Springfield Spacecase

Springfield's Mars Man

  

A number of crazy people are from Springfield, in fact you may be visiting the blog of one right now. But I'm of the mostly harmless variety. As for Springfield's criminally insane, we all know that they go into politics. Yet some City of Homes nutcases have managed to distinguish themselves in other fields.

Take for example fringe media science figure Richard C. Hoagland. The Wikipedia has this to say about him:

Richard C. Hoagland (born April 25, 1945) is the operator of www.enterprisemission.com. He appears on late-night talk radio to discuss his opinions on alleged US government cover-ups of alien civilizations and other space-related topics. At age 19, he was briefly the curator of a small science museum in Springfield Massachusetts, despite having no education or training for such a position. He claims to have worked as science advisor to CBS News, (specifically and directly to Walter Cronkite), during the Apollo Missions to the Moon, despite having no education or training in science.

His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret. His opinions have never been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Hoagland claims that he served as a curator of astronomy & space science at the Springfield Museum of Science, located at The Quadrangle in Springfield, Massachusetts, and that he was a consultant to CBS News during the Apollo program.

Hoagland co-produced with WTIC (AM) of Hartford CT, a radio program, A Night of Encounter, covering the July 14, 1965, Mariner 4 flyby of the planet Mars. The show was submitted, unsuccessfully, for consideration for a Peabody Award.

Hoagland has appeared often on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory as well as on CNN, the BBC, UFO Evidence & Conspiracy, and Mysteries in Space. Coast to Coast AM has given him the title of Science Adviser, despite his lack of science credentials.

 

In other words, this seems like a guy with some pretty outrageous claims to make and a distinct lack of evidence. No where is this more apparent than his claims involving life on Mars. Again from the Wikipedia:

Hoagland bases much of his argument on the image of the so-called Face on Mars that appears in a 1976 Viking Orbiter photograph taken of the Cydonia region on Mars.

He argues that this feature is an artificial structure built to resemble a face. According to Hoagland, this structure is part of a city built on Cydonia Planitia by extraterrestrial intelligences consisting of very large pyramids and mounds arranged in a geometrical pattern, with the ratios between measured angles roughly equaling mathematical constants like pi, e, the square root of 2, and most importantly the ratio between the surface area of a sphere and that of a tetrahedron inscribed within it, 2.720699.

To Hoagland, this is evidence that an advanced civilization existed on Mars and that NASA is suppressing the evidence for reasons explained in a Brookings Institution report entitled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs, specifically on page 216 of the report which raised the question of whether evidence of extraterrestrial life found in the solar system should be withheld from the public. It is a possibility that such information would destabilize society.

Hoagland also speculates that the ancient Martians may have escaped to Earth and genetically engineered certain human populations, referencing the Mesopotamian myths of the Annunaki and the fallen angels of the Old Testament. The inference he draws, like Zacharia Sitchin et al, is that these human populations may be the genetically engineered children of ancient Martians.

On April 5, 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor probe sent back better images of the Cydonia region that indicated that the face was an irregularly shaped mountain. Hoagland contends these images were run through multiple filters that degraded the original image in quality, giving it a catbox appearance which obscures what is really on Mars.

When, on April 8, 2001, enhanced images showed that the feature was not symmetrical, he wrote that the face is actually half hominid (left side) and half feline (right side).

On September 21, 2006, several new 3D views derived from the high-resolution stereo camera on the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter. In response to their publication Hoagland remarked "Science is not about what you can see. It's about what you can measure,". Mike Bara, Hoagland's co-author, has accused the European Space Agency, which released that photo set, of fraud.

The image from the HiRISE camera on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, released in April 2007, was so detailed that even Hoagland appears to have abandoned his contention that the whole structure is a face.

 



Again, it seems like Hoagland is a guy who won't let the facts get in the way of his opinions. But what really interests me about Hoagland is the local connection and the claim that he was once a curator at the Springfield Science Museum at the Quadrangle.

