To Respectful People Only
Flying _Naked_People
I think he and his theories are totally off base, and he is letting his
imagination find things that just aren't there.
What do you think? With your scientific background, do you think *anything* he
has to say makes a bit of sense?
Ron Miller
"Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vlmqt1b...@corp.supernews.com...
> How much credence do you give Richard Hogland?
None whatsoever, I'm afraid---which is an opinion shared by most
astronomers. Most of his theories and speculations regarding the "monuments
of Mars" have been shown to be erroneous at best and sheer fiction at worst.
Currently, he has spun off into extraordinarily weird things, such as
claiming to have found tanks, howitzers and other military weapons on Mars,
to say nothing of using as one of the "proofs" of his notions a 1950s "Space
Patrol" Viewmaster set!
> I think he and his theories are totally off base, and he is letting his
> imagination find things that just aren't there.
And I think you are absolutely right!
> What do you think? With your scientific background, do you think
*anything* he
> has to say makes a bit of sense?
I'm afraid not. Once upon a time he was quite a credible science writer, but
he's really gone around the bend in the last few decades. I can't think of
even one real scientist who takes Hoagland seriously.
RM
Flying _Naked_People
<3f5b7026$0$17...@dingus.crosslink.net>...
>
> "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> message news:vlmqt1b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > How much credence do you give Richard Hogland?
>
> None whatsoever, I'm afraid---which is an opinion shared by most
> astronomers. Most of his theories and speculations regarding the "monuments
> of Mars" have been shown to be erroneous at best and sheer fiction at worst.
He claims 1/2 of the face on mars is man, and the other 1/2 is "feline". As an
artist, I know that creators tend to make symmetrical objects. A man and a cat
is not symmetrical, and nothing in that ROCK indicates facial features of
either animal.
> Once upon a time he was quite a credible science writer, but
> he's really gone around the bend in the last few decades. I can't think of
> even one real scientist who takes Hoagland seriously.
I think something should be done to stop what he is doing. I have the feeling
he is influencing the minds of thousands. He once *produced* an image that he
claimed was an actual city underground! But when I saw the photo, it was the
equivelent of an abstract painting with blue oatmeal spread all over it!!
I don't understand why others can't see this.
And I thank you for responding to me.
> RM
>
>
>
Ron Miller
> > astronomers. Most of his theories and speculations regarding the
"monuments
> > of Mars" have been shown to be erroneous at best and sheer fiction at
worst.
>
> He claims 1/2 of the face on mars is man, and the other 1/2 is "feline".
As an
> artist, I know that creators tend to make symmetrical objects. A man and a
cat
> is not symmetrical, and nothing in that ROCK indicates facial features of
> either animal.
I agree . . . it's all kind of post facto reasoning, anyway. He's just
finding pictures in cracks in the ceiling...and then claiming that the
picture is really there.
> > Once upon a time he was quite a credible science writer, but
> > he's really gone around the bend in the last few decades. I can't think
of
> > even one real scientist who takes Hoagland seriously.
>
> I think something should be done to stop what he is doing. I have the
feeling
> he is influencing the minds of thousands.
I know...I waste a lot of time explaining to kids that stuff like this is
just silly....when Icould be spending the same amount of time talking about
real science.
He once *produced* an image that he
> claimed was an actual city underground! But when I saw the photo, it was
the
> equivelent of an abstract painting with blue oatmeal spread all over it!!
>
> I don't understand why others can't see this.
Believe me, I don't either! I think part of it might be that a lot people
get frustrated at scientists seeming to "know everything" and like to think
that they are one up on them.
> And I thank you for responding to me.
No sweat! You're an artist, too, eh? What sort of work do you do?
RM
Flying _Naked_People
> > I think something should be done to stop what he is doing. I have the
> feeling
> > he is influencing the minds of thousands.
>
> I know...I waste a lot of time explaining to kids that stuff like this is
> just silly....when Icould be spending the same amount of time talking about
> real science.
