[meteorite-list] Strange Martian Surface Feature

From: Sterling K. Webb <kelly_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:02:25 2004
Message-ID: <3C879631.6CFE67DF_at_bhil.com>

Dear Mr. X,

    The Meteorite List did not denominate Mr. Hoagland as a "nutcase." I, the
original poster of the inquiry was the one that did that. Although, in fairness,
it seems to have offended no one but a "true believer." As to why, I think the
List has given good reasons.
    It is true that Hoagland was the first to suggest that sub-surface Europan
oceans are a possible home of life. Arthur C. Clarke verified that Hoagland
suggested it to him. No one doubts that Hoagland was once bright, intelligent,
constructive, and sane.
    I think that Hoagland is a nutcase because if you read Mr. Hoagland's works
over time, you observe a an intelligent and reasoned inquiry (in the 1970's) that
deteriorates progressively in the manner of a classic paranoid delusion. The
scheme of things becomes more grandiose and the claims more outrageous
(miles-high glass buildings on the Moon, aethyric new-age flapdoddle about
"mysterious forces"). A failed Martian mission becomes a "cover-up" devised to
prevent the world from learning his (Hoagland's) truth. And so on.
    Curiously, by publishing successive editions of the Monuments of Mars by
appending new revelations to the original text over and over again, Hoagland
himself is the best documentarian of this progression. (I read the Fifth edition;
there may be more.)
    You seem to assume that I have not read Hoagland ("perhaps we should look
more closely at that persons research"). Wrong. I've spent (wasted) considerable
time reading the hundreds of pages of Hoagland's magnum opus for just that
reason; true believers always claim (Hoagland does) that they never get a fair
hearing. I gave him one. Which gives me the right to a judgement. There's nothing
to his case.
    As a naive nerd at heart, it never occurred to me that Hoagland might be a
con artist as Allan Treimain suggested. Seems a hard way to make a living, but
who knows? He does seem to have a minor industry going, selling to the faithful.
    You suggest he's motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. If you're going to
pursue knowledge, like any good hunter, you have to follow its trail, not just
throw yourself into an abyss of silliness.

Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------
MrX3010_at_aol.com wrote:

> In regard to the comment about Hoagland being an alleged "nutcase" I have to
> ask why? Why is it that someone is a nutcase when he or she looks to the
> extraordinary in hopes of expanding human knowledge? Was Gallileo a
> "nutcase"? Yes, he was in his day a nut case, a heretic and in his own time
> an outcast because he chose "unpopular" realms of knowledge to delve into.
> Realms of knowledge that we today know of as science. Why risk being an
> outcast? The pursuit of knowledge. If we rest on what we have learned and
> think we are experts, if we sit by and point fingers at everyone who does not
> hold the same view of the world or universe the same as we do then we are
> confined to an infinite loop of blindness. Before we point fingers and laugh
> or make fun of someone simply because someone else tells us he or she is a
> nutcase perhaps we should look more closely at that persons research. In
> time we may find that our place in our perceived universe may not be as
> special as we might like it to be.
>
Received on Thu 07 Mar 2002 11:32:50 AM PST