I just listened to the Richard C. Hoagland interview on the Dennis Miller show. It was actually interesting. RCH made the usual brain dead claims of rocks on Mars shaped like robot heads (I am not making that up, folks; that's the level he's at) and Nazi scientists at NASA. Miller was polite -- he seemed to enjoy talking to RCH, which is understandable -- but in the end was pretty skeptical. He said he would read Hoagland's book on the "secret NASA history "... but he also came right out and said that he thinks all this stuff from RCH is a "put on" (Miller's words). In other words, Miller thinks RCH is making it all up.
I'll add that Hoagland said three things that piqued my interest. One, he said his Enterprise Mission page is a "public policy" website. I almost spat my coffee all over my monitor.
Two, it sure sounded to me like he admitted that he was basing his claims of glass domes and spires on the Moon on third generation pictures -- that is, pictures made from pictures made from negatives -- which pretty much clinches that what he is saying is ridiculous. When examining data, you need to use the original pictures. If you don't, you risk getting hair, dust, and artifacts (glare, smudges, etc.)in the prints. And of course, to any rational person this is exactly what is seen in his images. He says this himself on his very own website where he debunks the Moon Hoax (interestingly, I cannot seem to find that debunking on his site anymore; anyone else see it anywhere?), where he shows the famous C-rock is actually due to a hair that got on the negative.
And third, he said that he was a "NASA consultant at Goddard" -- that's an exact quotation from RCH. That's a very interesting claim! I'll have to look into that when I get a chance.
Anyway, I was surprised and pleased to see Miller be so rational. Especially after the patently ridiculous political comments Miller made in the segment before. Oh well, I'll be happy to let the fringe pundits and conspiracy theorists eat their own. Saves me the trouble.