It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hoagland Debunked?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Hi.

I found what looks like a really good critique of Richard Hoagland's "Alien structures on Mars" claims:

www.badastronomy.com...

What do you think?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I disagree with him... (But I'll be open minded enough - tomorrow - to read through the rest of his site.)
However... I dislike when these "scholars" refer to anyone with an interest in "their" field as a pseudoscientist, as if the only thing to be learned through life is how not to pee on your shoes. (He/she does that right away, too.)
It's kind of like in here. It's much easier to type "prove it", than say to that no "real" scientist would agree, rather than develop your own thoughts and lay them out for everyone to critique.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dogdish
 


If you look at the major portion of the content you'll see it is devoted to laying out his thoughts on the matter -- the few bits were he calls someone a "pseudoscientist" are just asides, just "icing on the cake", while the "cake" is actual arguments discussing the evidence and its interpretation.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
ookaay, well considering the math he put in to the findings on mars and moon and stuff, and how it applies rather well to astro physics.. I would say the site you found is nothing more than disinformation, and nothing more. But it helps to remain open minded.
. On that note, if the authorof bad astronomy really knows anything, and really is a scientist of any kind, he would have known the basics if writing and given references to back up his absurd claims.


[edit on 18-11-2009 by stanlee]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by stanlee]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


Can you find a fallacy with the arguments on the pages I mentioned, or provide a better rebuttal than just calling something "disinformation" and dismissing it?

Whose math are you referring to here? That on the Bad Astronomy page, or that of Hoagland? If it's the latter, do you mean the stuff with the pyramids and all that? All that is critiqued on the BA pages. Can you answer those critiques?


[edit on 19-11-2009 by mike3]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Hoagland still needs debunking? Let's move on people...



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join