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.

 

Hoagland's Android Head on Moon

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
I am also interested in how his alleged "hyperdimensional physics" works.


Then give us a list of the articles and papers you have read related to this?


I remember him seeing a five-pointed star in the eye of a hurricane that he uses as evidence of his physics. But no mathematical, verifiable models have been forthcoming.


We have to have mathematically verifiable models of reality for reality to persist? I LIKE Richard as a speaker and presenter but i know for a fact that he has said far less than he knows to be true and apparently sometimes even actively engages in making less of issue of something than should be the case. In fact i don't really know what to make of the person beside that he is very obviously helping others to understand that the media view of reality has very little to do with objective reality and for that we should be thankful and support his efforts by doing our own independent research based on what he has already presented.


I also would like to see a response to this article analyzing Hoagland's history.


Put down the hatchet and consider if these three lies ( worse case scenario and while Richard may indulge his ego occasionally Phil just lies outright ,about observed reality, as he is certainly educated enough to know better) makes everything else he says lies as well? Are you really so ignorant of reality that you must believe your source to be infallible before you can listen to them instead of using your own knowledge and intelligence to evaluate their every claim based on your own investigation of the issues?

I can assure you that investigators of reality do not assume any source to be anything other than human with human flaws and all the resulting bias and sometimes factual manipulation. It is best you learn to deal with the data itself ( and temporarily - one makes mistakes- disregard information when you have very strong evidence that it can not be true) and not expect any person to be a source you can just trust for your view of the world.

If that seems like too much uncertainty to deal with don't ask any controversial issues at all and just start reading a few thousand non fiction books so that you may at least know what our supposed experts consider reality to be. Once can always change your mind about reality later but if you have no established base of knowledge of your own there is no way you can fairly evaluate contradictions, or the claims made by people such as van Flandern and Hoagland, as you will logically always fall back on 'authoritative' views of the world in defense of your own ignorance as human nature dictates.

If you wonder why my response is so harsh think how you would feel if a thousand ignorant fools ( your not included, yet ) attacked your reputation all over the Internet without giving you a chance to defend yourself? If you want to attack people attack those who earn their salaries or grants from taxpayers money as few taxpayers get to decide what stupid theory there money might be used to investigate.

Hoagland may be the liar you think him to be but he does not have the police force, IRS, state troopers, CIA, FBI to ensure that you make donations to his site.... When he says something it will most definitely affect his income and if you think one can make a living out of wild claims, that has nothing to do with reality as others have experienced it, maybe you should try it yourself and see if there are in fact a nation of fools just waiting to get ripped off by clicking on your donation button.

In retrospect i probably should be screaming at the people on that 'other' thread but then the world aint fair and i'm human too.

Stellar




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
You can put your hatchet away now and it's best you keep it out of sight as i am pretty fed up of people thinking they can get away with spreading such obvious and vapid misinformation.


Invariably, the Hoaxland-Foamers rush to his defense, weilding their marshmallow battle-axes.

Oh, Stellar, you have me quaking in my boots. If you're so fed up with the spread of misinformation that you're about to unleash your considerable wrath upon it, then try aiming at Dick Hoaxland.

I have listened to the Art Bell program for some 12 years, have paid particular attention to the appearances of Richard Hoaxland on the program during that time, and I base most of my previous post on statements that Hoaxland has uttered on the Art Bell program. So, if you're gung-ho to go back and dig up the proof that Hoaxland actually said those things (and you know he did), then I invite you to dig through Art Bell's archive of shows over the last 12 years.

And, as long as we're making recommendations for further reading here, try these links:

Phil Plait Debunks Hoagland
Ed King's Discussion of Hoagland's Anti-Mason Crusade
Hoagland's Comments on Hale Bopp

And, yes, I know that ZetaTalk is not exactly a prestigious source, but they did make record of Richard Hoaxland's appearance on the Art Bell show, and discussed his pronouncement that Comet Hale Bopp was guided on its Earth-crossing trajectory by Freemason astronauts (who also run NASA, don't ya know).


— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Togetic
I am also interested in how his alleged "hyperdimensional physics" works.


Then give us a list of the articles and papers you have read related to this?

I haven't read any. I am looking for some.



I remember him seeing a five-pointed star in the eye of a hurricane that he uses as evidence of his physics. But no mathematical, verifiable models have been forthcoming.


We have to have mathematically verifiable models of reality for reality to persist? I LIKE Richard as a speaker and presenter but i know for a fact that he has said far less than he knows to be true and apparently sometimes even actively engages in making less of issue of something than should be the case. In fact i don't really know what to make of the person beside that he is very obviously helping others to understand that the media view of reality has very little to do with objective reality and for that we should be thankful and support his efforts by doing our own independent research based on what he has already presented.

I don't understand your point. The whole point of scientific progress is finding verifiable models of the universe around us. Furthermore, while I have a rudimentary understanding of physics, and a professional understanding of mathematics, I am not a physicist nor have I claimed to be. I depend upon others being able to verify claims, and there is no objective manner in which the claims presented by Hoagland can be identified.