And to add to that, just because I'm an adult, doesn't mean you can't, or,
shouldn't refer to me as a "kid" when it comes to science. I thought lead was
a hard metal for Pete's sake! But thanks to you and my husband, I found out
there are a bunch of metals that can withstand 800 Deg F. I just didn't know
that. (So shoot me!)
I thought 800 F was pretty damn hot. But I guess it just isn't.
> He once *produced* an image that he
> > claimed was an actual city underground! But when I saw the photo, it was
> the
> > equivelent of an abstract painting with blue oatmeal spread all over it!!
> >
> > I don't understand why others can't see this.
>
> Believe me, I don't either! I think part of it might be that a lot people
> get frustrated at scientists seeming to "know everything" and like to think
> that they are one up on them.
>
> > And I thank you for responding to me.
>
> No sweat! You're an artist, too, eh? What sort of work do you do?
I draw naked angels Sir. With colored pencils and a little pastel. If you can
stand a little more high falootin' smoke from me - I believe angels are on
Venus! So that's why I'm so adamant about finding out what it's environment is
like and just how do we (humans) know for sure that Venus is the way it is.
If I could get a hold of hard, cold, facts, My Lord!! Do you know what kind of
new theories that would lend to the life of angels?!? All kinds of stuff! But
if the information is wrong, I could build a theory that is useless! :-(
But anyway, if you are an artist, I sure would like to see your artwork. Seems
like all the science oriented artists do abstract art. I think that is
interesting since science is very detail oriented. It boggles me to see such a
detail oriented science create abstract art.
> RM
>
>
>
Ron Miller
> And to add to that, just because I'm an adult, doesn't mean you can't, or,
> shouldn't refer to me as a "kid" when it comes to science. I thought lead
was
> a hard metal for Pete's sake! But thanks to you and my husband, I found
out
> there are a bunch of metals that can withstand 800 Deg F. I just didn't
know
> that. (So shoot me!)
Well, like I said, I think that whole thread got off on the wrong foot on
all sides, perhaps.
> I thought 800 F was pretty damn hot. But I guess it just isn't.
Well, it kind of depends---I'm sure not about to pick up something that's
800 degrees! :)
> > No sweat! You're an artist, too, eh? What sort of work do you do?
>
> I draw naked angels Sir. With colored pencils and a little pastel. If you
can
> stand a little more high falootin' smoke from me - I believe angels are on
> Venus! So that's why I'm so adamant about finding out what it's
environment is
> like and just how do we (humans) know for sure that Venus is the way it
is.
Well, being angels I suppose there's no reason they can't be heat-resistant.
After all, they are not made of ordinary matter, are they?
> If I could get a hold of hard, cold, facts, My Lord!! Do you know what
kind of
> new theories that would lend to the life of angels?!? All kinds of stuff!
But
> if the information is wrong, I could build a theory that is useless! :-(
Well, I'm afraid Venus is Venus...but perhaps you could adjust your theory
to fit the known facts?
> But anyway, if you are an artist, I sure would like to see your artwork.
Seems
> like all the science oriented artists do abstract art. I think that is
> interesting since science is very detail oriented. It boggles me to see
such a
> detail oriented science create abstract art.
Here are two pretty radically different samples of what I do. This is some
recent space art done mostly for my books:
http://www.bonestell.org/newsamples/index.html. I have many other examples
of this sort of work online if you'd care to see it. As you can imagine, it
sometimes takes longer to do the research for these than it does to do the
finished art.
Then, in between doing artwork that requires so many hours of research, I do
things like this: http://www.bonestell.org/ElementalWoman/index.html
RM
Bill Duncan
<rmi...@crosslink.com> wrote:
?
>
> > But anyway, if you are an artist, I sure would like to see your artwork.
> Seems
> > like all the science oriented artists do abstract art. I think that is
> > interesting since science is very detail oriented. It boggles me to see
> such a
> > detail oriented science create abstract art.
>
> Here are two pretty radically different samples of what I do. This is some
> recent space art done mostly for my books:
> http://www.bonestell.org/newsamples/index.html. I have many other examples
> of this sort of work online if you'd care to see it. As you can imagine, it
> sometimes takes longer to do the research for these than it does to do the
> finished art.
