It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Hoagland looks at CCD detector noise and sees glass towers

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
If you want a lesson in how NOT to create a meaningful web page, go to Hoagland's latest addition to the Enterprise Mission site.

This is the first new page Hoagland has created for about a year, and it's a horrorshow. Far, far, too long, requiring about 40 screen-scrolls to get through. On Firefox, the background tiling runs out at some point and the rest of the text is white-on-white. Aaaaarrrgghhhhh...

The joke is that he grabbed a lunar landscape image from the Chinese National Space Agency web site, loaded it into Photoshop, and applied the Equalize tool. To him, the resulting detector noise in the lunar sky represents miles-high glass towers, once inhabited by an alien race and now in ruins.

Why does this boring, ignorant man get so much air time on national radio?
edit on 24-4-2014 by Asertus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm only getting a JPEG image.

Have you linked properly OP?

This is his homepage > www.enterprisemission.com...

Now that I have screen rolled my self, I only had to scroll 12 times to get to the bottom, not 40.

I don't see what you are saying. It looks fine to me, well the outlay anyway





Why does this boring, ignorant man get so much air time on national radio? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why put the guy down? If you don't like it, don't go near it. If you don't go near it, you won't be seen as slagging another person off. Negativity you will suffer, you will
Yoda

He has been proving, or disproving the glass towers for years, even on his old website.

What's your point?
edit on 24-4-2014 by Spiro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiro

Yes, I did insert the wrong URL -- it's now corrected.

I just tested and it took 108 PgDns to get through it in Firefox. The background tile ran out at 43.

You ask what's my point? My point is that it shows sheer incompetence.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Asertus

Then..you should offer to redesign his site for him for free, since it offends you so much....


I used to listen to Hoagland on the old Art Bell radio show. I must say he is entertaining...

Des


edit on 24-4-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: Asertus

Then..you should offer to redesign his site for him for free, since it offends you so much....


I used to listen to Hoagland on the old Art Bell radio show. I must say he is entertaining...

Des



I agree, and I agree. I think he awesome, its content? Well, not so much


Or at least some of it


Cheers
edit on 24-4-2014 by Spiro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asertus
a reply to: Spiro

Yes, I did insert the wrong URL -- it's now corrected.

I just tested and it took 108 PgDns to get through it in Firefox. The background tile ran out at 43.

You ask what's my point? My point is that it shows sheer incompetence.


Cheers


I'm on Firefox too and only have to scroll 12 times. I think your computer may be at fault. Have you checked your mouse scroll speed?

Mocking another persons incompetence is akin to being extremely direspectful


Cheers
edit on 24-4-2014 by Spiro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asertus


Why does this boring, ignorant man get so much air time on national radio?


According to what I know, Ignorant is someone who's lacking knowledge or information. Hoagland is none of that. Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information. What he does with that is totally different topic. Maybe you should have started your thread in the Rant forum.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Asertus

Just returned from R Hoaglands website and must admit it is not the most accessible homepage.

Anyways, if this is the picture you are talking about I wonder what the 'noise' is at the bottom of the lander..Can't be glass towers...now can it?




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Telos
Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information.


Information? Such as that Olympus Mons on Mars, the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, the main origin of sunspots, and the Port-au-Prince earthquake are all at a latitude of 19.5°??

Know what? NONE OF THEM ARE. HIS INFORMATION IS FALSE. USELESS.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asertus

originally posted by: Telos
Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information.


Information? Such as that Olympus Mons on Mars, the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, the main origin of sunspots, and the Port-au-Prince earthquake are all at a latitude of 19.5°??

Know what? NONE OF THEM ARE. HIS INFORMATION IS FALSE. USELESS.


Knowledge about any subject is knowledge. If it's not in your paradigm then it wont work for you. If you are not happy with something then get rid of it. Look at more positive websites and learn to respect more. Dam, I'm even trying too because some of my comments are quit full on.

But I'm trying, and you could too


Take time out, leave others alone and be happy man


Cheers



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I read one of Hogland's books...It was so awful and so exaggerated that I Just dont believe the guy on anything...I do believe he is passionate about his work though.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I much prefer my website to be displayed this way, I have a couple of monitors tilted vertically the longer the web page the better, I feel this is optimal for scrolling through data.

I also like the design, it presents the information to you in a manner that makes it easy to find. It has not tried to spam me with adverts either which is good. Dont know much about the guy, just thought Id chip in as a random viewer.

He also seems to have added a few personal touches, though while not for everyone im sure, im sure he's happy, looks ok to me anyway. Least it not some generic font,hyperlink ad driven flash mess.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
People like hog land do more damage to the ufology field than anything else... these wild tales with no evidence only make a mockery of it whilst making it harder for the ones with credible information to get heard.. his sole intention like many others is to make money.. that's it!!
The classic one I still roll my eyes at is, the Martian moon Phobos is actually a UFO!! I mean, cmon where the hell has that nonsense come from!!



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Hogland is the absolute perfect guest for George Noory. Coming up with sensational, phony BS, trying to stay relevant long after he has lost all credibility. And Noory, never questions, just accepts any and all BS his guests hand out. Wouldn't you think critical thinking could be employed on a national show? Art used to have big advertisers like Chevy and BOA; George advertises dried food and skams like Sokriet.

