Wait... that was a joke, right?
Actually I wasn't joking, and I was pretty clear and nice about it.
What I said was that you can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he's been using the Scientific method to study this issue specifically for decades now.
I'd say that makes his work worth mentioning.
Also, you do know that he worked for Walter Cronkite, and NASA before that, right?
At any rate, you can disagree with his conclusions, that's cool, I do on several subjects.
But what he does is Science, his work is repeatable, and Geometry is a real thing that should not be scoffed at.
On the note of being polite about it, I would humbly submit to you that the compelling Exhibit A you are looking for is offered in a case study on the Battle of Los Angeles I did a while back at the ATS boards. Here's a link, it is worth a read:
ATS Boards Link Here
I will certainly rationally discuss either subject further should you like. But on a forum such as this, I would appreciate it if we could steer away from character attacks and keep to the subject matter.
After all, these are Unexplained Mysteries we're discussing. All of us are just like Hoagland here, looking at mysteries and applying our theories. To decry his pursuit of truth goes against what we do here.
To debate his conclusions, and his methodology is another thing entirely, and I welcome that conversation. It's one that both 'sides' in these debates need to have, as a conversation, and not an 'argument'. Ya know?
You seem reasonable though. Perhaps the two of us can have that conversation here?