Can that be verified in some way? I began poking around, and saw the claim repeated in article after article about Hoagland, but all of them seemed to be taking the claim at face value in that hall of mirrors way the media sometimes has of repeating the same information over and over again without anyone bothering to check whether it is actually true.

Then I stumbled upon this wonderful internet discussion group called The Bad Astronomy and Universe Forum, where scientific people gather to thrash out what is real and what is bullshit in the astronomical field. It turns out they were plenty skeptical on the subject of Springfield homeboy Hoagland, and specifically discussed and investigated his Quadrangle curator claim. Initial inquiries did not seem supportive:

Hoagland's bio refers to his serving as the "Former Curator of
Astronomy and Space Science at the Springfield Museum of Science,
Springfield, Mass." Well, I contacted the museum and asked them if
this was true. Their reply:

"Thank you for your inquiry about Richard Hoagland. I have been trying
to track down the information you requested. We have been unable to
find a personnel record on anyone of that name."

In fact, Hoagland may have worked there on an occaqsional basis as a
planetarium lecturer, but he was never a permanent employee - and
certainly not Curator.

  

That damning evidence however is then challenged by someone who claims to know first hand about Hoagland's Springfield experience:

This may cause massive gastric distress to some, but Hoagland really did work -- and worked hard -- for the Springfield Science Museum (c. 1964-68). It was there that the energetic young man experienced his first close encounter with Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. Carl Sagan. However, I do not know if Hoagland was a paid employee or was a volunteer.

The various sections of this small science museum have their appointed curators, such as the Curator of Anthropology, the Curator of Mineralogy, the Curator of Natural Science, the Curator of Physical Science, and the Senior Curator, but no astronomy or planetarium curator. If Hoagland was truly a curator, he most likely would have been the Curator of Physical Science or, as he calls it, the "Curator of Astronomy & Space Science."

Hoagland was most noted for his planetarium shows.

Frank Korkosz (1903-87) was the director of the Springfield Science Museum from 1958 to 1974 and would have been Hoagland's boss.

 

So Hoagland may indeed have been involved with Springfield's Quadrangle Science Museum, but may be overblowing his importance. This forum participant seems to nail it:

 

The problem is that he inflates his resume, claims original credit for ideas not his own (plaque, Europa ice), and the ideas for which he deserves original credit (Mars "city", Pyramid connections, Mars junkyards, etc.) are raving works of hallucination, wishful thinking, numerology, and conspiracy. He's also abrasive and arrogant without the chops to back it up. I'm just saying, we don't have to talk down what he did accomplish before he went completely off the deep end.

So the astronomy people pretty much arrived at this verdict - that Hoagland probably had something to do with the Springfield Science Museum, but it was no big deal and in any case does nothing to detract from the fact that he is essentially a raving lunatic.

The Bad Astronomy forum then came down to Earth to discuss the far more interesting subject of whether The Simpson's TV characters are from Springfield, Massachusetts. As it turns out, that mystery was settled for good a few years ago, and you can read all about it here. 

Cyber Pit Stop

At UMass today I passed these students checking their email in the Graduate Research Center. 

Visual Pun

At the UMass Library. 

Today's Video

 

Why We Lost

Darn it, we lost! The nationwide contest to determine which of the many Springfield's in America should be the one officially designated as most like the fictional one in The Simpsons cartoon show went to, of all places, dinky little Springfield, Vermont. What? Vermont has more cows than people! At least Springfield, Illinois is a state capitol! I'm tellin' ya, we wuz robbed!

Actually our video was sort of lame, but then so was everyone else's. I mean all the Vermont video had going for it was a giant donut rolling around town. Has the level of humor in America sunk so low that seeing someone take a flying leap at a rolling donut is the height of humor?

