Summary Of Hoagland: Cutting Edge Visionary Or Pseudoscience
English 102
Refutation Paper
Richard C. Hoagland: Cutting Edge Visionary or Pseudoscience Elvis?
How in a scientific age as ours, with legitimate data and reasoning as close as a Google search, can people believe in crazy unsubstantiated theories? Pseudoscience has been around longer than true science has, but with all we know, wouldn’t folks wise up? According to Wikkipedia, “Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific”. (Wikkipedia) In the past, honest scientific mistakes were believed to be true. The flat earth theory, astrology and the Sun revolving around the earth were all accepted science, until proven false. Those who continued to profess those beliefs became …show more content…
proponents of fake science. Today we still have practitioners of fake science. The bulk of them are metaphysical charlatans or scam artists, working the suckers for a buck. But there is another class of pseudo scientist out there, that puts forth their own bizarre scientific theories. Their motives are less about money and often fame is their ultimate goal. Backed up by skewed data and fallacious arguments, they grow in popularity to the detriment of real scientific discourse. Richard C. Hoagland is one such practitioner, and he has achieved fame of a sort among the believers of pseudoscience, and his various books and appearances have earned him a nice living as well. Richard C. Hoagland’s credentials seem impressive enough: Hoagland has held several high posts at science museums and planetariums since 1965, been science advisor to Walter Cronkite & CBS News. He was the editor-in-chief at Star and Sky Magazine. He was initially involved in the idea of placing the plaque on the Pioneer space probe. In a 1980 issue of Star and Sky he authored an article about Europa’s potential to host life in its under-ice oceans. The idea was revolutionary, and Hoagland claims to be the originator of it. Richard Hoagland received the Angstrom Medal, for advances in science, in 1993. He is a regular guest on the enormously popular Coast-to-Coast show, a late-night AM radio program which explore the paranormal & fringe sciences. With a listenership of over 10 million, Hoagland’s theories reach a large segment of the population through this medium alone. (Nadis) Richard Hoagland’s complete theories are housed at his website, Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com). There are many, many theories buried in the web of links he calls a home page, some sane, some completely out there. To sum up the site in a nutshell: Life on other planets in our solar system has or did exist. They left artifacts and evidence, often intentionally. The evidence is a sort of warning, and shows a revolutionary new physics model that could change the world. The government knows about it and covers it up, for reasons not quite known. Other crackpot theories also float around, unrelated to Mars. For the sake of this paper we will focus on Hoagland’s Martian theories, more specifically the face on Mars.
Side by side: 1976 Viking, 1998 Mars Global Surveyor, and 2001 Odyssey (Hoagland) If one person was the champion of the famous face on Mars, it is Richard Hoagland. Googling “Hoagland+Mars” returns over 102,000 results. Since 1993, Hoagland has led a movement searching for signs of life in the Martian data from the 1976 Viking mission pictures. A specific region called Cydonia caught his eye. It yielded an odd anomaly, a butte that had the distinct appearance of a human-like face. His initial assertions about the face were that it was humanoid, and symmetrical. Another theory that cropped up was that the face was asymmetrical, with one side humanoid and the other feline. Hoagland hedged his bets and didn’t discount that possibility, since he knew the future would eventually bring more and better pictures of Cydonia.
The original image was from the 2001Mars Odyssey spacecraft. Each half of the butte is mirrored to show the humanoid and feline aspects of the face. (Hoagland)
Until 2001 the assertions he made about the face were unprovable, due to several attempted missions failing. Beginning in 2001 with the Mars Odyssey Orbiter, more pictures have come in of the face, and they certainly shed new light on Hoagland’s theory. The new pictures show an eroding butte. The base of the feature is remarkably symmetrical, but the face melts away in the detail of the new images. Hoagland doesn’t let the facts deter him. Citing government cover-ups, data alteration and deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence, Richard Hoagland indicts NASA, Malin Space Systems (the primary government contractor for the Mars missions), and the Arizona State University THEMIS project. According to Hoagland, all these groups are working to suppress evidence of intelligent life on Mars. Let’s look closer at the allegations.