>
> Then, in between doing artwork that requires so many hours of research, I do
> things like this: http://www.bonestell.org/ElementalWoman/index.html
>
> RM
>
>Hey Ron;Game,set,match.Bill.
Jay Windley
|
| How much credence do you give Richard Hogland?
Almost none. He also seems to have an unhealthy dislike for NASA which
manifests itself in a strong anti-NASA bias. My guess is that NASA has
wronged him in some way and this is his way of getting back at them.
Eddie Trimarchi
--
Regards,
Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com
"Ron Miller" <rmi...@crosslink.com> wrote in message
news:3f5bab05$0$17...@dingus.crosslink.net...
Flying _Naked_People
<3f5bab05$0$17...@dingus.crosslink.net>...
> Well, being angels I suppose there's no reason they can't be heat-resistant.
> After all, they are not made of ordinary matter, are they?
I just don't know. If the chemical structure of Venus is weird, that could
explain the angels physical make-up. (Or not)
Know anything that (theoretically) could alter the weight and/or mass of a
living thing?? <g>
> Well, I'm afraid Venus is Venus...but perhaps you could adjust your theory
> to fit the known facts?
Yes! That's one of my goals!
> Here are two pretty radically different samples of what I do. This is some
> recent space art done mostly for my books:
> http://www.bonestell.org/newsamples/index.html. I have many other examples
> of this sort of work online if you'd care to see it. As you can imagine, it
> sometimes takes longer to do the research for these than it does to do the
> finished art.
Holy Cow! Let me transcribe a brief conversation about your art while my 9
year old walked in...
Son: What's that mom?
Me: Check it out - it's pictures of mars.
Son: Really?
Me: Yeah! Look - they're photographs - Wait - I mean they're paintings -
Well,... I **think** they're paintings... - Wait - Of Course they're
paintings!! What am I saying!?!
Both: Lol!
Damn, you're good! Mighty convincing too I might add! You actually had me
fooled into thinking these were photos.
:-D
That's just freakin' amazing. And yes, I would LOVE to see more. More and more
and more and more! Especially of Venus if you have any.
> Then, in between doing artwork that requires so many hours of research, I do
> things like this: http://www.bonestell.org/ElementalWoman/index.html
You sure do have some cool ideas. But all in all, I'd have to say I like "Air"
the best. <wink> But then again... "Water" looks good too! What do you use?
Acrylics? Oil? Are these digital works? ... The Phoenix - beautiful.
What you're doing is the honorable aspect of art. Taking what's true
(research) and recreating a whole new world (to us). That's what I'd like to
do with Venus and those flying naked people (If I could portray the planet's
geo-structure correctly.) Have you seen this report?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992843
I think that report is funny because all this activity is taking place in the
*clouds*. But scientists won't even consider the possiblity of *angels on
clouds* as an answer. If I understand the report right, they want to blame it
on microorganisms or something. Which could be the case - I'm open minded!!
But from my perspective, I think the activity is from angels. The clouds on
Venus are supposed to be very thick - thick enough for an angel to stand, sit,
or walk on!
The high winds of Venus are very important also, because that would not only
explain how angels are able to fly so easily (oh, go on and laugh), but also
could explain why they have wings. I can't think of the name of theory, but
there is one here (on earth) that says life tends to change and mold (adapt)
itself to it's surroundings. So... if life generated there like it did here,
in such a windy place, of course people(?) would begin to mutate themselves a
pair of wings. (I dunno).
Now I don't believe just angels live there... I think Hell is on Venus too!
That's why I'm curious about the heat. Some religions claim Venus is the star
of Satan, while others believe Venus is the star of David. <rolling eyes> But
it's highly interesting to me Sir, that Satan *is* considered a "fallen angel"
and David is just a regular ol' angel I guess. Both of these angels are
claimed to come from one planet - and that is Venus. The heat may also answer
why the angels I accidently saw are naked. Some people get in an uproar over
the concept of naked angels, but if it's hot in their environment, well that
certainly explains a lot. Otherwise, I simply explain that clothing would be
too restrictive for flight!
