This paper is written in response and regard to the recent articles published at space.com and cnn.com. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/myst...day_040315.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/alien.debunk/ In both of the articles Phil Plait is given a platform in which to force upon the unsuspecting reader his views. Phil Plait PHD in astronomy refers to himself as the bad astronomer. As you will see he really is bad. He is a self-professed “debunker” with a strong bias towards his own preconceived vision of reality. In the Phil Plait reality there is no regard for the scientific methods or processes that leads one to choose a position in a scientific theory. In many places on his website he refers to himself as a “scientist”. I will leave that up to the reader to decide. The mere fact of Phil Plait calling a theory “silly” seems to be his method of disproving the legitimate theories of The Enterprise Mission. Without one example of valid accepted scientific proof he dismisses the claims. The entire work of Phil Plait PHD is a discredit to the established scientific process. The readers need to see what space.com and cnn.com find newsworthy. This raises a very serious question as to the ethics of the reporters and news organizations that put this out to the public. If the reporters had done any research into the claims of Phil Plait in regards to The Enterprise Mission (known as TEM from here on), they would, I hope, never have printed it. Also note the bias the reporters show in favor of Phil Plait. For the readers sake, I have made all quotes from Phil Plait in RED, my remarks are in BLUE Taken from: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagl...arch102004.html “I have found that when debating a pseudoscientist or conspiracy theorist, they ignore huge gaping holes in their logic, and instead focus on small, niggling pieces that the debunker may not be familiar with. This way, they can distract the listener from the real problems in their theory, and make it sound like they win. I have seen this with the Moon Hoax, with Planet X, with creationists, and you-name-it.” Hoagland: Well one of the things he's done on his website is engage in personal, anti-Hoagland attacks! Personal attacks! No I haven't. I address his claims. I never call him names (other than a pseudoscientist), I never talk about his motives. I do question his credentials, but these are credentials he himself uses. I do use strong language when describing his claims ("nonsense", "garbage", and the like) but I call 'em like I see 'em. Those are attacks, to be sure, but attacks on his arguments, not on him. Phils best work to date? http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/saywhat.html “Reading through Hoagland's website, I was amazed at the level of silliness of much of what I was seeing. Several times, I found myself wondering if Hoagland is just making stuff up. I mean that literally; is he just looking at pictures and trying to come up with the most ridiculous assertion he can? It's certainly possible that, like many fringe pseudoscientists, he is sincere in his beliefs. But it's impossible for me not to wonder if Hoagland is trying to make his claims as silly as possible, just to see how far he can go and still have people believe him. My evidence? Here is a short, very incomplete list of things I dug up on his site that are so bizarre they made me say, "Say What?"” The entire paragraph does not mention one of TEM claims, yet is an example of bashing. Wording that is used to skew the reader’s thoughts about the person not the subject. Some great brainwashing examples are: silliness, making stuff up, ridiculous assertion he can?, as silly as possible, so bizarre. The paragraph has 7 sentences total, in those 7 sentences the writer has gone to extreme lengths to discredit the subject without once addressing the “claims”. Once again let us look at Phils own words: “No I haven't. I address his claims. I never call him names (other than a pseudoscientist), I never talk about his motives”. Yet we see that he does question Richard Hoaglands motives. Phil “But it's impossible for me not to wonder if Hoagland is trying to make his claims as silly as possible, just to see how far he can go and still have people believe him”. So, does that prove Phil is lying on his own website? LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER Phil says, “I want people to read his stuff. I also want them to read mine, to see exactly why Hoagland is wrong. Only when people have all the information can they make an informed decision.” Quoted from: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagl...arch102004.html Let’s see what he tries to make us think in his next section from. