'Civilization on Mars' Claims Debunked 379
StarEmperor writes "Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait has finally taken some time to
debunk conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland's claims about life on Mars. There's also a CNN story about this here."
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.libo.ru [www.libo.ru]
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
That's ridiculous. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Even my girlfriend thought that was funny!
Re:Truth (Score:4, Funny)
Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have recently had a discussion about dieting with a group of engineers (one of them a PhD). It was about a two-week diet where the person only drinks water. It is supposed to clean the body of toxins (very easily true) and improve one's sport performance (WTF?!). Apparently, they read in a book that after the body gets used to not having food, it draws the energy from the body itself and doesn't need food anymore. And these were educated people. Made me understand why so many people buy the etheric oil and penis enlargement crap.
Re:Science education..... (Score:2)
Well, DUH! These people underwent years of brainwas^H^H^H^Htraining, of course we should take the word without question.
Re:Science education..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science education..... (Score:4, Interesting)
So that explains the Matrix movies, then?
Bander
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, from personal experience I can tell that there is often a huge difference between what "a scientist" has found out (and recorded in a paper) and what a journalist will actually write about it.
The sad thing is, as a rule the journalist really _wants_ to write an honest, representative piece. The scientist _wants_ to represent their findings as well as possible. But, because of tight deadlines, communication mistakes, misunderstandings and so on, we end up with writeups that bring tears to the scientists, abuse for the reporters, ad bad-will from everybody in the process towards everybody else.
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently a looming deadline inspired the producers to go to production before I approved the script.
people (Score:4, Insightful)
you'd love an intro polysci class.
yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
People tend to trust and believe things said by persons they identify with. People on slashdot are probably more likely (as a group) to identify with "scientist"s than are say, people in a baptist church in dixieland. Just like people in that church would be more likely to agree with their minister that "the plight of coconut harvesters in equatorial guinea has got to STOP!" based on who said it than say, a crowd of random people on the street. (don't read too much into these example... as far as I know there are no coconuts in Eq Guinea).
It's just an information processing shortcut.
Oh come on, don't pretent you hold up every single assertion to a microscope. We all take this shortcut. Some of us just have better bs detectors. Also happenstance is everpresent (some people call this luck).
PS: I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people. I also don't think I am shocking parent's author with blinding wisdom. Just sayin'.
Re:people (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you can't examine everything in detail (nor does anyone have the ability to always do it), but some critical thinking is really necessary.
I know a person who was convinced that dogs in Egypt say 'meow meow' instead of 'bow wow'. She thought it was cool and told all her friends about it. You don't really need a microscope for this
Re:people (Score:5, Funny)
I know a person who was convinced that dogs in Egypt say 'meow meow' instead of 'bow wow'.
I got one better. (And it's almost on-topic too!) My wife, until a few months ago, honestly had no idea that the moon didn't generate its own light. When I first learned of this, I picked my jaw up off the floor and tried explaining to her that it was really the sun's light reflecting off it. Unfortunately, she couldn't comprehend how it could still be illuminated at night, so true enlightenment didn't come until I made a mockup of the solar system with skittles and a flashlight.
She also didn't know that stars were suns and vice versa. She's a great person and usually has common sense by the truckload, but I've come to the conclusion that her teachers in elementary school must have been Bastard Science Educators From Hell or something.
Re:people (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, you get quite high and mighty about being open minded - and then in the next sentence, you force a blessing on to the poster. I mean, as a non christian, i find it quite offensive and disturbing that you'd add that blessing/prayer to the end. Don't force prayers and blessing on people that don't want them, and people will probably be less likely to "lump all Christian together"
I know a lot of great christians that would never be so crude as to force their conceptions upon those who have decided differently. They don't stand out, so no complaints are generated... but we have to appreciate them for being truely respectful and open minded.
Re:people (Score:5, Insightful)
Born-again means Christian.