Another bizarre thought I had was about any steam produced by the heat. I
mean, what if those angels I saw were regularly invisible, but I just happened
to catch them in a blast of steam, or a steam pocket, which rendered them
visible for a brief moment?? And I was concerned about the color of the planet
too because when I had my strange experience, the sky wasn't blue. It was
yellowish.
I think the chemical structure of Venus could offer clues too. I remember
seeing a scene of an angel sitting on top of a really old archaic building. It
looked like it was an ancient ruin or something. Venus is full of sulfuric
acid right? I wonder if that has something to do with the building's
appearance. I can say I was very disappointed in finding no structures of any
kind in the Venus photos. :-(
I could be grasping at straws here... or... I could be on to something big...
or... I could be another Richard Hoagland. Regardless, I apologize for going
on and on. I realize this is my theory - not yours, but I sure would like to
see what you have to say about Venus.
Science + Art = Reality
;-)
> RM
>
>
>
Flying _Naked_People
<bjgej2$gon$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> |
> | How much credence do you give Richard Hogland?
>
> Almost none. He also seems to have an unhealthy dislike for NASA which
> manifests itself in a strong anti-NASA bias. My guess is that NASA has
> wronged him in some way and this is his way of getting back at them.
>
>
I'm afraid he (and others) may have influenced me in to questioning things
that should not have been questioned. Like how we could have sent anything to
Venus. And whether the planets are really the colors that they are.
Flying _Naked_People
Ron Miller
> Know anything that (theoretically) could alter the weight and/or mass of a
> living thing?? <g>
Well, weight is actually just a measurement of the pull of gravity on mass
(which is why something of a certain mass will have different weights on
different planets). The only way I can think of to change the mass of
something (without physically adding or subtracting matter) is for it to
travel at very high velocities. It's part of Einstein's theories (and this
has been proven) that the faster something goes, the more massive it
becomes. Perhaps someone else in the group may have other ideas.
> > Well, I'm afraid Venus is Venus...but perhaps you could adjust your
theory
> > to fit the known facts?
>
> Yes! That's one of my goals!
Excellent scientific approach!
> Holy Cow! Let me transcribe a brief conversation about your art while my 9
> year old walked in...
>
> Son: What's that mom?
> Me: Check it out - it's pictures of mars.
> Son: Really?
> Me: Yeah! Look - they're photographs - Wait - I mean they're paintings -
> Well,... I **think** they're paintings... - Wait - Of Course they're
> paintings!! What am I saying!?!
> Both: Lol!
>
> Damn, you're good! Mighty convincing too I might add! You actually had me
> fooled into thinking these were photos.
Loved it! :)
> That's just freakin' amazing. And yes, I would LOVE to see more. More and
more
> and more and more! Especially of Venus if you have any.
I have several.
> You sure do have some cool ideas. But all in all, I'd have to say I like
"Air"
> the best. <wink> But then again... "Water" looks good too! What do you
use?
> Acrylics? Oil? Are these digital works? ... The Phoenix - beautiful.
They are all digital renderings.
> The clouds on
> Venus are supposed to be very thick - thick enough for an angel to stand,
sit,
> or walk on!
Well, perhaps light-weight ones, anyway!
> The high winds of Venus are very important also,
I don't think very high winds have ever been detected in the lower
atmosphere.
> Now I don't believe just angels live there... I think Hell is on Venus
too!
A good spot for it if any place is!
> That's why I'm curious about the heat. Some religions claim Venus is the
star
> of Satan,
You might find it interesting to know that one of the Roman names for the
planet was Lucifer.
RM
Ron Miller
"Eddie Trimarchi" <edd...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:slP6b.88361$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Absolutely awesome work Ron. Beautiful!
Thanks!
RM
Odysseus
>
> You might find it interesting to know that one of the Roman names for the
> planet was Lucifer.
