It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Did you try the search function? Because there's already a thread on this topic:
Originally posted by Misterlondon
I was just wondering how Richard hogland is looked upon in this community? Is he a credible researcher or is he known to be a bit 'out there'
Originally posted by davesidious
He has no scientific training, and yet preaches about science and scientists and how they're misleading the world. All without evidence.
For a site who's mantra is "deny ignorance", I'm surprised anyone here has any time for him.
He's a kook.
I think it's outrageously insulting to Percival Lowell to compare Hoagland to him. An eye doctor thinks he can explain what Percival Lowell saw and it wasn't imaginary, and his explanation would explain why nobody else could see it:
Originally posted by kristobal
He is like a 21st century version of Percival Lowell, who beleived he saw "canals" on the surface of mars, which later turned out to be imaginary.
But if you are the type to believe there are canals on Mars, then Hoagland should be right up your street.
It may be a well known effect today but that wasn't the case in Lowell's time, so he didn't know that what he was seeing wasn't really there, if the optometrist's theory is right. But the blood vessels aren't imaginary, they're real.
Sherman Schultz, a retired optometrist, notes that Lowell's setup simulates what he used in his practice in examining patients for cataracts. Andrew T. Young (San Diego State University) and Philip C. Steffey also both realized that the small exit pupil might have revealed shifting shadows of Lowell's blood vessels on his retina. .. This effect is a well-known annoyance among planetary observers using very high magnification.
The only so-called "peer review" I've ever seen Nassim claim is when he submitted his Schwarzchild proton paper to a conference of computer nerds who know a lot about computers but nothing about protons, and while the computer nerds voted his proton paper the best in its category (physics), nobody has been able to tell me how many other papers were even in the physics category at a computer conference, so if his paper was the ONLY paper in it's category, of course it's the best in its category, (and also the worst for that matter), but the fact that computer nerds have no idea about what he's talking about hardly constitutes a "peer review". But if you have some other evidence of peer review besides that laughable claim, please post it.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Even though Nassim's peer reviews have been excellent
Somehow I managed to survive part 1 but it was some of the worst 4 hours of my life and I wish I could get them back, there was no way I could waste another 4 hours watching part 2. He's kind of a charismatic guy and if some of his followers don't know anything about science I can see why they might want to latch on to his kooky ideas but he's every bit as far out as Hoagland in the pseudoscience category.
Originally posted by Flatfish
This lecture is in two parts and it's over 8 hrs. long but it was worth every minute, it can be found here; video.google.com...#
Originally posted by WisdomSeeker
I read his book dark moon and believe that he proposed credible evidence for his findings.
On 2–3 February 2010, on the Coast to Coast AM radio show, Hoagland announced that the Russian SLBM had in fact been captured by Dark Forces intent on preventing mankind's exploration of outer space. These Dark Forces, he explained, were probably headed by Nazi officers who had escaped into space after World War II.