Perhaps under one definition, or under the original definition. But the colloquial definition of "born-again" means to be part of a "born-again" movement, not just a Christian.
he probably meant Christians who evangelize, which is a large part of the doctrine of most Christian faiths, if not all (I can't think of a reason a church would be non-evangelical, since spreading the word is one of the most basic tenets of Jesus's teachings).
First, if I remember correctly, the Bible says to make the teachings "available", not necessarily to evangelize.
Second, this might be the same problem as the first thing I quoted from you. The colloquial definition of "evangelical" is not the same one you are using. It means a small extrememly vocal and radical subset of protestant Christianity not necessarily of the proper name "Evangelical".
However, I can't even pretend to know what the poster was actually thinking, so maybe he really did think he was making a distinction somehow.
He was making a real distinction, but you two were speaking a different common language.
Re:people (Score:4, Informative)
I am a born-again evangelical Christian. That is to say, those are the terms I would use to describe myself, and my church describes itself as Evangelical.
I also believe that creationists are nuts, that modern science makes it impossible to take the whole of the Bible literally, and that God may only have played a minimal part in evolution, although I still find Him irreplacable as an explanation for what caused the Big Bang to happen.
Please don't use the term "evangelical" when you mean "fundamentalist". The two mean entirely different things. It's as bad as saying "socialist" when you mean "Stalinist", or using "capitalist" to mean "oppressive and exploitative", or "gay" to mean "stupid"... or "stupid" to mean "ignorant", come to that.
All those words are used in those ways in colloquial contexts, but that doesn't mean it's at all acceptable to use it that way when you're trying to make a serious point about real issues. There are indeed fundamentalist Christians who believe that everything scientists say is a direct assault on Christianity and probably directly inspired by Satan, but using "evangelical" to describe that group does nobody any favours.
Re:people (Score:4, Insightful)
Offensive != False
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Informative)
Dieting is generally a bad idea for weight loss (although useful for other purposes). The reason for this is that the body which is starved reacts by breaking down muscle tissue instead of fat. It tries to keep as much fat as possible as a response to the lack of food. This is why you see people diet for a long time and still have fat all over their body even after their muscle loses all definition.
In fact, the best way to lose weight is to cut down on fat (obv
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Funny)
This isn't about science - its a religion (Score:4, Insightful)
American Education Period.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public."
Not just science ed, but the basic skill of critical thinking. I can't speak for how things are going in the rest of the world, but here in the US it's gotten particularly sad. People as a whole just don't seem able or willing to be bothered by thinking for themselves.
Seems to me that many moons ago, even those who lacked formal higher education could be counted on to have "horse sense" - the simple ability to call "Shenanigans" when faced with something fishy, and run the snake oil salesman out of town.
These days it seems everyone's simply lining up for snake oil subscriptions. What's up? Too much "Reality" TV? Sure folks have always been duped, but damn it seems like a national pastime these days.
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Education begins at home; the schools can't be expected to inspire kids, especially when the two biggest influences on their lives are nominally apathetic towards everything but material acquisition. Few children will ever learn to love reading in a house where the parents don't, and critical thinking skills can't just be taught in the classroom, because the environment is just too limited.
Many parents also have this nasty habit of riding the educators long and hard, basically dictating what and how the school will teach. Nevermind the fact that the educators have spent years studying How To Educate -- the parents always know how to teach their kids better.
The end result is that schools have crippled their curriculums, by and large, because of the insane number of frivolous lawsuits brought on by irate parents, who were 'concerned' about what their kids were learning. They didn't want their kids learning about things that might upset them, or that might conflict with their religious beliefs, or that might seem racist in any way, shape, or form.
History teachers have to walk on tiptoes because they have to present a politically incorrect subject (human history) in a politically correct fashion. Evolution is under fire in biology classes because it contradicts religious doctrine, nevermind that it is the accepted theory for how life originated. Philosophy classes are never taught in high schools, and we don't have much art or music because they are unimportant next to teaching the kids how to use a word processor...which they already learned how to do at home.