>
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
>
> Then, in between doing artwork that requires so many hours of research, I do
> things like this: http://www.bonestell.org/ElementalWoman/index.html
>
Nut or Urania -- have you plans to depict them? Will it be printed,
or is it solely a Web project?
(Does it end at Page 77, or was my browser failing me?)
--
Odysseus
Jay Windley
|
| I'm afraid he (and others) may have influenced me in to questioning things
| that should not have been questioned.
Depends on what you mean by "shouldn't have been questioned." Science wants
you to question everything, but it also sets up some time-tested rules to
keep the questioning useful. It may be more accurate to say that these
pseudoscientists have encouraged you to question things in a way that's not
helpful or especially valid.
A lot of people will tell you that they're asking questions "the government
doesn't want asked," or words to that effect. That is usually evidence of
some ulterior motive -- their own fame and/or fortune -- and also evidence
of a case based more on rhetorical sophistry than upon facts and good
principles of investigation.
| Like how we could have sent anything to Venus.
I hope that question has been answered. We can engineer for hostile
environments, but not for the long term. Go look at some of the engineering
that contributes to rocket and jet engine design and you'll see how you can
engineer for very high temperatures. And honestly we don't expect anything
sent to Venus to last very long.
| And whether the planets are really the colors that they are.
I hope that question has been answered too. You can find a wide variety of
color manipulation toward various ends. The question you want to ask is,
"Was this done with the attempt to deceive me?" The way we discover,
process, and transmit information gives rise to many opportunities for
intentional or unintentional distortion of that information. The mere
suspicion or fact of distortion does not create the intent to mislead or
deceive.
But there are plenty of people willing to capitalize on the merest
ambiguity, the merest semblance of impropriety, and the slightest confusion
in order to further their own agendas. These people create false
expectations of consistency and order and then attempt to read into the
resulting discrepancies some dastardly motive.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Flying _Naked_People
>
> "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> message news:vlnimoc...@corp.supernews.com...
> |
> | I'm afraid he (and others) may have influenced me in to questioning things
> | that should not have been questioned.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "shouldn't have been questioned." Science wants
> you to question everything, but it also sets up some time-tested rules to
> keep the questioning useful. It may be more accurate to say that these
> pseudoscientists have encouraged you to question things in a way that's not
> helpful or especially valid.
Sounds good.
My complaint (at 8:20 pm) is that the details of a lot of how "we" are
accomplishing science tricks are not being made available to the average Joe
(or Jane). If I had realized there were materials strong enough to with stand
outrageous temperatures, you would have never heard from me. I mean, come on,
how hard would it have been for the goofballs who put this almanac together to
write: "The materials used to sent the probe were <blah blah>".
Instead, they wrote, "The temperature on Venus is hot enough to melt lead."
Well dangit - I am not a metalsmith, and I thought that was something
phenomenal. I would like to put the blame on the authors of the book I made a
fool of myself with!
> A lot of people will tell you that they're asking questions "the government
> doesn't want asked," or words to that effect. That is usually evidence of
> some ulterior motive -- their own fame and/or fortune -- and also evidence
> of a case based more on rhetorical sophistry than upon facts and good
> principles of investigation.
If you are over 45 (50 is better) then I will stick to this advice like glue.
I really *am* getting rather tired of conspiracies that never pan out. Then
again, maybe I'll just take the advice period. You know what? I can hardly
listen to the foolishness on Coast to Coast AM (used to be the Art Bell show)
any longer because even with my extremely limited science speculations, *I*
can tell when certain guests are full of it.
So that's cool. Kind of like a "scientific" awakening eh? :-)
> | Like how we could have sent anything to Venus.
>
> I hope that question has been answered. We can engineer for hostile
> environments, but not for the long term. Go look at some of the engineering
> that contributes to rocket and jet engine design and you'll see how you can
> engineer for very high temperatures. And honestly we don't expect anything
> sent to Venus to last very long.
>
> | And whether the planets are really the colors that they are.