Enterprise mission indeed....in a way it's kinda sad to see a once respected journalist melt down into nonexistent imaginary reportage on a halfassed radio show.

However I do listen to the guest hosts. The comparison is mind boggling.
edit on 24-4-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: misscurious
People like hog land do more damage to the ufology field than anything else... these wild tales with no evidence only make a mockery of it whilst making it harder for the ones with credible information to get heard.. his sole intention like many others is to make money.. that's it!!
The classic one I still roll my eyes at is, the Martian moon Phobos is actually a UFO!! I mean, cmon where the hell has that nonsense come from!!


That's right. For personal reasons I have an interest in UFOs, extraterrestrial possibilities. It is frustrating to see how media overall is saturated with educated derelicts with no instinct for the checks and balances of scientific procedure. They use qualifications to write books asserting unfounded or misrepresented data. Haogland, Vallee, and many more.

I think its important for the sake of critical thinking to mention such a socially anomalous foolishness, because its an example of how not to think. I would view such critiques as a positive effort in sifting out the chaff.




edit on 25-4-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Good old Hoagland and his "anomalies". You would think, wouldn't you, that in the digital age we live in people would know what a JPEG artifact is by now? And yet we still see people like him pointing out "perfect geometric anomalies" in space images...



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Asertus

Just returned from R Hoaglands website and must admit it is not the most accessible homepage.

Anyways, if this is the picture you are talking about I wonder what the 'noise' is at the bottom of the lander..Can't be glass towers...now can it?





this is why Hoagland loses so many one-time fans.....he just starts making crap up....and if you notice that when he talks on the radio about some type of picture or evidence on his site, he makes it always sound exciting, but, it is never quite what he says it is, once you get there....in the first picture of the "lander" showing these rocks, there are bright white reflections off of those rocks...but in following pics, they start taking on a colored hue. so, the conclusion to me is...duh...concentration of crystallized rocks. that's it....nothing more......then he goes on to the "tetrahedral talking points"...which I don't know how it relates to the lander, it sounds like some type of mystical hidden secret, but, I simply cannot connect the dots...



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

The problem with Hoagland, Hopkins, Vallee and other self proclaimed experts, is the incessant need to make erroneous assumptions which only play into paradigms that evolve with time. These paradigms are inversely connected with ancient verbal traditions and superstitions, and made to appear as one in context. Its a contemporary phenomenon that underscores a lack of critical thinking in the age of science and information technology. With all of the instruments at our disposal, we are the victims of a war between social populism vs. scientific jurisprudence.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
It seems to me that Hogland's site best defines the new paradigm for presenting evidence: controversy.

Take a step back and think about it: we have innumerable blogs, forums, social networks like Facebook, YouTube, as well as the mainstream media all presenting an abundance of "what if" type of information about ET's and UFO's, etc.

Regardless of any actual evidence for consideration of a given UFO/ET event, we consistently rank high in the area of "controversy about or surrounding a particular phenomenon", and it is that kind of controversy that builds the skeleton, adds the viscera and encases it all in its own skin. Controversy is beginning to replace facts or evidence because even with facts or evidence, it would still all be an empty meaningless shell without the attending controversy!

In an age where technology has caught up with and supersedes our own perceptions about the world, and in the face of hoaxes, Photoshopped images, cgi, along with the usual blurred images, shaky cameras, and microscopic/quantum level vagueness, we as human beings are crying out for something better than facts or evidence. We want sufficiency, and a very well mapped and quantifiable controversy is sufficient for our collective global weary minds and senses to accept as reality these days!

Controversy. That's the new evidence that's out there!

We already have the body. All we need to believe is a sufficiently created deception that overwhelms the senses, shorts out our brains, and is only one single step above any critical evaluation of the most current technologically created hoax.

Hoagland seems to be bewitched by all this. His site is literally a study in the new paradigm of evidence. Of course many of us don't believe what he believes, as evidenced by this thread. But in time, we will all come to fall into the same trap of bewitchment.

It's a game of chess. Let technology prove its merit up to a point; then let it step back a little to allow our imaginations to slingshot ahead of the controversy to embrace a deceptively real UFO/ET event yet to come simply because we are socially and academically just too tired and too weary to care anymore if something is real or not.

I believe in UFO's as defined. I witnessed the famous Texas Lubbock Lights formation type for myself in the late 60's (Google it for a picture)

I also know a rat when I smell it, and the reason UFO's/ET's keep their distance is because there aren't any 'real' spacecraft or 'real' space aliens. It's all a deception.

What I witnessed myself was part of that deception...even though...it was also real!

By the way, I like reading Hoagland. Very entertaining.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: prodiffenon


...I believe in UFO's as defined. I witnessed the famous Texas Lubbock Lights formation type for myself in the late 60's (Google it for a picture)

I also know a rat when I smell it, and the reason UFO's/ET's keep their distance is because there aren't any 'real' spacecraft or 'real' space aliens. It's all a deception.

What I witnessed myself was part of that deception...even though...it was also real!

By the way, I like reading Hoagland. Very entertaining.



It seems that you are saying two different things or opposing concepts. Would you mind defining your experience?




edit on 26-4-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join