Hell, students nowadays are rarely ever failed or held back a year, because of parental uproar -- there are kids that make it to high school without being able to read beyond a fourth-grade level. My father quit teaching because he was tired of having to explain Shakespeare to people who could barely make it through Dr. Seuss.
What's the solution? Change our culture. Get people to stop worrying about nice cars and expensive clothes, and instead start spending actual time with their kids. Read to them. Tell them stories of your youth. Help them figure out when advertisements are bull, and praise them for accomplishment. Punish them when they misbehave. Above all, just be there.
But this will never happen here.
Grr. Okay. Done now.
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not going to make it any better if your dad is (for instance) Richard Hoagland.
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In large part, this problem can be placed squarely on the shoulders of American parents.
Or, as I prefer to put it, we the voters have a moral obligation to ensure that the people in power do what is right for our country, and our children.
Dang! One of the few posts I would give a +5 to and I don't have the point.
I come from a teaching family and I have worked in the schools. I have been able to see children grow from 0 to 30 in my life. The neat thing about that is I see patterns. Those children whose parents were passionate about education and were available to their children tended to be passionate about education themselves. Those parents who were not home, or did not spend time with their children on a daily basis (not 5 minutes, but hours per day) tended to have learning and life problems. Not a one size fits all thing, but certainly true enough most of the time. It is amazing how often the teachers can observe a child and then tell you exactly what the parents are like. No, you will not hear them do it in public. They value their jobs as well. But, the fact that they rarely miss the mark, says a lot about the connection between parents and children.
If you really want better schools, it starts with better parents. If you want better parents, then you have to let it be known what your standards are to the parents around you. If they do not like it. Tough! They are not good enough to put in charge of your child, and their child may prove to be not good enough to be around yours at that point. It is not their child's fault, but their child's parents. Still, do you want your child being influenced by the their lack of parenting?
If WE ALL demanded more from parents around us, and we all demanded more from our elected officials, we would get more. People are like water, they tend to sink as low as they can and do as little as possible to get where they are headed.
What does this have to do with nutcases like this one? If people demanded more from their media, the same thing would happen as well. It all begins with a proper education where you learn to hold yourself and the world around you to higher standards. Goes for software too.
InnerWeb
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that you're making the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. I've been doing a fair amount of reading on p
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, reading a book is not a passive experience -- you have to flip pages and use your imagination to 'fi
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The assumption is that there will always be some organization that will watch out for the "little guy" and protect him. If there's not, there is a tremendous uproar.
It's nice to live in a society where there are no real risks, but we're all paying for it with freedom to make mistakes, and the experience that comes with it.
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, those who do think for themselves are considered a bit of a weirdo. I can't tell you how interesting it was to grow up in Smalltown, USA in the Bible Belt. During a debate with someone who presented me with Bible scripture, I said, "I don't believe in the Bible." There was a collective gasp that echoed throughout the room.
Ignorance is rewarded in this [part of the] country by way of social acceptance.
I think what I appreciated about Europe was that there was little dumbing down of news stories. While on American new stations, you get newscasters saying, "Now what does that mean, exactly?" to everything an 'expert' has to say on a subject. Television news in England seemed to be something that educated people could watch without wanting to pull their hair out.
Re:American Education Period.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize, of course, that you're able to use the term "snake oil" because its salesman were so common (and presumably at least a little profitable) that everyone knew what it meant.
In other words, back when people really were selling snake oil, there was a large enough percentage of the population who were willing to buy the stuff that it actually had a market.
There have always been stupid people, and each generation has always thought that the next was headed toward certain doom. Just something to think about.
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
All to often science is taught as a series of facts. I think science facts are important to know, but the process of discovery is ignored so people never gain the ability to analyse claims. That's probbably the greatest skill we could teach anyone as life is filled
it has nothing to do with science (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's a question of science education. Just look at how easy it was for this guy [iht.com] to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the solid state physics community. Science is full of dogma, unfounded beliefs, lack of proof, unstated assumptions, errors, etc. And
Re:it has nothing to do with science (Score:5, Insightful)
At the fringes, yes -- there is a point where all some scientists do is the intellectual equivalent of mastrubation. There's also the crackpot fringe whose diplomas by-and-large come from mail-order diploma mills, but who write convincing-sounding books on the scientific validity of numerology in the bible and staple a 'PhD' at the end of their name -- just to sound credible.
