to one. Your choice. --El Ingles (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a choice, but I would rather use none of them. It looks bad. It presumes that the editor possesses sufficient knowledge concerning the nature and requirements of the positions Hoagland held (curator, CBS News science advisor) and passes judgment. It leaves readers with the impression that the Springfield Science Museum, CBS News, and even C to C AM hired someone who was unqualified for the job. (Was Hoagland even paid for this work?) --Alan G. Archer (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that was true -- they did. But, as I remarked in the section immediately below this, it's a testament to the faith these people had in him that they appointed him when they had plenty of more qualified people to choose from. I defend the phrase in the context of C2C AM on those grounds, and also on the grounds that the actual word "science" occurs in the title they gave him whereas, as we know, he has never conducted any science in his life. --El Ingles (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Well, I'd say that was true -- they did."

Could you please clarify your statement? --Alan G. Archer (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You: "It leaves readers with the impression that .... hired someone who was unqualified for the job."

Me: "Well, I'd say that was true -- they did."

Clarified. --El Ingles (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --Alan G. Archer (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)