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/saywhat.html Phil writes this: “Here is a truly weird page using numerological mumbo-jumbo to try to make tenuous connections between NASA, Freemasons, and the number 33. Yes, you read that correctly.” Lets see, “mumbo-jumbo, tenuous”, best to get the understanding of the words first. Tenuous adjective 1. insignificant or flimsy example: a tenuous argument 2. slim, fine, or delicate example: a tenuous thread Mumbo jumbo noun 1. foolish religious reverence, ritual, or incantation 2. meaningless or unnecessarily complicated language 3. an object of superstitious awe or reverence The page on TEM is http://www.enterprisemission.com/table_of_coincidence.htm This is how Phil debunks? Again “Here is a truly weird page using numerological mumbo-jumbo to try to make tenuous connections between NASA, Freemasons, and the number 33. Yes, you read that correctly.” So instead of refuting what TEM has written, he has done absolutely no debunking at all. Why does he even bother to include this? Is it just to add those 3 words that further his brainwashing of the reader? Does the reader realize that TEM has 60 examples to back up their claims, yet Phil can not refute one of them? Next in line a big one Since this is a large one I will be going blow for blow. Phil will be quoted in red with my remarks in blue. This will get busy but let us try to see what Phil does debunk and what Phil LIES about, in the hopes his readers do not do any research of there own. TEM webpage: http://www.lunaranomalies.com/nighttime.htm “On this page, he talks about someone he calls "Bamf" who worked with Hoagland, and who Hoagland now thinks deceived him, faking some of his image processing.” BAMF is Noel Gorelick Manager of the Mars Computation Center at Arizona State University (ASU). Richard Hoagland has never stated anywhere that Noel Gorelick worked with/for him. (another LIE Phil). As for the second part of the sentence, go look at TEM page and make your own mind up if they prove a case or not. “On that page, Hoagland talks about how deceptive Bamf was, saying that an image was labeled as being taken using a 12.58 micron (infrared) filter, and then a later image using the same filter was labeled as being 12.57 microns.” This synopses is TRUE. Yet let us look at what Phil is really saying to his readers. He does not explain that “BAMF” is really the head of THEMIS at ASU. Note that Phil only attributes everything to TEM, to one person and does not even show respect in doing that. This tactic is to belittle the person being spoken of in the reader’s mind. This tactic makes the reader more acceptable to what follows. Now this is interesting in that this is the only quote on the whole page from Richard Hoagland. “Here is what Hoagland says: So, what's the point? Is this just another example of Bamf's continuing propensity to spread disinformation, cited previously? Or, is this part of a more calculated, larger plan: a deliberate, carefully designed effort by the entire THEMIS team to confuse everyone... about all aspects of the real THEMIS mission?! “ Without the context and reading the entire article what is he trying to do to his readers? “Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!” Once again he is attempting to sway the reader into thinking there is no issue. “What he is talking about here is a really trivial thing.” Phil has told the reader what to think. “Every color filter has a series of characteristics that define it. One of these is called the "central wavelength", which represents the wavelength of light (you can think of it as the specific color) that is in the middle of the filter's color range. In this case, the central wavelength of the filter is something like 12.58 microns (a micron is a millionth of a meter, and 12.58 microns is in the infrared).” Here he tries to educate his readers. “Usually, filters are called by their central wavelengths; I worked on calibrating many filters on board Hubble, and we would commonly call them by their central wavelengths (like, "How's the work on that 1404 filter coming?"). Nice, an anecdote of Phils life. Another trick of trying to relate to the reader he knows what he is talking about. The article on TEM clearly defines all this in greater detail. “But 12.57 microns is so close to 12.58 that it makes no difference. Neither would be wrong.” Say What??? This is the first place on his page where he attempts to debunk a claim of TEM. Time to insert a quote from his rebuttal, “I have found that when debating a pseudoscientist or conspiracy theorist, they ignore huge gaping holes in their logic, and instead focus on small, niggling pieces” Well Phil no “huge gaping hole”. As a matter of fact, TEM produces a valid factual case that shows that Noel G. could use either of the tables and still be “right”. This is strange in the fact that not only doe Phil not debunk what he set out to do, but agrees with exactly what TEM had stated. “Hoagland's bizarre rant about this is indicative, once again, that he is either making this stuff up, or has lost touch with reality.” Here Phil is drawing a conclusion to his paragraph. Readers please note that nothing has been debunked. Yet the mere fact that Plait calls it bizarre seems to be enough for him to say he disproved an article on TEM. “After all, he talks about color quite a bit, and he should know that this is a completely trivial point.” Who is this that thinks what he finds trivial means it is trivial. A total lack of respect for the scientific thought is shown here. Would he have told Sir Isaac Newton that a trivial thing like an apple falling on his head had nothing to do with gravity? Maybe he would have told Albert Einstein that a trivial thing like splitting an atom would produce nothing. My conclusion: Why would Phil choose such a small and insignificant thing to try and disprove? Look at the page from where he got this. Is this really the best he can do? Is Phil a complete idiot? Does he really think the people reading his stuff is that stupid? How arrogant and egotistical. How does a moron like this get a PHD? Next in line: “On this page he has links to where he has