Hello all !

Great ! I've seen this thread before. Starts with someone saying RCH is
a nut....then eventually the wierd theories start coming out anyway that
everyone seemed to be trying to avoid...ahhhhh!...it's a virus ! Don't u
know this guy thrives on critiscism of this type ! It's like some kind of
cosmic shamany...draw in the humans with your crazy theories..then blow
their minds !

Where's the photo from (in the first post) ? That's definitely 'chaotic genius'
at work material :->

Where did RCH say the thing about the Face being nuked ? I hav'nt seen that
...was it in print or on C2C ? Sounds like classic magical creative/destructive
stuff to me. Bring out your theory then destroy it.

You see this is what I think RCH is up to (unconsciously?)...and I think the
time has come to say this...he is deliberately 'obfuscating' his findings to
force us to THINK FOR OURSELVES. You can lead a horse to water....

barney

That nuking thing is in print, but it was not entirely Hoagland that suggested that it was. It was created and then spread around like wild fire by people that are involved in "saving the phenomenon" and spread further by him.

These outragious claims have been created by people that put so much time into that whole face on Mars crap, and then once the photos come in, they go into complete denial. RCH is one of these people.

I don't quite understand what your getting to with this? Are you supporting the Cydonia thing, against it and being sarcasitic, or just insulting me indirectly? State your point a little better please.

You say that MGS pictures were bad? Alot better then those Viking ones that you people base your Cydonia stuff on. Looks like the picture was out of focus.

That map of Cydonia was quite intresting but, to me they look like dusty mesas, canyon faces, rough and broken terrain. It's a bit strange how stose structures just "are there", but nothing to get to excited about.

Also you proved my point, people do listen and belive stuff on C2C even though it's for entertainment value.

They should have a disclaimer come on every half hour saying "NOT A LEGITEMENT SOURCE OF INFORMATION!, FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY! GUEST'S THEORIES ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN LIKELY! DO NOT LISTEN TO PROGRAM WHILE ON MEDICATION OR OPERATING HEAVY MACHINERY.....". In that voice like movie trailers have.

Read what people have posted before on this thread and you'll understand.



[edit on 6/5/2005 by GoldEagle]

I'm sorry GoldEagle, that was'nt meant to be insulting ! :-(

I support RCH, although he does seem to cause some confusion
(this may be deliberate on his part....or just a character flaw ?).

I honestly believe Cydonia is architectural Intelligence and there
is much to find there, especially if you look beyond RCH if you don't
like him.

barney

Not that I don't like him, just what he is spreading. This thread is not about Cydonia or anything like that (well a bit). It's just Richard Hoagland himself that needs to be examined.

It just so happens that he has embedded himself in the Cydonia thing and he is the self-proclaimed leader of that field of "science". So if he gets questioned, the entire Cydoina thing need to be questioned also. That new Iapetus thing, he goes into the thing about space elevators and carbon nanotubes, now the subject of space elevators needs to be addressed. We know he is no chemist, mathmatician, or physicist. So he makes people belive he is. Going on C2C AM is the best way to do this, for one reason, millions listen to it, few belive it. But the people that do belive it in a group of millions is quite a bit.

I'm not going to lie but I belived him at first too. I regret that, I looked like an idiot. Thats why I started this thread.

Mabey you need to look deeper into the Cydonia thing. Mabey there is something there? Mars, Iapetus, and well.. the entire universe is a strange place that we didn't even start to understand. If you belive in the Cydonia thing, make sure Hoagland is not your resource of information. Come up with your own theories and comapare with others.

I read Hoagland's site, and I find it interesting. That is NOT to say I find it compelling or believe it, it's just...interesting.

I think Hoagland is a relatively smart, passionate guy that really believes in what he is saying. He has had some credentials in the past (was a PR guy for NASA and later a science advisor to Cronkite), but clearly he has not been a part of the serious scientific community for many years, if in fact he ever was.

I think the big problem with Hoagland and others like him, is that they go from "isn't this an interesting correlation" type statements to "this HAS to be X, how could it be anything else!!!" Not good science.

And the people that are regulars on his site forums really are...well...nutjobs. They talk a lot about their abduction experiences and the Martian civilization they saw in dreams, and such.

Originally posted by MrMorden
I read Hoagland's site, and I find it interesting. That is NOT to say I find it compelling or believe it, it's just...interesting.

I think Hoagland is a relatively smart, passionate guy that really believes in what he is saying. He has had some credentials in the past (was a PR guy for NASA and later a science advisor to Cronkite), but clearly he has not been a part of the serious scientific community for many years, if in fact he ever was.

I think the big problem with Hoagland and others like him, is that they go from "isn't this an interesting correlation" type statements to "this HAS to be X, how could it be anything else!!!" Not good science.

And the people that are regulars on his site forums really are...well...nutjobs. They talk a lot about their abduction experiences and the Martian civilization they saw in dreams, and such.