NASA doctored the images of the face. According to Hoagland, NASA scientists not only took the pictures from an unflattering angle, but then presented them with certain features digitally removed or downplayed. Hoagland often claims that images are purposely overexposed to remove detail. (Schilling) Now here’s the problem with his arguments.
First, NASA is not a supreme being. A satellite, orbiting a planet at best 5,570,000 miles away (at worst four times that!) cannot be guided and redirected on a whim. The goals and plans for these missions are very carefully laid out long before the satellite is launched. Looking at a potential “face” on Mars was so low on the list for the Mars odyssey team that Hoagland was lucky he got pictures at all. The “alterations” of the colors/exposures on the pictures shows either lack of understanding of astronomical digital imaging or a desire to deceive the public. The cameras used on the Martian orbiters are not full color digital cameras like we use in our day to day lives. (Reichhardt) The separate cameras take pictures through various filters. Some, like the IR and thermal imaging cameras do not represent color correctly at all. The visible spectrum cameras take pictures through red, blue or yellow filters. The composite image must be assembled back on earth manually. Often the IR or thermal data is incorporated into the composite, which is what happened with the Face images. Hoagland accuses NASA of altering an original that essentially never existed. (ASU)
Secondly, if there was a conspiracy to hide evidence of life, why didn’t NASA simply say that they couldn’t take those pictures? Since Hoagland was already a problem, NASA could have crafted the orbit to avoid Cydonia altogether, or at least told the public they weren’t going over that region. The conspiracy required for Hoagland’s claims to be correct boggles the mind. How many people would know the truth? How many civilian technicians and scientists would have to keep silent in order for this theory to be valid? Twenty? Fifty? One Hundred? I cannot believe that so many people devoted to science and truth could not leak evidence of life on another planet. Hoagland uses so many fallacious arguments to further his cause it is almost humorous.
On his website, he engages in personal attacks on officials at NASA and Malin Space Systems.
He uses straw man arguments about data doctoring to distract you from the obvious: The modern pictures don’t show a face. Hoagland begs the question throughout his entire website: The diagrams and data he presents is not peer reviewed nor accepted by the mainstream scientific community. His “proof” requires as much proof as his face on Mars theory does! Hoagland poisons the well by decrying the secretive and deceptive practices of the space agencies, and then presses forward with his version of the truth.
The most insidious of the fallacies on Enterprise Mission though is his appeal to authority. His laundry list of credentials is impressive on the surface. But when we dig just a little deeper, most of Richard Hoagland’s qualifications are just so much hot …show more content…
air.
First, upon research, the ‘high posts at science museums and planetariums’ don’t materialize.
There seems to be no record of a specific, named museum employing Hoagland. His own website biography states only that at nineteen he was the curator of a museum in Springfield, MA. He was indeed a science advisor to CBS and Cronkite, but only for a brief period. His stint at Star and Sky also was less than a year. His involvement in the communication plaque on Pioneer was (according to Sagan and two others involved) “minimal at best”. Apparently he was there when the idea was pitched to Sagan. Nothing more.
On Hoagland’s site, he flatly claims to have originated the idea of life in the oceans of Europa in his Star and Sky article. (One should note that Star and Sky is not a scientific journal. It is a hobbyist/enthusiast magazine). This theory had been published nine years previous in the scientific journal Icarus by Dr. John Lewis. Also one year before Hoagland was published Dr. Benton Clark gave a speech at Ames Research Center about the potential for life in Europa’s waters. Hoagland has been presented with these facts, yet does not correct his claims to be the originator of the
theory.