Mainstream science, however, is all about proof, and if you don't have it, you get reamed. If you rely on unstated assumptions that turn out to be false, you get reamed. If you make errors, you get reamed when someone double-checks your work. This is why all of the Cold Fusion nuts have been sent to the fringes, along with the 'young earth' and 'flat earth' types -- because they refuse to acknowledge their mistakes.
Seriously. Show me an unfounded belief, error, or unstated assumption that has stuck around in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field for a signifigant period of time. Something that is clearly and demonstrably false, yet which the mainstream community refuses to correct. Good luck.
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists are the new autho
Re:Science education..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Enterprise Mission is neither science nor pseudoscience. It's outright DELUSION! Does this [enterprisemission.com] look like a Sphinx?? There's something wrong in person's brain to make that kind of connection. Hoagland claims that some Martian rocks look like stoves and tools. I'm sitting here staring and staring at them, and they DO NOT look like these things! As far as we can tell from the pictures, they're just plain old rocks. To this guy, EVERY LITTLE ROCK AND SPECK is something spectacular. He's never seen an ordinary rock before. It's a face, it's a pyramid, it's an alien fort.
Science or phony science is not the issue. I don't see anything attempting to be science on that site. There are pictures and blurbs splattered about everywhere, I can hardly navigate it. I think the disheveled structure of the site is indicative of the scatterbrained nature of Hoagland's ideas.
It seems to me that some people's brains are "miswired" or damaged somehow and form illusory associations where there are none. In the same way that all of our brains trick us all into seeing optical illusions [ritsumei.ac.jp], some people are susceptible to less obvious illusions. Especially when it's FUN to see the illusions. And when you can make a living from it.
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really?! Some guy decides to put forward some crazy theories, and a small fraction of the population believes him, and that's proof that science education is in a sad state? I beg to differ.
I mean, science education might be in a sad state (I assume you're talking about US), but these situations are not caused by that. No matter how good education is, there will always be a small group of crackpots who create
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science education..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like those people who see a mimeographed pamphlet at the checkout of the Whole Foods grocery store talking about how ketchup is destroying the ozone layer, then immediately go to their city council to ban ketchup within the city limits.
It's almost as absurd as that. An aquaintance of mine who drives a twenty year old Toyota that leaks oil and betches blue smoke was
How can this be? (Score:5, Funny)
Daffy Duck told me Marvin the Martian was there and was going to destroy the earth! Don't tell me television has been lying to me all these years.
Re:How can this be? (Score:2, Funny)
"TV said that?"
-Homer Simpson
I love it
This one I could believe (almost :-) (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh come on, laugh. It's silly AND funny!
More seriously, why is it that the US seems to get more than its fair share of crackpots like this guy? Is it just because they're more able to make themselves heard (high tech, relatively rich society), or is it [tin hat] something more sinister [/tin hat] ? Perhaps it just seems that way from over here in the UK (officially the worlds least-likely to believe the walking-on-water and rising-from-the-dead thing - can't find the link though it was a bbc report recently), but there seem to be more potential tin-hatters from across the pond than just about anywhere else, even if you take into account the population differences (the US is less than 5x the UK...)
Simon.
Re:This one I could believe (almost :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Total Recall (Score:5, Funny)
Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother debunking something so stupid? Just gives the conspiracy theorists more to talk about.
Also, anyone capable of rational thought would not believe such garbage in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to believe something that stupid isn't worth correcting.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, anyone capable of rational thought would not believe such garbage in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to believe something that stupid isn't worth correcting.
