James Oberg is a NASA historian, space guy, and very knowledgeable source of info on the space program. Like me, he has little tolerance for the nonsensical spewings of people like Richard C. Hoagland, who couldn't find reality with both hands, an instruction manual, and a pickax.
Jim puts the hurt on RCH in an article about Mars probes for The Space Review. He systematically, and with references, shows exactly why RCH's writings are so much crank goofiness.
It's disturbing, actually, that a book by the likes of Hoagland can become so popular. People are all-too willing to believe anything written down, especially if it agrees with their preconceptions, and especially if the author seems like an expert, even when it's specifically proven that his credentials are more inflated than Pamela Anderson.
Oberg is relentless in his pwning of RCH and his book. It makes you wonder, in my opinion, just what is going on in the head of RCH (and Mike Bara, his coauthor) when he writes that stuff. Can he actually believe in what he is saying?