Richard Hoagland - Not Credible

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
(sorry to be rude, I hate crossing over pages..)

Why wouldn't he and Carl Sagan both be good friends?

Neither of them believes everything they say.

Hoagland does it under the context that he is just theorizing.

Sagan does it by saying science NEVER says it is sure, only that it usually knows BEST.

Sagan also says there is not a shread of evidence nor any reason to believe the mind and body are not one and the same, substance and purpose.

Hmmm... I guess thats why people need to beware when you hear someone say, you only live once, might as well make the most of it.

Isn't this what has lead to most misery in the world, the belief that someone else can suffer, because YOU are making the most of it. Hey, they were going to be a slave any way. I just gave them direction.




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland are very different.

Carl Sagan is a scientist.

For those of you who don't know what Hoagland is about, here are some choice pages from his website.

www.enterprisemission.com...

The above link takes a picture taken by the Spirit rover and then enlarges small parts of the picture to prove artificial artifacts on mars.

Click on the link and discover Hoagland's lunacy/profiteering.

www.enterprisemission.com...



The above picture is Hoagland's evidence for glass structures on the moon.

That's right. Buildings made of glass. On the moon.


'Nuff said.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Like I said...

They are just lying about different things.

Sagan was a scientist, so he could say that he isn't really lying, he is just saying that "he knows best". Because he has used the scientific method in all his thinking, you see.

You can't take the viewpoint that Hoagland doesn't know what he is doing. Its obvious. For people that want to believe that aliens made everything, they can. Hence, the site is named after Star Trek fans.

But does he talk about the possiblity of a moon hoax, or humans on Mars, etc. No, he does things his way. Including that aliens made the moon Iapetus.

Seriously, the moon is strange, but doesn't that just make it a beacon, and couldn't something be made into a beacon without being constructed, assembled, and inhabited with aliens? Sure, you could probably fry one side of a moon some how, and that seems to be what happened to Iapetus.

But any way, there are mysteries in space, but Hoagland is not getting us any closer to solving them. I think the meaning we get, and the message space sends us, were put there by humans, whatever that means.

Maybe not humans physically, it really doesn't matter.

But the point is, Sagan and Hoagland have monopolized the topic, either you are with them or you are crazy. You have to choose one of their viewpoints, yeah right!



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I've had a change of heart.

Supposedly, this world we live in has been nuked before by previous civilizations, dating back to 4,000BC. If this is true, and technology has reached even further in the past, its totally possible that in places like the moon, and other planets, there is much evidence of previous visitors. US.

This is amazing:www.coasttocoastam.com...

I'm sure this has been discussed here before?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
It just dosen't add up for me at all. Were there really advanced (technologicaly of course) back then? Why are there no real evidence of this nuke war.

Wouldn't some wreckage of these "flying machines" still exist? Wouldn't there be decimated areas in the world with obvious scars? This may be related to the whole atlantis theroy.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Wouldn't some wreckage of these "flying machines" still exist? Wouldn't there be decimated areas in the world with obvious scars? This may be related to the whole atlantis theroy.


There is an air museum called the South Texas Air Museum near McAllen. On the grounds is a 1950's era Sikorsky naval helicopter, sans doors. It is a very casual, unguided museum, so, being a helicopter pilot, I naturally wanted to step in the cockpit.

To my horror, a huge piece of the airframe crumbled into dust in my hand- I would guess it was made from magnesium or aluminum. Exposure to the elements was causing it to crumble into white dust after only forty years.

In a few thousand years, there will be nothing left of it but a pile of windblown oxides.

I stood there, and a giant light went off in my head.

I had always dismissed theories of ancient aircraft out of hand. Now, I am not so sure.

Years before, I had walked over ground zero for some of the early atomic bomb tests in Nevada. Where millions of dollars in scientific tech had stood briefly, there was, once again, only windblown oxides. Radionuclides decay. Stuff rots. Nature bats last.

Keep an open mind, and go dig around a bit.

On Hoagland: if he says blue is blue, it is.

On Carl Sagan: he was inside, all the way.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
How do you know that an ancient race used our "aircraft grade" metals we have today? I highly doubt that, they would need some sort of highly resistant alloys in order to allow for space travel. Those alloys would survive for thousands of years because they should be resistant to corrosion and impact.

On the same note, I seriously doubt that humans were highly technologicaly advaced as that man claims in the recent past. Humans are a very persistant and surviving race, a global cataclisim would not go unoticed and forgoten, especially one so recent. If so recent there would be some legitimate evidence! You people should understand and answer the following questions for yourselves.