NASA spent millions of dollars and sacrificed opportunities to do some real science just to get woo-woos like Hoagland and his followers the image of the Face they'd been demanding as soon as possible. If these people aren't addressed, we'l
Cost to Cosat AM (Score:5, Insightful)
They get the listeners to email NASA demanding ridiculous things. Another poster pointed out that they got a Mars probe to drop other important work to take more photos of the "face on mars."
When NASA did it, Hoagland went on the radio and accused NASA of faking the photos to hide the evidence. He's a classic delusional type, who sees any evidence that proves him wrong as proof that there's a conspiracy.
A lot of the problem is the radio show, which is irresponsible, in my view. During the whole Y2K scare, one of the hosts hyped the hell out of it, and sold people overpriced bunker food on the side.
I understand the appeal of the show, and I enjoy that sort of thing myself. The argument for it is that it's sort of like pro wrestling -- it's just a show, everyone knows it's just a show, and the few people who don't just make the whole thing that much more entertaining. I can buy all of that.
The problem comes when these guys start scaring people and exploiting them (with the bunker food), or when they create real problems for NASA. NASA has enough troubles now, they don't need this crap.
I'm *NOT* calling for any kind of government action, or any sort of censorship. I don't support what's happening to Howard Stern, and I wouldn't support anyone hassling Coast to Coast AM.
I do think it's appropriate for other people to wake up to how many listeners these guys have, and to try to keep them relavtively honest. These sorts of articles are a great start.
George Noory not responsible? (Score:3, Insightful)
You should have heard the show last night. Two guys were on saying that 97% of population is going to die this year. We need to build underground bunkers, buy their books & videotapes etc.
Well they were on last month saying the same thing, and the purpose of last night's (this morning actually) show was that the fellow who has had these visions supposedly met with Sister Lucia, the Carmelite nun who is the last surviving witness to the Fatima miracles.
The fellow said he met with the nun for 5 minute
I'm very confused. (Score:5, Funny)
Those reading "Man from Mars, Woman from Venus" (Score:2, Funny)
Oh.. you mean you are talking about the real planet Mars?
The worst will be if they actually *do* find life (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it's a fact of modern life that conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hoagland make discerning fact from fiction more difficult... thankfully, Phil Plait has been on the case, and doing a great job.
actually, not really debunked (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and this article is old, there's already a rebuttal over at Enterprisemission [enterprisemission.com]
Re:actually, not really debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:actually, not really debunked (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and Hoagland's website design is painful. Ow, my eyes.
-Carolyn
Re:actually, not really debunked (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight: your claim that Plait didn't debunk Hoagland is predicated on the fact that you did not, in fact, bother to read the actual article in which Plait debunked Hoagland, but instead made up your mind based on the dubious credibility of the reporter from CNN's interpretation of events.
Thank you, sir, for volunteering to so aptly illustrate the "false authority" problem that this story revolves aro
Re:actually, not really debunked (Score:3, Interesting)
Could the face actually be something that was carved thousands of years ago and weathered to its current state? YES. Mars was once warm and rich in water, so it is possible. Could it be random weathering of a rock outcropping? YES.
The arguments presented a
Re:actually, not really debunked (Score:3, Insightful)
On some of these, there are
Slow News Day? (Score:3, Funny)
And in other news, NASA's Mission to the Giant Turtle has been canceled.
Re:Slow News Day? (Score:3, Funny)
Dangit, how else are we going to learn what sex the Great A'Tuin is?
Shame about the White Bunny (Score:4, Funny)
From the linked site:
A few days later, the Opportunity rover left its lander and started roving across Mars. In images returned after that, it looked like Opportunity had run over the "bunny"! Worse, Opportunity had made a little side excursion while moving, making it look like NASA had run over the object on purpose. Was NASA trying to cover up the existence of an alien?
No, they were trying to hide evidence of the Easter Bunny! Conspiracy!
They at least could have waited until after Easter. Bastards.
Content-free cheerleading (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to pound his server, at least click through his advertisers and think about buying his book, huh?