Truth is, I told the makers of our video how to win, and gave em' the advice for free, but they just didn't listen! Yet in fairness, all the Springfield's made the same basic mistake: They focused on how the rest of the nation would view them, and frankly the fans of the Simpson's couldn't care less about any Springfield on the planet besides the one in the show. They want to laugh, and what do Simpson's fans laugh at? Outrageous stuff that's crass and ridiculous and dripping with irony. How could our Springfield lose a contest like that?

Oh the lost opportunities! Good grief, all that we had to do is show highlights from the Ardolino trial and we would have won hands down! Instead we had Ted Kennedy saying "chowdah" like somehow that was wicked pissah. They should have had Mike Albano waving a jar of spaghetti sauce while the music from the Godfather played! We should have shown Jerry Phillips chasing a Puerto Rican welfare mother around a hotel room with a wiffle bat! We should have shown Papa Ray Asselin running out of a laundry room with a suitcase full of quarters! We should have shown archival footage of Chris Asselin throwing a temper tantrum after he was thrown out of office! The City Council could've dressed as clowns and.... wait a minute, no costumes necessary.

Oh well, while defeat leaves Springfield nothing to celebrate, it also leaves nothing to apologize for. In my opinion, all of the videos were so bad that it was really a coin toss who won. And there were a few positives in the way our community got excited about the contest and the publicity that was generated, with our Springfield getting at least passing mention in several major media outlets.

So a pat on the back is still in order for everyone who participated, from the producers to the citizens who voted online to even the critics like me who sneered from the sidelines. The contest made Springfield sort of come together for a little bit, and that is always a plus.

One of the coolest places in Northampton has always been Bob's Hobby Shop on King Street, with its chilltown underground entrance way featuring a monster and a witch. 

It was so cool it long ago outgrew it's subterranean lair, and now it has relocated to a much larger space just down the street, in the vacant spot next to the 7-11.

That's a great spot, and right across the street from the Science Store! Science nerds are often comic book collectors and gamers too, so now we can do all our nerdy shopping in one convenient area! Hurray! King Street is turning into a nerd paradise!

Springfield and the Simpsons

Well, the City of Springfield - Massachusetts that is - has decided to enter the contest put on by the Simpsons TV show to pick one of the Springfield's in the United States as officially the one referred to in the show. There are a bunch of Springfield's to compete for the publicity bonanza the winner will receive, virtually one in every state:


Springfield, Alabama
Springfield, Arkansas
Springfield, California
Springfield, Colorado
Springfield, Florida
Springfield, Georgia
Springfield, Idaho
Springfield, Iowa
Springfield, Illinois
Springfield, Indiana
Springfield, Kentucky
Springfield, Louisiana
Springfield, Massachusetts
Springfield, Maryland
Springfield, Maine
Springfield, Michigan
Springfield, Minnesota
Springfield, Missouri
Springfield, Mississippi
Springfield, North Carolina
Springfield, Nebraska
Springfield, New Hampshire
Springfield, New Jersey
Springfield, New York
Springfield, Ohio
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield, Pennsylvania
Springfield, South Carolina
Springfield, South Dakota
Springfield, Tennessee
Springfield, Texas
Springfield, Virginia
Springfield, Virgin Islands
Springfield, Vermont
Springfield, Wisconsin
Springfield, West Virginia

The creator of The Simpsons , Matt Groening, has always been vague about what Springfield he had in mind. He once said that he chose the name because it is so common, but it is not the most common - that would be the ubiquitous "Fairview." I guess more people prefer to have where they live referred to as having a view that's fair than as resembling fields in spring.

However, some fans have pointed out that Groening grew up in Oregon, which has a very prominent Springfield. However others have insisted that it is Springfield, Massachusetts where the Simpsons reside, based on the fact that the show's former executive producer Mike Scully is a West Springfield native. Some local fans even aruge that there are references in some Simpsons episodes to local landmarks.

Whatever the case may be, the debate will finally be settled later this year when one Springfield above all others will be chosen as the official Simpsons hometown. That will translate into a goldmine for that Springfield in publicity, tourism and promotional products. The Mayor will even appear in the cartoon, so tell the artists at the show to have plenty of blue and red ink on hand for Charlie Ryan's most favored outfit of blue coat and red tie.