1. Why are no cities, structures still standing? Even structures dating ten thousand years with relativly simple construction are still around, and your going to say that an advanced races will not.
2. How do you know that a nuclear war was evident??
3. Are bases on the moon a "written in stone" fact or a conspracy theroy, how about mars?
4. Why don't we have ancient texts pertaining to this advanced race from races that existed about 5000 years ago? If there is how sure are you that it is not folklore, myth, or legends?
5. What would be the point of a giant "ringworld" orbiting saturn? Hoagland claims is millions if not billions of years old.
6. How about Hoaglands terrible scientific and mathematical inaccuarcys during the study of his "findings" and his fear to "debate" his findings with real, genuine; mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists.

Just think about these few points for a bit.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Did Aliens use the same units of measure we did? Surely and logicaly the answer is a giant NO! I'll do some of my math and see is he's on to something or not.



In this picture he uses to discribe his point that the numbers are too perfect for it to be a natural occurance. Except the numbers he uses are going to produce the answer he wanted. Iapetus has an orbital tilt of not ~16° but 7.52°. This inacuaracy in his data may have been due to an unreliable source of information (himself) or he used a protractor against the comupter screen. As for it's diameter, which he should have used SI units, kilometers (to make his calculations with formulas correct but also make him sound more like a scientist). In miles 892.29 miles is the accurate number, it should be in kilometers which is 1436 kilometers. He uses Saturn's radiis did he tell you what the radii is? No. He just says that is 60 of them far. It's radii is 60268 kilometers.

60 * 60268 = 3,616,080 KM < This is the orbital radii
Iapetus' actual orbital radii 3,561,300 it has a good half a million kms over his answer.

Accuracy = (3616080 - 3561300) / 3561300 = %accuacy
Accuracy = 1.5%

I'm not going to lie to you people, but he is close, very close, only 1.5% off what is the accepted value I have assigned, this shocked me, big time. Run that again substituting miles.

Accuracy = (2246927.940826 - 2212889.226915) / 2212889.226915 = %accuacy
Accuracy = 1.5%

If his calculation was off by 15% then we have a BS. 1.5% is amazingly accurate.

I guess math works both ways, right? 1 point for Hoagie


What about that inaccuracy in in the orbital angle? The use of a "~" means in other words anywhere on the number line resonable close to 16, or in his math from 0.00 - what ever I feel like. How do you get ~16° from 7.52° which is the know fact? Did aliens use degrees? How about Radians? or Gradians? Did they even use the same system of measument of angles we do? Or the same way of counting altogether? We are using high school math, aliens are bound to have a more sophisticated form of it. Okay enough of that. Lets see what we learned can change his answer in the picture.

Hoagland:

~15 * ~60 = ~900 < scary alien math

GoldEagle

7.52 * 60 = 451.2 < sounds natural to me

SCORE:
Hoagland: 1 - GoldEagle: 2

I'll be back with more so stay tuned.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
How do you know that an ancient race used our "aircraft grade" metals we have today? I highly doubt that, they would need some sort of highly resistant alloys in order to allow for space travel. Those alloys would survive for thousands of years because they should be resistant to corrosion and impact.


I don't know- I simply state that it is possible. Super alloys should be corrosion resistant over the ages. They aren't. I have seen this over and over, on digs at 18th and 19th and early 20th century sites. I have seen it on modern airframes- and spaceships- and even precision stainless steel firearms. Put them in the right natural conditions with dis-similar metals and salts present, and BAM! they visibly pit and corrode. There are only 92 natural elements, and a limited number of alloys. A few hundred thousand years and you have an oxide pile. Wait for several million years and you have magma, if your civilization was coastal and located near a subduction zone. If your founding numbers were small to begin with, the odds of artifact survival go way down.


Humans are a very persistant and surviving race, a global cataclisim would not go unoticed and forgoten, especially one so recent.


Assumption. We may be far older than surmised; we suffer from Genesis dating myopia, earth-origin hypothesis bias, and reliance on dating methods proven to be inaccurate.


Why don't we have ancient texts pertaining to this advanced race from races that existed about 5000 years ago?


We do. Cuneiform tablets- but they may be ancient science fiction.


What would be the point of a giant "ringworld" orbiting saturn? Hoagland claims is millions if not billions of years old


An ancient precontact Iroquois legend tells of a 'hollow world in the sky'. Modern design studies for interstellar arks done under government contract in the 1960's and 70's showed the advantages of engineered asteroids as arks for interstellar migration. If such an ark were constructed, you would want to keep it far, far away from inhabited worlds- in case the engines blew up.


How about Hoaglands terrible scientific and mathematical inaccuarcys during the study of his "findings" and his fear to "debate" his findings with real, genuine; mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists.


Hogie is weird. But- so is Iapetus.


E_T

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
A few hundred thousand years and you have an oxide pile.

Wait for several million years and you have magma, if your civilization was coastal and located near a subduction zone. If your founding numbers were small to begin with, the odds of artifact survival go way down.
Ice core samples would still show "quite" noticeable sign from total nuclear war.
And somehow archeologists are digging up thousand years old stuff which hasn't decayed to separate atoms!