Richard Hoagland did indeed receive an Angstrom Medal in 1993. The Angstrom medal is issued by Uppsala University through the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Hoagland’s medal was given to him by the Angstrom Foundation, a completely separate group that preserves the family holdings by hosting conferences and symposiums on his estate. Uppsala University and the RSAS contend to this day that the Angstrom Foundation had no authority to award Hoagland. For their part, the Angstrom Foundation has admitted that awarding him was a mistake. (Plait)
Being a guest on the Coast to Coast radio show is not exactly a credential. Hoagland is side by side with such scientific luminaries as Major Ed Dames, an alleged ‘Remote Viewer’ trained by the CIA (who of course have no record of him). Another of his peers is Linda Morton Howe, a psychic and clairvoyant. Other guests include demonologists, ghost hunters, UFO abductees and witches. If we are to judge a man by the company he keeps, then Coast to Coast tells us volumes about Hoagland.
Finally the most damning piece of his appeal to authority fallacy is the fact that Richard C. Hoagland has no formal education. He is self taught, and holds no degree in Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Archeology or Anthropology. He is just a self taught guy shooting from his hip. We don’t know why he keeps the flame burning for the face on Mars, but one thing is clear: the latest images of the Face.
Unaltered NASA image of the Face Mesa of Mars. (MSS)
Bibliography
Plait, Dr. Phillip: http://www.badastronomy.com/ Nov 2005
Malin Space Systems (MSS): http://www.msss.com/lNov 2005
Hoagland, Richard: http://www.enterprisemission.com/index.php, Nov 2005
NASA: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html Nov 2005
Nadis, Steve: Richard Hoagland - space scientist - InterviewOmni, Dec, 1994
Arizona State University (ASU): http://themis.asu.edu/ Nov 2005
Schilling, Govert: Face It: It 's Not a Face. Science Now; 05/31/2001, p3, 1p, 1c
Reichhardt, Tony: NASA critics silenced as Mars loses face. Nature; 4/9/98, Vol. 392 Issue 6676, p530, 1/3p, 3bw
Hoagland, Richard: The Monuments of Mars, Frog Ltd.; 4th edition (November, 1996)
Refutation Paper
Richard C. Hoagland: Cutting Edge Visionary or Pseudoscience Elvis?
How in a scientific age as ours, with legitimate data and reasoning as close as a Google search, can people believe in crazy unsubstantiated theories? Pseudoscience has been around longer than true science has, but with all we know, wouldn’t folks wise up? According to Wikkipedia, “Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific”. (Wikkipedia) In the past, honest scientific mistakes were believed to be true. The flat earth theory, astrology and the Sun revolving around the earth were all accepted science, until proven false. Those who continued to profess those beliefs became …show more content…
proponents of fake science. Today we still have practitioners of fake science. The bulk of them are metaphysical charlatans or scam artists, working the suckers for a buck. But there is another class of pseudo scientist out there, that puts forth their own bizarre scientific theories. Their motives are less about money and often fame is their ultimate goal. Backed up by skewed data and fallacious arguments, they grow in popularity to the detriment of real scientific discourse. Richard C. Hoagland is one such practitioner, and he has achieved fame of a sort among the believers of pseudoscience, and his various books and appearances have earned him a nice living as well. Richard C. Hoagland’s credentials seem impressive enough: Hoagland has held several high posts at science museums and planetariums since 1965, been science advisor to Walter Cronkite & CBS News. He was the editor-in-chief at Star and Sky Magazine. He was initially involved in the idea of placing the plaque on the Pioneer space probe. In a 1980 issue of Star and Sky he authored an article about Europa’s potential to host life in its under-ice oceans. The idea was revolutionary, and Hoagland claims to be the originator of it. Richard Hoagland received the Angstrom Medal, for advances in science, in 1993. He is a regular guest on the enormously popular Coast-to-Coast show, a late-night AM radio program which explore the paranormal & fringe sciences. With a listenership of over 10 million, Hoagland’s theories reach a large segment of the population through this medium alone. (Nadis) Richard Hoagland’s complete theories are housed at his website, Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com). There are many, many theories buried in the web of links he calls a home page, some sane, some completely out there. To sum up the site in a nutshell: Life on other planets in our solar system has or did exist. They left artifacts and evidence, often intentionally. The evidence is a sort of warning, and shows a revolutionary new physics model that could change the world. The government knows about it and covers it up, for reasons not quite known. Other crackpot theories also float around, unrelated to Mars. For the sake of this paper we will focus on Hoagland’s Martian theories, more specifically the face on Mars.