-Carolyn
You know it was coming: (Score:3, Funny)
Mechanic: Someone blow up us the Beagle!
Plait: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on!
Plait: It's you!!
Hoagland: How are you gentlemen!!
Hoagland: All your mars rover are belong to aliens
Hoagland: You are on the way to destruction
Plait: What you say?
Hoagland: You have no chance to explore mars junk
Hoagland: Ha ha ha
Operator: Dr. Plait!!
Captain: Take off every 'Beagle'!!
Captain: Move 'Beagle'.
Captain: For great justice.
Ok... I know it sucks... but laugh. You knew it was coming. At least it wasnt goatse!
Good, we need people with patience to refute this (Score:5, Insightful)
What really gets me annoyed with this guy though is when he starts criticizing NASA & accusing them of dishonesty & coverup when the data don't match his preposterous theories. Half the time it's his own technical ignorance that's the problem.
The guy just doesn't understand that we'd all like to find evidence of life on Mars, bipedal walking around life most of all, but we can't let that cloud our judgement.
If mankind ever does find evidence of life on Mars it'll be no thanks to fools like Hoagland, although I'm sure he'll be the first to say "I told you so".
Claims on the basis of the most tennuous of evidence and outlandish conjecture are worse than useless.
Re:Good, we need people with patience to refute th (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary-- I think he understands this fact very well. I think people want there to be life in space, especially close to home. Hoaglad feeds off of this, and uses it to his advantage. And he makes money in doing so... I would be very surprised if he honestly believed his own crazy ideas. People believe because they want to, not because there is any substantial evidence...
Re:Good, we need people with patience to refute th (Score:2)
and the retort? (Score:5, Interesting)
I found it hilarious that the photo link Hoagland provides at the end goes to a page with a caption that mentions him as an "unidentified guest".
http://www.enterprisemission.com/response.htm
Email Exchange From Rob Roy Britt of Space.com
And Richard C. Hoagland on the Plait\Greenberg Allegations
In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:14:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, rbritt@HQ.SPACE.com writes:
Hi Richard:
I will be going into some of these issues. Your serious criticism of NASA
requires that I discuss your credentials as well. I just spoke with Ralph
Greenberg, who has analyzed some of your biographical claims that on your
web site. I've read them too, and indeed your web site clearly says that you
claim to have been the first to propose the Europa ideas. If you'd like to
respond to Greenberg's comments, feel free to e-mail me back.
Rob
Here is what Greenberg said to me:
"It's clear that [Hoagland] deserves no credit for proposing an ocean under
the ice on Europa." And regarding the notion of life: "Others before him
wrote on the same topic with more merit."
Greenberg says Hoagland deserves some credit for helping to popularize the
Europa ideas. But he is bothered that Hoagland does not make an effort to
clear the record.
"He never made it quite clear that this was not his original idea in any
sense," Greenberg said. "I think it's really shameful that he hasn't been
willing to make it crystal clear."
Rob,
OK, here's the real story behind Plait's current accusations
Greenberg is the source. It is his long-standing "Hoagland obsession" -- which has been going on for years, and can be characterized as nothing less -- that is a clear example of how far certain people are willing to go to smear our reputation and our work. This is a classic case of what I pointed out a couple days ago, about these baseless accusations being fundamentally "political"
I would hope, as a good reporter, you would prefer to rely on "primary sources" for your story -- as opposed to merely "hearsay" from third parties -- certainly third parties with an obvious political agenda. I would therefore strongly recommend that you begin by actually reading my original 1980 article, "The Europa Enigma" (on the Enterprise website -- http://www.enterprisemission.com/europa.html) -- which appeared in the January, 1980 issue of Star & Sky Magazine
In the entire article -- at no time -- do I take undue credit for the original idea of a potential ocean under Europa's icy surface. That is a skillfully spun fiction -- created specifically by our less than honest critics
What I actually do in this extensive paper is clearly credit Cassen, Peale and Reynolds -- who originated and published in Science Magazine the first tidal model for internal Jovian satellite heating, just before Voyager 1 arrived at Jupiter in early 1979. I clearly credit their original calculations regarding the possibility of tidal heating of Io
But, I also carefully cite their strong caveat (in the then just-published Science tidal paper) that, depending on certain "incalculable factors," such an originally liquid Europan ocean could have frozen solid in the 4.5 billion years of subsequent solar system history.