I also would like to see a response to this article analyzing Hoagland's history.


Put down the hatchet and consider if these three lies ( worse case scenario and while Richard may indulge his ego occasionally Phil just lies outright ,about observed reality, as he is certainly educated enough to know better) makes everything else he says lies as well?

Which claims are the lies, and what evidence is there to refute his claims? I am willing to listen, but no one has said anything to go against what has been said here.

Are you really so ignorant of reality that you must believe your source to be infallible before you can listen to them instead of using your own knowledge and intelligence to evaluate their every claim based on your own investigation of the issues?

Issac Newton used to steal the work of others and claim it as his own. While this makes him of questionable character, calculus is still real, because the papers had verifiable information here: information lacking in this case.


I can assure you that investigators of reality do not assume any source to be anything other than human with human flaws and all the resulting bias and sometimes factual manipulation. It is best you learn to deal with the data itself ( and temporarily - one makes mistakes- disregard information when you have very strong evidence that it can not be true) and not expect any person to be a source you can just trust for your view of the world.

That is the essence of science, I agree. I have no problem with dealing with the data, but where is the data?


If that seems like too much uncertainty to deal with don't ask any controversial issues at all and just start reading a few thousand non fiction books so that you may at least know what our supposed experts consider reality to be. Once can always change your mind about reality later but if you have no established base of knowledge of your own there is no way you can fairly evaluate contradictions, or the claims made by people such as van Flandern and Hoagland, as you will logically always fall back on 'authoritative' views of the world in defense of your own ignorance as human nature dictates.

I don't have a doctorate in physics, and decided half way through college that I didn't want one. Why should I have to find all of my own answers? On the other hand, I do want the information I do understand to be verified by multiple, independent sources.


If you wonder why my response is so harsh think how you would feel if a thousand ignorant fools ( your not included, yet ) attacked your reputation all over the Internet without giving you a chance to defend yourself? If you want to attack people attack those who earn their salaries or grants from taxpayers money as few taxpayers get to decide what stupid theory there money might be used to investigate.

I am a member of Coast to Coast's Streamlink. Every morning during my commute I listen to the first hour, when Hoagland usually speaks. I have missed few if any of his interviews since approximately 2005. In that time, he has never addressed these claims, despite being given hours of air time. Furthermore, he runs a website where he has total control over the content, and no rebuttals have been forthcoming.


Hoagland may be the liar you think him to be but he does not have the police force, IRS, state troopers, CIA, FBI to ensure that you make donations to his site.... When he says something it will most definitely affect his income and if you think one can make a living out of wild claims, that has nothing to do with reality as others have experienced it, maybe you should try it yourself and see if there are in fact a nation of fools just waiting to get ripped off by clicking on your donation button.

People are certainly allowed to believe what they want and listen to whomever they please.

The problem is that there are so many questionable characters in ufology and related topics today that drown out people trying to find valid, verifiable answers to complicated questions. It is manifestly unfair that someone like Hoagland or even myself should be allowed to present themselves to the public as experts, and dominate the conversation.

As a result, at least with ufology, the common perception is that those who study the subject and think there is something to it are mentally imbalanced. The problem is that everyone's freedom to listen to whom they want has created a dissonant atmosphere where speculation and wishful thinking are pointed to the public as the opinion of us all.

This is a subject ripe for speculation. But without creating a canon of agreed-upon facts, and rejecting openly the dissonance, no progress in this subject will ever be made.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Time and time again, Posner has demonstrated himself to be a government shill. He wouldn't admit to a conspiracy if it rose up and bit him in the ass.

I wouldn't give the time of day to his analysis of anything.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Everyone who researches this subject has an obligation to be forthcoming about their education and experience. Then it falls to us to pick it apart, and with that in hand, determine whether the person is valid or not. It can and must be nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is that there must be objective metrics for determining who should be held out by the ufological and scientific communities, and who should not. The latter shouldn't be allowed to spread their claims without being constantly challenged to prove what they say.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Invariably, the Hoaxland-Foamers rush to his defense, weilding their marshmallow battle-axes.


Rushing to the defense of sanity and consistency rather.



Oh, Stellar, you have me quaking in my boots.


Already?


If you're so fed up with the spread of misinformation that you're about to unleash your considerable wrath upon it, then try aiming at Dick Hoaxland.


Hoagland gets enough flak as things are so I'd rather reserve my attention for those who want to throw the baby out with the bath water.


I have listened to the Art Bell program for some 12 years, have paid particular attention to the appearances of Richard Hoaxland on the program during that time, and I base most of my previous post on statements that Hoaxland has uttered on the Art Bell program.


Which parts specifically as facts become quite important when one starts pointing fingers and ridicule at those who have done so much to help bring the truth closer to the surface.


So, if you're gung-ho to go back and dig up the proof that Hoaxland actually said those things (and you know he did), then I invite you to dig through Art Bell's archive of shows over the last 12 years.


I'm not the one making accusations and not the one that should have checked his facts before doing so.