seriously magnified image noise -- similar to static on your TV screen -- and is claiming with a straight face that it represents the ruins of a city on the Moon.” Plait has made the claim that the pictures are “seriously magnified image noise” what is his proof? Phil has related the images to what he knows about TV. Folks, this is a PHD getting national coverage for his books and remarks. Is this scientific debunking at its best? 12 images on TEM webpage and does he debunk one of them? Well he tries to. “In this image, he overly magnifies an Apollo image and then claims it's a mile wide sheet of glass. This is pretty silly; just because something is bright doesn't make it either shiny or glassy.” Well the way he debunks this is to send the reader to another of his pages that readily admits. “I took the image and played with it just a bit in Photoshop.” This is what he does to disprove the claims made by TEM. In his last 2 attempts to prove his case he has just simply stated the pictures are magnified too much, then links to another page talking about contrast making shiny areas. So Phil, how does the image go from shiny and overly magnified to a contrast issue on another page? Here is the place where I jump to the page that he linked to. It is painfully obvious that nothing on this page is “debunked” so let us go look at the page where he makes some points instead of posting a link and trying to make the reader think it is “silly”. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagl...worm.html#glass Ready? This is a large page with many of the same things from the other; I will dissect it by showing his quotes in red. Since this is such a large amount of writing I will skip some of what he has to say and just include the relevant stuff that makes the case. Let us begin by viewing a mistake only an idiot PHD could make. Here is a quote he grabs from TEM “On Hoagland's website, he has a page about all this written by Ron Nicks, who claims to be a geologist. Nicks makes lots of claims about this feature, and in fact says the following: “ This remarkable "tube," roughly a mile in length and hundreds of feet wide, appears to cling to a desert canyon wall near the canyon's bottom, and extend along its entire length. The feature has the appearance of being "translucent," of being supported at somewhat regular intervals by "ribs," and of being quite cylindrical -- with a localized, internal structure at one point of considerably higher albedo (brightness). Note that the quote he has provided his readers contains: “appears to cling to a desert canyon wall near the canyons bottom” Are you ready to be insulted once again by Phil? 3 paragraphs down he lays this on us “The Convex/Concave Con First off, they claim the object is convex, that is, popping out of the image as opposed to being a concave valley. However, I think this claim is false.” He quotes TEM saying it is at the bottom of a canyon and then tries to say TEM is really saying it is popping out of the image. After reading through this, I can not for the life of me understand how this man got a PHD in anything. It is beyond belief that any publisher or respectable news organization would print anything this man has said. He does not practice the scientific process to deduce a conclusion. This is not a valid attempt to debunk the works of a published researcher, but has taken a tone of slander that every person with a 4th grade reading comprehension can see through. A quick look at his conclusions on this page” So what have I shown? Let's be clear: 1) This is not a raised tube, like a worm on the ground, but a channel. It's concave, not convex. Yes, Phil agrees with Ron Nicks and TEM, yet half the page he has written is attempting to make the reader think that TEM is saying the feature shown is raised. Read TEM article; in not one place does Ron Hicks ever come close to saying that. Ron Hicks very clearly makes a case for it being a channel and not a raised feature. Now for the rest of his conclusion. 2) The ridges are in fact ridges, and not ribs or etchings. They are most likely sand dunes entrained by aerodynamic forces (that is, wind). 3) The glassiness is another illusion, created by the contrast level in the image. 4) This object, far from being inexplicable, is actually explainable as a gully perhaps carved by water flow. The ridges are wind-entrained dunes or possibly more solid erosion features from flowing water. So what we have here is yet another breathless claim by Hoagland and his team which, when you think more carefully about it, is grossly exaggerated at best. This isn't the fossil of some giant glass worm. It's even more remarkable, in my opinion: it's evidence that water once flowed on an alien planet. That is a fossil record of far greater interest.” Now I will make my own conclusions. It is very disturbing that any media outlet would promote a person that most obvious has mental issues such as Phil Plait. He insults his readers’ intellect. I truly wonder how such a person can get a PHD in anything. I also am disturbed that he claims to have been a teacher and works at a university. This work of his is a farce in not one instance does he prove his case. Everything he has written about TEM is without merit. I can easily go through each of his comments and claims and do what I have done here. To think he spent his time writing this amazes me, almost as much as the amount of time I have wasted reading it and responding to it.