Side by side: 1976 Viking, 1998 Mars Global Surveyor, and 2001 Odyssey (Hoagland) If one person was the champion of the famous face on Mars, it is Richard Hoagland. Googling “Hoagland+Mars” returns over 102,000 results. Since 1993, Hoagland has led a movement searching for signs of life in the Martian data from the 1976 Viking mission pictures. A specific region called Cydonia caught his eye. It yielded an odd anomaly, a butte that had the distinct appearance of a human-like face. His initial assertions about the face were that it was humanoid, and symmetrical. Another theory that cropped up was that the face was asymmetrical, with one side humanoid and the other feline. Hoagland hedged his bets and didn’t discount that possibility, since he knew the future would eventually bring more and better pictures of Cydonia.
The original image was from the 2001Mars Odyssey spacecraft. Each half of the butte is mirrored to show the humanoid and feline aspects of the face. (Hoagland)
Until 2001 the assertions he made about the face were unprovable, due to several attempted missions failing. Beginning in 2001 with the Mars Odyssey Orbiter, more pictures have come in of the face, and they certainly shed new light on Hoagland’s theory. The new pictures show an eroding butte. The base of the feature is remarkably symmetrical, but the face melts away in the detail of the new images. Hoagland doesn’t let the facts deter him. Citing government cover-ups, data alteration and deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence, Richard Hoagland indicts NASA, Malin Space Systems (the primary government contractor for the Mars missions), and the Arizona State University THEMIS project. According to Hoagland, all these groups are working to suppress evidence of intelligent life on Mars. Let’s look closer at the allegations.
NASA doctored the images of the face. According to Hoagland, NASA scientists not only took the pictures from an unflattering angle, but then presented them with certain features digitally removed or downplayed. Hoagland often claims that images are purposely overexposed to remove detail. (Schilling) Now here’s the problem with his arguments.
First, NASA is not a supreme being. A satellite, orbiting a planet at best 5,570,000 miles away (at worst four times that!) cannot be guided and redirected on a whim. The goals and plans for these missions are very carefully laid out long before the satellite is launched. Looking at a potential “face” on Mars was so low on the list for the Mars odyssey team that Hoagland was lucky he got pictures at all. The “alterations” of the colors/exposures on the pictures shows either lack of understanding of astronomical digital imaging or a desire to deceive the public. The cameras used on the Martian orbiters are not full color digital cameras like we use in our day to day lives. (Reichhardt) The separate cameras take pictures through various filters. Some, like the IR and thermal imaging cameras do not represent color correctly at all. The visible spectrum cameras take pictures through red, blue or yellow filters. The composite image must be assembled back on earth manually. Often the IR or thermal data is incorporated into the composite, which is what happened with the Face images. Hoagland accuses NASA of altering an original that essentially never existed. (ASU)
Secondly, if there was a conspiracy to hide evidence of life, why didn’t NASA simply say that they couldn’t take those pictures? Since Hoagland was already a problem, NASA could have crafted the orbit to avoid Cydonia altogether, or at least told the public they weren’t going over that region. The conspiracy required for Hoagland’s claims to be correct boggles the mind. How many people would know the truth? How many civilian technicians and scientists would have to keep silent in order for this theory to be valid? Twenty? Fifty? One Hundred? I cannot believe that so many people devoted to science and truth could not leak evidence of life on another planet. Hoagland uses so many fallacious arguments to further his cause it is almost humorous.