In other words, in their published model, there was a more than even chance that Europa's ocean now was no longer liquid -- but had become a 100 miles-deep glacier of solid ice! And, if this was the case, if such an original Europan ocean had ever frozen solid, their own tidal calculations in Science clearly stated it could never be unfrozen!
This is where the dishonest critics have carefully,
A joke? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really quite sad.
Hoaxland ... (Score:2)
It is already there [masonicinfo.com] (among others).
CC.
Just three years ago, ... (Score:2)
An image from the Mars Global Surveyor is said to be a gargantuan, glass-like worm
An apparent bit of spacecraft debris from the rover mission, photographed by Spirit, was dubbed a "bunny"
And Satan [wwnet.fi] showed up on 9/11 too.
Adult Swim Rules! (Score:3, Funny)
I had no idea Space Ghost has that many followers... must be the Martians watching Adult Swim via satellite...
Must be debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
Think how many people now believe in crap like Roswell and little green men. Now think how people like this make it hard for the public to take this science seriously. The idiot wants pr, but by not giving him the smackdown he so desperately needs, they'll get unearned credibility instead. The lack of pr will of course just be proof of a conspiracy against them.
Just think, to believe this guy you'd have to accept that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on this one one mission to look for signs of life and that we would then turn around and ignore it when we found it. Too bad they don't teach logic in schools anymore.
Whether he's a crackpot or not... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is entertaining listening to him go on Coast to Coast AM, though.
Coast to Coast AM (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm driving around at night, I try to listen. Actually, they're not all crazy. Once I heard the physicist Micio Kaku on there, and that was a pretty cool interview.
Komi
You know you're a computer geek when... (Score:5, Funny)
Debunked!!! Not hardly. (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when I scored my first writing job. My uncle, who is a successful journalist, tried to give me some good advice.
He asked, "What's the first job of a reporter?"
"To tell the story as accurately as possible?"
"No," he said. "The first job of a reporter is to create controversy."
Controversy, he explained, sells the news, engages readers, sparks conversation, and leads to follow-ups. Oh, and it sells the news.
So if you throw this nincompoop on "Coast to Coast", with 10 million readers, and you give him a voice, even if you do take shots at him, does this really count as "debunking" given the massive exposure he received?
I think it only counts as idiocy. Come on. The guy points at pictures of geological features and calls them faces. In a Communist society he'd be locked up and his family would be shamed. In America he's used to boost advertising rates.
Not that that's a criticism, mind you. I think we're all guilty of nuttiness here and there, so thank God we can be used to boost advertising rates
The annual convention of conspiracy theorists... (Score:3, Funny)
The Face (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, our brain is hard-wired to quickly recognize human faces. This is for survival purposes, of course. But when you stare at these non-human shapes - such as the Martian rock - it is obvious these are NOT faces. The brows are wrong, the nose is fitting only for Michael Jackson, and the mouth is horribly formed.
Moon landing was faked in 1969 (Score:3, Funny)
What I don't get is... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What I don't get is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod this up, for crying out loud.
This hits the nail on the head. We have all this talk from the conspiracist nuts claiming that all this evidence of civilizations and life on Mars is being covered up without really giving us any coherent idea as to why.
If NASA sent up a probe and really DID find ruins of a past civilization, there would be no way it could be suppressed. There is no way they would want to suppress it. Hell, a discovery like that might lead to NASA's budget being tripled due to public interest in the matter. There would be a mad scramble to find a way -- ANY way -- to get a real live human being up there to explore it, or at least to send up a probe that could actually take something back to Earth.