Back to starting point... in coastal subduction zones one plate is continental and other oceanic and because oceanic plate is composed of denser rock it's that one which sinks under other.



...we suffer from Genesis dating myopia
For a some reason that seems to be monopoly of US citizens.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Akilles, I think I missed something.

What is Sagan lying about?

Do you have some examples.

I know what hoagland is lying about.

GIANT GLASS CASTLES ON THE MOON!!!!

Can anyone take him serious after such obviously silly claims?

But really, his numbers might be close but that proves nothing but Hoaglands belief in numerology.

Correlation is not the same as causation.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Yes you are right, he really does belive in numerology. That explains why he tries to use the number 9 (from 900) and 6 (from 60) in his answer. For the 15, 1 + 5 = 6. He would not want to use the 7 from the actual number, because 7 represents God in numerology from my knowlage.

Glass buildings on the moon? Thanks for pointing that out. The moon has very corrosive dirt on it, plus the massive amount of meteorites that hit it. Those buildings would not stay up very long. In fact the corrosive dirt is one of the reasons keeping us from setting up bases the moon. Also the buildings looks like film grain or lens flares.


[edit on 5/21/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Hogie is weird. But- so is Iapetus.


It definitely IS wierd and if you read up on the Dagon myths of the Sumarians and Pheonicians you'll find a mention that the tenth moon of Saturn was somehow important to them. Apparently the tenth moon is Pheobe, but who knows what order they should be counted in. If they supposedly came from Sirius, why would a moon of Saturn be important? Maybe they got to this solar system in a huge Ark travelling for generations, then had to abandon it near Saturn after a disaster? Maybe Saturn was their destination and they just paid Earth a courtesy call? Maybe they're still living there now?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
No doubt about it, it is one wierd place. You can really see the things that can make it artificial. That big ridge in the middle, polygonal surface features, that odd ice cap that seems so out of place, massive cliff faces, and contrasting surface textures. But, you people must understand that the universe is a weird place too. Stuff like this can't always be blamed on aliens.


This picture I got of Hoagie's website, no doubt it's one heck of a sight.




So you be the judge on this one. I personaly am in the grey on this, If Hoagland did his math right, it would be more understandable. This is a weird place, and Hoagland is a weird guy, no wonder he can find stuff that is out of place so easily.

The thing that get me ticked is that he is trying to be the leader in the field of planetary discoveries. Leave that to the real scientists! Don't use your numerology and home-made math here! Dosen't he realize that if he keeps releasing these crackpot theorys it's just going to snowball into bigger crackpot theorys that will cause problems in the future?

He also covered his tracks with the "Face on Mars" thing. He said that NASA nuked it! Why? What would NASA benifit from doing that? Absolutley NOTHING!

The old photos look like blured versions of the new one The blur overexagerated the features and thats why it looks like a face. You be the judge.

Mars Face







I also belive that ancient cultures may have been infulenced by aliens, this can be shown in their artwork. UFO Artwork



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
www.archaeologyanswers.com...

Did This Ancient Civilization
Visit The Moon Before Us?

Did you hear about the shock discovery on the moon that was “hushed up” after the first live broadcast? Do you know what was seen from the orbiting spacecraft, something so shattering that eleven minutes of the original broadcast was cut out?

I think some of the man made structures in space could be due to this ancient civilizations- Its all been here before, and destroyed before.

Check out this website.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
How do you know that all these findings were not all naturaly occuring? This universe is full of starnge things. You people must understand this. Automaticaly assuming that it's true because you hear it C2C dosn't make it so. Most those people if you dig up on them turn out to not be scientists at all!

Also I am disgusted that Richard Hoagland is using the Sumatra Earthquake for his profiteering.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Johnathan Grey, well there are more Hoagie copycats around then I thought. I seriously am going to shut out his theories unless some on can convince me otherwise. I really don't belive him much and I doubt his credibilty.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
You people better start reading some books and not listening to that show too much. I stopped listening to C2C for the whole misinformation thing. Let me pitch you one about this face on Mars subject that breaks down the subject and really exposes what this face thing is really about.

"Lonely Planets - The natural philosophy of alien life" by David Grinspoon.
In one chapter he completely deconstructs this face on mars theory and find out the truth about it. The book its self is quite intresting and will really be an eye-opener.

Apparently David Grinspoon has the best look at the subject of aliens in the universe since Carl Segan in this book.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
C2C is strictly for entertainment value. If you have to believe anything on the show, take it with a grain of salt. I honestly listen to it for the whack-jobs from Tennessee that call it and are #-faced drunk. They have the best entertainment value.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
True that it is just for entertainment, but many people on ATS don't belive so. They use it as a "reliable" resource for their information er.... misinformation.





new topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join