The evidence that supposedly verifies what he`s talking about is really
quite ridiculous. Yet here`s a guy who was responsible for the analysis
of flight tests of the Polaris missile at Lockheed, who has performed
evaluations of international satellite applications, and who was director
of information systems at a major engineering firm. He`s listed in Who`s
Who in the World (17th edition), has received a number prestigious
awards, including the Archimedes Award from the National Society of
Professional Engineers, and the man is a past president of the California
Society of Professional Engineers. And he is mad as a hatter.
He still has a good grasp of scientific concepts and is articulate, but
the way he interprets photographs is hilarious. And some of his ideation
is absolutely loony. To give just one small example: he thinks the
``face`` on mars is not solid, but that it is gaseous, the result of some
amazing contraption nearby that controls electrical fields (and thereby
the shape taken by gaseous clouds nearby).
Just one other example: There were a couple of beautifully large Voyager
photos of Saturn in which some flat object on Voyager (because it was
partially in the line of sight when the photo was taken) had obviously
cropped off the lower portion of the rings, providing a less than
complete view of the rings. Bergrun`s contention is that at the instant
this photo was taken, the rings were not complete, that this was their
_actual_ shape, and that _no_ cropping had occurred in the photo! It
was the kind of explanation that a very small child might provide.
Either that or the guy was trying to test the limits of our gullibility.
It actually makes one afraid to grow old.
There was some muted protest from the audience, which was quickly
silenced after the old man threatened to end his presentation. Much to
my amazement, some people in the audience---all well educated
folks---actually seemed to believe what he was saying.
Sounds like someone that should be a regular guest on "Hoax to Hoax."