On his website, he engages in personal attacks on officials at NASA and Malin Space Systems.
He uses straw man arguments about data doctoring to distract you from the obvious: The modern pictures don’t show a face. Hoagland begs the question throughout his entire website: The diagrams and data he presents is not peer reviewed nor accepted by the mainstream scientific community. His “proof” requires as much proof as his face on Mars theory does! Hoagland poisons the well by decrying the secretive and deceptive practices of the space agencies, and then presses forward with his version of the truth.
The most insidious of the fallacies on Enterprise Mission though is his appeal to authority. His laundry list of credentials is impressive on the surface. But when we dig just a little deeper, most of Richard Hoagland’s qualifications are just so much hot …show more content…
air.
First, upon research, the ‘high posts at science museums and planetariums’ don’t materialize.
There seems to be no record of a specific, named museum employing Hoagland. His own website biography states only that at nineteen he was the curator of a museum in Springfield, MA. He was indeed a science advisor to CBS and Cronkite, but only for a brief period. His stint at Star and Sky also was less than a year. His involvement in the communication plaque on Pioneer was (according to Sagan and two others involved) “minimal at best”. Apparently he was there when the idea was pitched to Sagan. Nothing more.
On Hoagland’s site, he flatly claims to have originated the idea of life in the oceans of Europa in his Star and Sky article. (One should note that Star and Sky is not a scientific journal. It is a hobbyist/enthusiast magazine). This theory had been published nine years previous in the scientific journal Icarus by Dr. John Lewis. Also one year before Hoagland was published Dr. Benton Clark gave a speech at Ames Research Center about the potential for life in Europa’s waters. Hoagland has been presented with these facts, yet does not correct his claims to be the originator of the
theory.
Richard Hoagland did indeed receive an Angstrom Medal in 1993. The Angstrom medal is issued by Uppsala University through the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Hoagland’s medal was given to him by the Angstrom Foundation, a completely separate group that preserves the family holdings by hosting conferences and symposiums on his estate. Uppsala University and the RSAS contend to this day that the Angstrom Foundation had no authority to award Hoagland. For their part, the Angstrom Foundation has admitted that awarding him was a mistake. (Plait)
Being a guest on the Coast to Coast radio show is not exactly a credential. Hoagland is side by side with such scientific luminaries as Major Ed Dames, an alleged ‘Remote Viewer’ trained by the CIA (who of course have no record of him). Another of his peers is Linda Morton Howe, a psychic and clairvoyant. Other guests include demonologists, ghost hunters, UFO abductees and witches. If we are to judge a man by the company he keeps, then Coast to Coast tells us volumes about Hoagland.
Finally the most damning piece of his appeal to authority fallacy is the fact that Richard C. Hoagland has no formal education. He is self taught, and holds no degree in Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Archeology or Anthropology. He is just a self taught guy shooting from his hip. We don’t know why he keeps the flame burning for the face on Mars, but one thing is clear: the latest images of the Face.
Unaltered NASA image of the Face Mesa of Mars. (MSS)
Bibliography
Plait, Dr. Phillip: http://www.badastronomy.com/ Nov 2005
Malin Space Systems (MSS): http://www.msss.com/lNov 2005
Hoagland, Richard: http://www.enterprisemission.com/index.php, Nov 2005
NASA: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html Nov 2005
Nadis, Steve: Richard Hoagland - space scientist - InterviewOmni, Dec, 1994
Arizona State University (ASU): http://themis.asu.edu/ Nov 2005
Schilling, Govert: Face It: It 's Not a Face. Science Now; 05/31/2001, p3, 1p, 1c
Reichhardt, Tony: NASA critics silenced as Mars loses face. Nature; 4/9/98, Vol. 392 Issue 6676, p530, 1/3p, 3bw
Hoagland, Richard: The Monuments of Mars, Frog Ltd.; 4th edition (November, 1996)