Don't get me wrong about him, he's a smart guy. But he is in no way down to Earth. He should go to a university and get a degree in something before he could be considered remotely credible in that field. That man has a heck of an imagination, but he may be causing more damage to the field of good science then benifit. He has followers that hang on to every word he says. I call those people, Hogie's, or Hogie's Heros, stuff like that. Hoagland is applying his skills in the wrong field of psudoscience

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Don't get me wrong about him, he's a smart guy. But he is in no way down to Earth. He should go to a university and get a degree in something before he could be considered remotely credible in that field. That man has a heck of an imagination, but he may be causing more damage to the field of good science then benifit. He has followers that hang on to every word he says. I call those people, Hogie's, or Hogie's Heros, stuff like that. Hoagland is applying his skills in the wrong field of psudoscience

Sure, I hear you. As I said, he's let his imagination color his observations, which is never good science.

I think he does have a Master's degree in physics, though.

GoldEagle, edited for content.



[edit on 7/5/2005 by GoldEagle]

All of us have things to offer. All of us have flaws.

I respect him for opening our eyes twenty years ago to possible remarkable things about Mars, and the guts to face the public often without any solid evidence.

Groundbreaking new models of the cosmos can only surface with this kind of guts. Whether the models are valid or not, they only act as a bridge closer towards the truth of who we are and where we came from.

I am also not naive to assume his research is soley his. It's a compilation of research by numerous people, including him. Even if the models are quirky, I thank God at least they are asking these serious questions.

Flaws? Perhaps. But never forget, the people who criticize Hoagland have thus seen and learned things that makse them skeptical. Therefore, a soundboarding effect has occured:

People who might make errors can teach the rest of us valuable lessons. We learn from such errors. If you see things wrong with what Hoagland says, then his work has offered theories which has made you think and given you the insight to see possible errors or not. Thus, you are moving closer towards finding the truth. He is a valid and important part of the truth seeking process, just as much as you are.

Instead of blasting him - or others like him - in vast debunking attempts.... step away from the black and white mode of alternative research that assumes you are either right or wrong, pro or con, orthodox or anti-orthodox. Instead, possible critical flaws - or peer critical review - can be presented in a positive helpful cooperative manner to encourage peer error correction.

Unfortunately, the alternative community has not learn these basics yet of peer to peer interaction and criticism. The result isn't an exchange/debate of theories, with a respect for each other. But instead, the protective and insecure nature of human emotions surface and walls between individuals comes up. The later is not condusive to truth seeking, nor reflective of compassion towards other humans. And - as we are going to have to submit to sooner or later - the compassion approach towards people who share different ideas is the only way we are going to gain access to true spiritual enlightenment.

Sean

Originally posted by Sean Cotoz
All of us have things to offer. All of us have flaws.

I respect him for opening our eyes twenty years ago to possible remarkable things about Mars, and the guts to face the public often without any solid evidence.

Groundbreaking new models of the cosmos can only surface with this kind of guts. Whether the models are valid or not, they only act as a bridge closer towards the truth of who we are and where we came from.

I am also not naive to assume his research is soley his. It's a compilation of research by numerous people, including him. Even if the models are quirky, I thank God at least they are asking these serious questions.

Flaws? Perhaps. But never forget, the people who criticize Hoagland have thus seen and learned things that makse them skeptical. Therefore, a soundboarding effect has occured:

People who might make errors can teach the rest of us valuable lessons. We learn from such errors. If you see things wrong with what Hoagland says, then his work has offered theories which has made you think and given you the insight to see possible errors or not. Thus, you are moving closer towards finding the truth. He is a valid and important part of the truth seeking process, just as much as you are.

Instead of blasting him - or others like him - in vast debunking attempts.... step away from the black and white mode of alternative research that assumes you are either right or wrong, pro or con, orthodox or anti-orthodox. Instead, possible critical flaws - or peer critical review - can be presented in a positive helpful cooperative manner to encourage peer error correction.

Unfortunately, the alternative community has not learn these basics yet of peer to peer interaction and criticism. The result isn't an exchange/debate of theories, with a respect for each other. But instead, the protective and insecure nature of human emotions surface and walls between individuals comes up. The later is not condusive to truth seeking, nor reflective of compassion towards other humans. And - as we are going to have to submit to sooner or later - the compassion approach towards people who share different ideas is the only way we are going to gain access to true spiritual enlightenment.

Sean

The thing is, Hoagland takes things in black and white. The science and psuedoscience are polarized, the grey zone only causes more problems then it solves. The area inbetween is porous at times, nevertheless it must be understood that we should stick with what we know for sure, which is science. What you say is indeed correct, but shouldn't apply to him.

However, he has caused more harm to the scientific community then he can get away with. He dosen't cooperate with any one on our side, he dodges attempts by genuine scientists, to confront him and "discuss" the findings of both sides. He showed great profiteering over the unfortunate Sumatra Earthquake. He is just a figment of the media, without Coast to Coast AM he would fade away into obscurity. I don't see a scientific genius, is see a misguided star trek fan. He has lied about his background to get to where he is now and still continues to do so.

[edit on 7/5/2005 by GoldEagle]