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 C hoagland: How can i trust this guys info after this statement ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I was listening to a past Coast To Cosat (May 11 2006) with John Lear the othernight when i heard something of interest . Now John Lear and Richard C hoagland where talking about the secret astronounts corps and where electro-gravitic craft could land and take of from when hoagland states

"In the middle of a continent which has only 13 million people and most of them are Aborigines" (He is taking about Australia)

I also most wet myself in laughter thinking where does hoagland get his facts from a 1860 history book ?

Australia — Population: 20,264,082 (July 2006 est.)

Ethnic groups: Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%

CIA Factbook

So unless Australia gave birth to 7,000,000 odd poeple in two months Hoagland needs to learn how to use google cause his facts are out of date. Also id love to know who told Hoagland Austrlia's population is mostly Aborigines, I live in Sydney and can state for a fact Aborigines make up 1% of our population. How am i ment to trust Hoaglands research when he cannot even get something SO SIMPLE like a counrtys Population correct ?

PS: id love to hear John Lear's out look on this seeing there mates and was also on that show.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by helium3]




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
So one mistake means that everything he has ever said is false? Annother debunker strategy put into play here.

Hoagland's problem is that he is not as concerned about day to day reality on this earth as he is concerned about all the reality that is being hidden from us.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
How hard is it to find Austrlia's population aspeacliy when you have an assistant ?

If thats the time and effort Hoagland puts into researching basic things what am i left to think ?.

Not very thorough research IMHO, all aspects of ones research should warrant the same attention to detail. After hearing that ridiculous statement Hoagland has defaintly lost credibility in my book.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by helium3]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
This thread is pointless.

[Mod Edit: ABOUT ATS: Warnings for one-line or short responses - Jak]

[edit on 10/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
So the guy makes one census error and that means everything he says is untrue? I've always been interested in his earlier work, which I think is probably his more accurate stuff. But to discredit everything someone says for one minor technical error isn't being very level-headed IMHO. I'm sure the show he was on wasn't completley scripted so to give a population number off the top of your head of a country you don't live in isn't something everyone can do.

Just my $.02



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Is it pointless cause its Australia where talking about and not the US ?. I can tell you it would be different story if an Aussie went on C2C and stated the US has 90 million people in total population and most of them are Native Americans American Indians. Would you then not ask question about his reserach methods ?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by helium3]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
On one show the other day someone said, "Most Australians are descendants of criminals, right?", and the other person said, "Yeah I guess so", or something like that.

There's a lot of misconception about this place and many people don't even know where it is.

On talk shows they blurt out the first thing that comes into their heads sometimes. It's not like it's a documentary where facts are checked and double checked.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I really don't want to get into the credibility of any of these people, but what I think happened is that the guy got the population of Australia off by a few million, not a difficult thing to do for a non-native, and that he was referring to the huge area of Australia that is called the outback, I believe, which has a largely aboriginal population that would be a good place for "electro-gravitic craft," whatever that may be.

It's not hard to see that the interior of Australia is not overly developed, for whatever reason.



www.cia.gov...

[edit on 2006/10/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
So one mistake means that everything he has ever said is false? Annother debunker strategy put into play here.

Hoagland's problem is that he is not as concerned about day to day reality on this earth as he is concerned about all the reality that is being hidden from us.

Well maybe because if he gets something so simple and basic wrong then how can you trust him on the actual consipacy?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
So one mistake means that everything he has ever said is false? Annother debunker strategy put into play here.

Hoagland's problem is that he is not as concerned about day to day reality on this earth as he is concerned about all the reality that is being hidden from us.


One Mistake?!?


Okay lets see what Hoaglund has claimed over the years. Iaptus is a "Deathstar". Geodesic domes on the Moon. Cydonia. etc etc. I seriously think the guy has Delusional Skitzophrenia, he has all the hallmarks of one who's reality is nothing but a Fantasy world. At least he is making a living off his illness, many people with similiar delusions can't say the same thing.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3
How hard is it to find Austrlia's population aspeacliy when you have an assistant ?

If thats the time and effort Hoagland puts into researching basic things what am i left to think ?.



lol! He doesn't have the time for geography! But I'll still bet on him!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
not a difficult thing to do for a non-native,


Please give me a break we are in the year 2006 and knowing a countries population is as simple as a vist to google and a few key words. How does not being a native make it any more difficult to obtain countries population a with all of to todays the modern technologies ? . Now if the task of googling such keys

Australia + population

is a little complicated he should not be researching conspiracies end of story.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

lol! He doesn't have the time for geography



Yeah like 5 second google search is gonna blow his schedule out.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by helium3]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Richard C. is missing a few screws, but otherwise he has plenty of information i do listen to!
I dont blame you for questioning him, having said that.

His mind is on the moon and not here.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Well, having been a part of that conversation and knowing Richard I believe that he was talking over himself and what he meant was that the population in the center of Australia was mostly Aborigines. (And I have no idea who constitutes the population of the center of Australia). I would seriously doubt if RCH meant that the population of Australia was mostly Aborigines but next time I talk to him (which will be this week) I will ask him.

As far as RCH having a 'screw loose' I'd like to know which one so that I could loosen mine. (That is, if it hasn't been loosened already.)



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
but next time I talk to him (which will be this week) I will ask him.



That would be great.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Has it been shown taht Iapitus isn't a "deathstar"?. There is still a lot of speculation about structures on the moon by intelligent people, and Cydonia has yet to be debunked by non-governmental sources.

And, for all I know, "they" changed the reported population of Australia, just to make Hoagland look foolish, and lose credability.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3

Originally posted by mikesingh

lol! He doesn't have the time for geography



Yeah like 5 second google search is gonna blow his schedule out.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by helium3]


But you can't blame him really. You see, he was talking on Coast To Coast with John Lear. So him accessing Google at that point in time wasn't possible, unless he had one of those WAP enabled hand-held gizmos where he could have Googled on the fly!!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
His statement was entirely correct, if it had been based upon the population of when he was in school... so for practical purposes, his memory is quite decent...
He quoted exactly as he had been taught...

population of Australia in 1976-80 = 13 mil

and I would guess, that since the Australians wont live in the interior for whatever reason, that aborigines would be the main, if not only population there...

so whats the beef? that he didn't update his references?
we have all been guilty of assuming lack of significant change over unpredictable year spreads of our educational updates...

guess we all need a refresher ever few years...

and as a side note, if that is the only statement that made you question Richards sanity/reputation... then I compliment you on your determined focus...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Good point lazerus.

How many people still think the US population is 200 million, and that the world population is 5 billion, or that CHina has a population of 1 billion? Sometimes I forget at least one of these facts, and I' perfect in every way.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join