As regular readers of this blog know well, ever since his birthday on April 25th Hoagland has been begging the Branch Hoaglandians for cash to fund an expedition to Egypt on the occasion of the Venus transit, due on 5th/6th June. There he intended to repeat what he calls an "experiment" involving an Accutron watch. This blog, among others, has been strident in its criticism of the so-called experiment, citing the lack of baselines, controls and full hypothesis.
The trap set
Here's how Irene's scam-bait went down. On 26th May at 10:00 she posted this to Hoagland's FB page (re-posted by permission):
Dear Mr Hoagland,Hoagland's immediate reply was "If this is a serious offer, we should do this via a PM and private e-mail."
As a long time coast insider, and follower of your research I was most disappointed to hear that the planned mission to Giza had to be cancelled due to lack of funding. I have been a long time lurker on your Facebook page, and, of course on Enterprise. But, have been too overwhelmed by the technical content and scientific research that you present, to ask the many questions I have.
Therein lies the problem. I wanted to make a substantial contribution to your planned expedition to Giza. I could not afford the $80k envisaged cost, but perhaps only half of that. Without causing a huge argument with my partner. Here we strike the root of the argument. I maintain that a man who had been a curator, scientist, and, for heavens sake, a scientific advisor to a broadcasting legend. All before hitting 30 years of age. A man who has had his very life threatened because of his work. Must be on to something. That something, we, as a species need. Immediately.
My partner however completes the dichotomy. We discuss long and even longer the vaildity and veracity of your reasearch. He is an electronics engineer of some standing within the world of what I have heard he and his colleagues refer to as "negentropy." I am merely an IT consultant with a passion for your work, and, perhaps more honestly. Your enthusiasm. He challenged me to provide evidence of hyperdimensional physics. The prize being me being allowed to help fund your research. With some gusto I compiled a list of links to Enterprise, citing various papers on the subject. With particular emphasis on of your magnificent Cydonia work. I "MADE" him watch your presentation at the United Nations. He squirmed in his chair as you read out a letter from Dr Ghali to the audience. Nice moment for me.
To my dismay he called your work "junk science." Citing the fact that during earlier work at Coral Castle, and other significant locations you failed to provide a baseline and control before conducting your experiments. Please, please Richard can you categorically refute these allegations, and provide me proof positive of baseline and control. In return I will happily make up the shortfall on the Giza research mission. I apologise unreservedly should I have insulted a man of your standing in requiring such assurances. But, I made an agreement with my partner and I will abide by it.
I also realise that many people may think I am insencere. Therefore, should you require it. I will give you my cellphone number, place of employment and any other information you may require to substantiate the veracity of my offer.
The pseudo-scientist then engaged in internal debate for two days. The dilemma: He wants the dosh, but at what price? The baselines and controls for the Venus transit of 2004, the farce at Teotihuacan, the joke at Stonehenge, the recent solar eclipse—these things don't exist, of course, because he has no clue how to design a proper scientific experiment. So could he fake them up convincingly enough? Hmmmm....
The trap sprung
On May 29th he made his decision. Too risky. His message to Irene (re-posted by permission):
Irene,Yesterday, Irene cross-posted that entire text to Hoagland's FB. He deleted it in about ten minutes, but we can assume some of the cult members saw it.
You know that can't happen in a "timely fashion," certainly not before the Venus Transit; have you ever dealt with "university review committees?" :)
However, thanks for your kind offer.
But, if you REALLY have been following our work as closely as you stated on Facebook (all the way back to my "Cronkite Days," if not my UN presentation on Cydonia in 1992, with the warm endorsement of the Secretary General of the UN himself!), to say nothing of my recent New York Times bestseller, "Dark Mission" (with Mike Bara), then you already know what we are doing and both its importance ... and its veracity.
If all that can't convince your partner that we're at least "worth a shot," then, sadly, no amount of additional information at this point can convince such an individual "who had to be made" to even watch my UN speech .... :)
The fact that you are allowing your partner to dictate "who" and "what" YOU can support, in ANY amount ... raises all kinds of additional issues; others have already given large donations to further this research, based SOLELY on what's on the public record. The fact that you cannot (or, will not ...) do the same, again, in any AMOUNT -- without demanding totally unreasonable quantities of raw, propriority [sic] data to turned over to TOTAL styrangers, and far ahead of its planned formal publication -- tells me you're NOT serious.
Again, if I'm misjudging you, or your situation, I'm sorry.
Many of us already commented. I acknowledge ideas from Chris Lopes, Trekker, FlightSuit, Jourget et al.
* He does have a point that time would have been tight for a proper investigation of whatever flim-flam he might have come up with. But that might have been negotiable, we'll never know. It's a safe bet that Hoagland himself has never dealt with a university review committee, so how would he know how much time would have been needed? Irene posted to this blog "The Hoagland data would have been examined at the Dept of Electronics and Electrical Engineering at Glasgow."
* That "If you had been following our work..." is an absolutely standard Hoagland debating tactic. He uses it over and over again. It's simply a set-up for him to boast of achievements that are of almost Jurassic antiquity. Cronkite 40 years ago. The UN speech 20 years ago. Then comes the non sequitur. Irene is asked to believe that these achievements testify to the "importance and veracity" of the current effort to send him on a jaunt, with his girlfriend, to Egypt. What utter balderdash.
* Next he tries to undermine Irene's relationship with her partner. Classic cult tactics.
* Why does he consider the quantity of data requested "totally unreasonable"? It's simply what any real scientist would quite naturally supply without having to be asked.
* Turning over data to "TOTAL styrangers" [sic] is what real scientists know as peer review. This part of the text is perhaps the most brilliant of all, exposing Hoagland's frequently-expressed wish to be taken seriously as a scientist as a gossamer-thin veil over the mentality of a fairground con-man.
* "far ahead of its planned formal publication"— WHAT????? In her original post, Irene cited "earlier work at Coral Castle, and other significant locations," not the recent solar eclipse. The Coral Castle farce was eight years ago, and of course totally ineligible for "formal publication" in any case, since it lacked any semblance of rigor and was broadcast to the millions of Coast-to-Coast AM listeners as it happened.
Round-trip ticket for two, ABQ-CAI: $3,600. Six nights at the Hilton Pyramids, with special "Great Getaway" offer: $990. Exposing a pseudo-scientist in full sight of his fans: PRICELESS. Thank you so much, Irene.