Richard Hoagland looks at CCD detector noise and sees glass towers

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Spiro

It's hardly "illegal activity", just some bad coding. Given that the entire content of the website is spurious, I hardly think he will give two hoots if he's got some hokey HTML tags

Forbive me for sticking to the OP content but the OP said this, with regarding to Hoadlands website,

There are about 12 cases in which an ampersand has been included in an image URL. It's illegal and I'm frankly surprised that it doesn't cause more trouble.

The OP Is disgusted at Hoaglands lack of intelligence, or lack thereof, I am merely trying to understand why the need to publish such a topic.

Cheers

Oh dear. Look, see for yourself. Here's the W3C validator. Feed it Hoagland's URL and watch the errors stream out.

Illegal in the context of web coding, or any other computer programming or markup project, does not mean criminal. It just means it breaks the rules.

originally posted by: Asertus
Oh dear. Look, see for yourself. Here's the W3C validator. Feed it Hoagland's URL and watch the errors stream out.

Illegal in the context of web coding, or any other computer programming or markup project, does not mean criminal. It just means it breaks the rules.

O...K, and your annoyed at this, why?

Cheers

originally posted by: Spiro
O...K, and your annoyed at this, why?
Cheers

Because Hoagland presents himself as a scientist. He wrote on FB of his "decades-long, demonstrated scientific competence." He makes his 19.5 calculations sound absolutely precise. It's significant that in fact he's found to be a bumbling amateur.

a reply to: Asertus
No true scientist would stand by while his girlfriend peddled homeopathy in public. If sugar and water were such a wonderful cure then Coke would be a universal panacea

Pseudo astronomy and pseudo medicine — a match made in heaven...

Hoagland's issues with his website is that it is poorly done.

The issues with his content is that he is full of it. Completely.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Telos
Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information.

Like his information on the "Face on Mars"..

Like his claim Elenin was not a comet but some kind of time capsule....

So what? What does that have to do with my comment?

originally posted by: Telos
So what? What does that have to do with my comment?

It shows he is NOT a very knowledgeable man, just a hoaxer and liar who makes up a lot of nonsense.

with a lot of information

All of it nonsense....

Clearly we have different opinion on Hoagland. But that shouldn't confuse the meaning of words and make right a wrong epithet. He might be an hoaxer, a liar, with an agenda and so forth. But he is absolutely not an ignorant person. I stick to my initial comment. Richard Hoagland is a knowledgeable man.

Whether he uses it for good or evil, that's totally a different matter.

a reply to: Telos
So in your opinion he might be a liar and a hoaxer with an agenda.
After watching a few of his videos, listened to his long winded blatherings on C2C about his epic achievements againts all odds of measuring his mythical torsion field pyhsics readings at Chichen Itza, stroking his over inflated ego with every word oozing out his mouth I'd have to agree with you.
He is most likely and almost assuredly a liar, hoaxer and man with little regard for the people he fools with his psuedo science babble he doesn't care to explain to his gullible listeners.
Listen to his last C2C show, its just more of his incessant blather of massively wild assumptions about what tptb/Chinese are threatening to disclose imaginary moon anomalies unless Obama gives them what they want.
Yeah right , the guy may be knowledgeable but he is impossible to take seriously, and I'd like to, but its so clear his view of solar systme history is a delusionary fantasy of epic proportions.
Pure fantasy, absoloute speculation based on the flimsiest of evidence.
Its sad imo when people buy into his 19.5 mumbo jumbo bs with no meaningful proof to back up his ridiculous claims, can't believe W from Hagmann was regurgitating this bs lately...

a reply to: Asertus
I have read some of Richard Hoagland's books. I don't agree that he is boring or ignorant.

originally posted by: decltype
a reply to: Asertus
I have read some of Richard Hoagland's books. I don't agree that he is boring or ignorant.

Wanna read about the 28 errors in Dark Mission?

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Asertus

originally posted by: decltype
a reply to: Asertus
I have read some of Richard Hoagland's books. I don't agree that he is boring or ignorant.

Wanna read about the 28 errors in Dark Mission?

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

The man is clearly ignorant and a charlatan.

Boring? Well, that is more debatable. After all, if you don't restrict yourself to prosaic old facts, you can come up with far more exciting things, like disembodied robot heads on the moon!!!!



Or you can take JPEG artifacts and turn them into 3-D buildings!


( Source: www.enterprisemission.com... )

Or turn other JPEG artifacts into an entire city!


( Source: www.enterprisemission.com... )

Explain to me again why so many people swallow this swindler's snake oil?

a reply to: Rob48

Oh yes, and for extra giggles, check out this hilarious video of Mike Bara attempting (and failing) to show how "legitimate" the processing of the robot head rock was.

www.youtube.com...

For extra extra giggles, check out Bara's mysogynist comments below.

a reply to: Asertus

Yeah, Hoagland is merely crazy, but Mike Bara is a seriously nasty piece of work. Anyone who dares to question his "work" should expect a barrage of abuse.

That's an impressive website for the 1990s. Not for 2010s. And I agree with you, Rob.