So what reason would the government/NASA have to cover it up? If anything, the US government would love for such a discovery to happen. It would divert the people's attention from things the current administration would like us to forget, such as Iraq and dubya's invisible WMDs and our so-called "jobless recovery."
How will the Martian langauge affect Unicode? (Score:3, Funny)
Very entertaining, even if it is bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
And it has an unintended benefit, actually. Don't you realize that by getting so many people to argue these silly facts, the producers of the show have inadvertently, as a side effect, caused many people to believe in logic and the scientific method?
My favorite theme on the show, by the way, was Bottomless Holes.
God bless the chupacabras, the inventors of perpetual motion machines and engines that run on water. Give thanks to the guys that walk the streets dressed as Killer Bees. They make life a bit more interesting.
From the source (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really disgusting is the way the media is cynically exploiting these beliefs. But I view that as just another symptom of the "1000 channels and nothing's on" syndrome. Which is a result of so much media being controlled by so few companies, so that real creativity or insight has no chance in the mass media. Crap is easy to produce and has a high profit margin, so that's what the media monopolies give us. That's of a lot more immediate importance that any silly arguments over the Mars Face.
Re:Award (Score:2, Funny)
What suitable options are there?
World's Best Debunker t-shirt?
Buy his book, it's quite good. (Score:5, Informative)
The link to his book on Amazon can be found here [amazon.com]
He covers a wide range of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods about astronomy and associated topics. My favorite topic he covers is the "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax". He gives the subject an excellent treatment.
Re:Theres a straightforward way... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How is this off topic? (Score:2, Offtopic)
This story is about Richard Hoagland.
Three words, "Moderators on Crack."
They also seem to think that talking about moderation is -1 Offtopic DoublePlusUnGood. (Yes, I'm talking about you! Put down the pipe!)
There, that ought to burn off some of this cumbersome Karma.
Re:Doesn't matter.. (Score:4, Funny)
Thawing meat in the microwave, using crappy store-bought herbs.. Theres no reasoning with some of those guys!
Greetings, Mr. Hoagland (Score:4, Funny)
"I'm extremely disapointed in the reactions here. The space.com article was clearly a character assasination of Hoagland."
Nice to see you joining us on Slashdot, Mr. Hoagland. Now go away.
Re:Mindless /. groupthink (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this claim is true. Maybe it isn't. However since for the moment all evidence of this claim has explanations that are much simpler we are required to accept this simpler explanation that fits the evidence.
We are skeptical, as science requires us to be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there doen't appear to be any such evidence for the moment. Furthermore the burden of proof is on Hoagland and others who make such claims.
Re:Mindless /. groupthink (Score:5, Insightful)
To NASA, an actual fossil of something on Mars means big headlines and (more importantly) big funding. I can't find any reason they would destroy one that doesn't involve donning a tinfoil hat first.
Because he has no facts (Score:3, Interesting)
When the better images came back from the newer probes, I was like, "Oh well..." That's how science works. One "experiment" (the Viking images) suggested something unusual, so the experiment was repeated with greater care (better resolution), and showed the original conclusion was in error. End of story. Time to m
Re:Because he has no facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry... I've seen many crinoid stems and other fossils; that just doesn't look like one. The "structure" fades imperceptibly into the overall fabric of the rock. These are cracks, not evidence of fossil life. There are plenty of inorganic structures in rocks on Earth that look more like fossils than th
Plait Debatung RCH on the facts (Score:3, Interesting)
"If Plait is so righteous, why does he refuse to debate RCH on the facts? Who is the real scientist and who is persuing the truth. Wait and see."
Plait HAS offered to debate RCH [badastronomy.com], it's just the RCH refuses to agree on a list of topics, so as to avoid Plait getting dragged into a Tinfoil Hat 'Fest of RCH screaming, "Prove that I'm NOT right!"
It's not a fossil (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:P. Plait should be ashamed of himself... (Score:3, Interesting)