I'm not sure what useful advice I can offer on what to do in order for our Springfield (the first one in the nation, by the way) to win this contest. But I can tell what not to do. For example:

Do not let Judith Matt, the Chamber of Commerce or any Springfield Redevelopment poohbahs into the project whatsoever. Have security remove them from the premises if they try to participate. I've got nothing against these folks personally, but their participation on any level will guarantee that we lose. That is because these people will act as cheerleaders for Springfield, and that is not what the viewers (who will be the judges) will be looking for.

They want a city they can laugh at, one that genuinely resembles the terribly dysfunctional community in which the Simpsons episodes occur. The good news is our Springfield fits that model beautifully. It is very hard to find any city, named Springfield or otherwise, that is more dysfunctional than our Springfield. We got it all - the crime, the controversial police force, the corruption, the mob, the dumb voters, and best of all, we've got stories to tell about these things that we can entertain the nation with.

The video we submit must tell about Gerry Phillips and his stanky hanky. It needs to talk about Francis Keough using the homeless as his personal servants. We need to talk about the Asselins, who stole the washing machine quarters meant for the old folks activity fund. We need to talk about the crime and the clueless former police chief whose response to it was to urge parents to read to their children more. We need to talk about the blind, deaf and dumb media and the brain dead public who slept through it all. In other words, to win this contest we need to put our worst foot forward.

But to do that would require something Springfield has yet to show publicly, which is an honest appraisal of its recent past. The entertainer Cher, at the funeral of her former husband Sonny, made an astute observation. She said people used to ask Sonny how he could stand being the butt of all the jokes on their TV show. But she said that what people didn't realize was that he wrote all the jokes for their show, so in effect what he was doing was making fun of himself. What supreme confidence he had, Cher observed, that he could write the very jokes by which he would be ridiculed. You've got to have a lot of faith in yourself to do that.

Springfield can win this Simpsons contest. But it has to have the confidence to acknowledge its own legacy of failure and to learn to laugh at it, plus do it in a way that will encourage others to laugh at us as well. If it does that, it should easily win the contest, and of course in the wake of the contest Springfield will then have the chance to promote all its many good qualities.

But I don't think Springfield is self-confident enough to be capable of that, although I'd love to be proven wrong.

I was in Northampton this morning having coffee with one of my favorite people, Maureen Turner of the Valley Advocate. We did not go to the Dunkin Donuts for coffee.

But if we had, I would have pointed out that it used to be the eccentric music store B-side Records.

 



I like Dunkin Donuts, but I miss the old B-Side. There was music you could find there that you couldn't find anywhere else, including bootlegs.

For coffee Ms. Turner and I went to The Haymarket, where we sat like decadent loafers as we discussed all things Valley. You'll be reading about some of the things we talked about in the coming weeks, and if any local politicians had ringing ears this morning, now you know why.

Odd Amherst Art

Today I was walking across the Amherst Town Common when I noticed these two weird art-beings someone had created and placed beneath a tree.

They appeared to be made of paste and newspaper, probably by being originally wrapped around actual human models. The book the female art-being is reading is a religious one, but what significance that is supposed to have, if any, I'm not sure. 

Of course, being made of such flimsy material, the art-beings will either have to be removed before the next time it rains or be destroyed. You see a lot of art like that around here, art which suddenly appears, makes a statement and then quickly vanishes.

Here's me in between my two maternal ancestors, my great grandfather on the left and my great-great grandfather on my right. I'm told that the frames to those portraits, both over a hundred years old, are worth money.

But they will never be sold. We Devines treasure our family history, even though it is filled with horse-thieves, drunkards and eccentrics.

In Westfield last week I saw this sign in front of someones house, commanding that we make a choice.

 



Um, can I have both?

Visitors to this downtown Amherst doorway find that the answer is always....