>
> I hope that question has been answered too. You can find a wide variety of
> color manipulation toward various ends. The question you want to ask is,
> "Was this done with the attempt to deceive me?" The way we discover,
> process, and transmit information gives rise to many opportunities for
> intentional or unintentional distortion of that information. The mere
> suspicion or fact of distortion does not create the intent to mislead or
> deceive.
>
> But there are plenty of people willing to capitalize on the merest
> ambiguity, the merest semblance of impropriety, and the slightest confusion
> in order to further their own agendas. These people create false
> expectations of consistency and order and then attempt to read into the
> resulting discrepancies some dastardly motive.
That is very wise. It verbalizes what I've wanted to rant about for some short
time... I just didn't have the words.
I believe now. Oh Lord I beliEVE!
(I bookmarked your site).
Jay Windley
|
| My complaint (at 8:20 pm) is that the details of a lot of how
| "we" are accomplishing science tricks are not being made available
| to the average Joe (or Jane).
I'm not in a position to condone or criticize how other people may have
responded to you. Keep in mind that Usenet is a fairly contentious
environment. People take out their frustrations by verbally pummelling
people in newsgroups. Also keep in mind that people with expertise have
usually labored quite hard to acquire that expertise. They want, and
deserve, some respect for that. By all means disagree with the experts if
you feel they're wrong, but be prepared for the possibility that your
objection may not hold a lot of water.
There's a fine balance between what people are willing to convey here, in
this medium, and what they prefer you learn by more conventional means. In
general you don't want to come to Usenet expecting to be taught from the
ground up. You want to do a fair amount of research yourself. Not that
it's about elitism. It's just what's going to get you the best results.
| I mean, come on, how hard would it have been for the goofballs
| who put this almanac together to write: "The materials used to
| sent the probe were <blah blah>".
It's difficult to know what's going on inside an editor's head. But
fundamentally they want to sell books. And so sometimes that means they
tend toward the sensational. I work on the engineering of my company's
products: it's mostly a collection of dimensions and numbers that convey
the essential operating parameters. It takes someone from Sales or
Marketing to put that into words that compel people to covet owning them.
Yes, it's a matter of distorting the truth, or putting a spin on it. But
it's a sort of deception that we have agreed to allow. We want people to
put superlatives into terms we can understand. I was supervising the
installation of 250 terabytes of storage technology. A spectator asked me
how many MP3s it could hold. My answer was, "All of them." That's not a
useful quantitative answer, but it's useful to convey a sense of scale.
| because even with my extremely limited science speculations,
| *I* can tell when certain guests are full of it.
Intuition is a two-edged sword. Very often the facts defy intuition, but
just as often your initial impression is correct. If someone sounds like
he's full of it, he probably is. It's not a matter of what he's saying.
It's usually a matter of how he structures and presents his arguments. If
accepting someone's argument means also accepting a vast conspiracy to
conceal the "real" facts, then that should raise your suspicions.
| That is very wise. It verbalizes what I've wanted to rant about
| for some short time... I just didn't have the words.
|
| I believe now. Oh Lord I beliEVE!
Let me encourage you to remain skeptical. I don't expect you to take my
word for anything, and that's why -- where practical -- I give you the means
to research things for yourself. I'm confident in my reader's ability to
understand the issues and draw the right conclusions -- on the issue of the
moon landing hoax theory, anyway -- if I but present all the facts.
| (I bookmarked your site).
Thanks. May I also recommend http://www.badastronomy.com where many
scientific topics are discussed and clarified in a moderated atmosphere.
Ron Miller
"Odysseus" <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:3F5BE189...@yahoo-dot.ca...
Exactly---both meaning "bringer of light".
RM
Ron Miller
> Jay Windley <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in article
> <bjgp8s$kom$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> >
> > "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> > message news:vlnimoc...@corp.supernews.com...
> > |
> > | I'm afraid he (and others) may have influenced me in to questioning
things
Jay provided some excellent advice that was graciously and intelligently
accepted.
RM
Ron Miller
There are still a lot of images to go yet! I'm aiming for a total of 100...
I'm glad you liked them! (And I hadn't thought of either Nut or
Urania...thanks for the tip!)
R