And, as long as we're making recommendations for further reading here, try these links:
Phil Plait Debunks Hoagland


If you want to make specific accusations against Hoagland do so so that i may show up your motive and general ignorance. Phil is just defending convention and on the few occasions i have read his commentaries it was quite evident that he was not even very good at it; nothing quite as pathetic as a bad liar i tell you.


Ed King's Discussion of Hoagland's Anti-Mason Crusade


Link does not work for me so let me know where to go or what got said.



Hoagland's Comments on Hale Bopp
And, yes, I know that ZetaTalk is not exactly a prestigious source, but they did make record of Richard Hoaxland's appearance on the Art Bell show,


So now i am supposed to 'trust' them blindly while they aid you in your apparent anti Hoagland crusade? Lets go with actual transcripts or nothing at all?


and discussed his pronouncement that Comet Hale Bopp was guided on its Earth-crossing trajectory by Freemason astronauts (who also run NASA, don't ya know).


— Doc Velocity [/quote

Sounds very interesting but considering your earlier post i am not about to rely on your 'opinion' of what was said or not said.

Take the time required to find it as this will obviously ( well for someone apparently) just DESTROY his carefully constructed 'reputation' and discourage the millions of readers who frequent his site...

Stellar



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Everyone who researches this subject has an obligation to be forthcoming about their education and experience.


Education beyond high school level ( or even less depending on the standards in given education system) largely serves to indoctrinate students with the reigning dogma and mostly serves to hamper their efforts towards making great new strides in advancing their given discipline. I don't see why a person's education is relevant until they begin lying about it or misrepresenting their achievements. I for one are awed by reality and accept the fact that what little knowledge i have devotedly gathered over these many years ( I'm only 27 but i had a early start) must be insignificant when compared to the totality of the base of knowledge from which it was drawn; in short i consider myself quite ignorant even if it's obvious to me that i am in daily competition with others who, by their 'contributions' here, seem hell bent on proving that i seem to know at least a few things.


Then it falls to us to pick it apart, and with that in hand, determine whether the person is valid or not. It can and must be nothing more, nothing less.


All seems very clinical when you put it that way but in my experience the blood regularly flows and there are numerous dead and wounded innocents....


The problem is that there must be objective metrics for determining who should be held out by the ufological and scientific communities, and who should not.


Who on Earth can be trusted to decided that when we can show that peer review seems to result in nothing but peer censorship?


The latter shouldn't be allowed to spread their claims without being constantly challenged to prove what they say.


Lets just challenge every view that is not consistent with what our own INVESTIGATION ( not opinion or perception gained from watching TV or listening to dinner table discussions) reveals as we should each be testing our views for consistently at every opportunity. The fact that we all have to work so hard ( in terms of life energy ; hours) is probably the biggest conspiracy of them all is there is no greater source of wisdom and knowledge than having or gaining the time and energy to question and consider reality.


Originally posted by Togetic
I haven't read any. I am looking for some.


Which was readily obvious....


i don't understand your point. The whole point of scientific progress is finding verifiable models of the universe around us.


You wouldn't understand my 'point' as you don't yet understand that the major science establishments have done nothing beside slow down our progress by limiting out understanding of the universe.


Furthermore, while I have a rudimentary understanding of physics, and a professional understanding of mathematics, I am not a physicist nor have I claimed to be. I depend upon others being able to verify claims, and there is no objective manner in which the claims presented by Hoagland can be identified.


Define 'objective manner' as i have seen how un-objectively ( I'm sure it's not a word) the science establishment acts when knowledge is presented that goes against accepted 'norms' ( read what they decide we should know and should not). It seems to me that you have already decided that what Hoagland said is false even thought you just admitted that you have not actually read his work on this specific issue.


Which claims are the lies, and what evidence is there to refute his claims? I am willing to listen, but no one has said anything to go against what has been said here.


It's basically all on Hoagland site ( he does try to refute the slander and lies leveled at him so often from so many quarters) but if you don't want to read i guess we should assume that you would rather just believe what Phil has to say on the matter as Phil represents the consensus and thus 'best' opinions on how reality 'really' operates.

I can prove that NASA lies about the colours of Mars ( sky, ground and most everything else) as well as about life on Mars, the monuments and basically everything Phil and planatary scientist in general presents as reality. If you want to make specific claims of your own do so but I'm quite tired of refuting entire pages constructed for the sole purpose of reinforcing accepted norms about why the consensus must be right and why those who disagree must be inventing it all. It panders to all our failings and gently helps us back towards acceptance of the same old 'realities'.


Issac Newton used to steal the work of others and claim it as his own. While this makes him of questionable character, calculus is still real, because the papers had verifiable information here: information lacking in this case.


In your opinion perhaps but i am glad we can at least agree that the investigation of reality goes beyond the mistakes ( or occasional wilful misrepresentations; lies even) it's investigators may make.

www.pbs.org... He spent the majority of his time on alchemy and if people only new the practices ( to say nothing of their theories) of some of our current 'revolutionaries' people who believe in lizzard people might become respectable by tommorow.


That is the essence of science, I agree. I have no problem with dealing with the data, but where is the data?


Why could i find the data when my motive was not even to just dismiss it out of hand?

www.enterprisemission.com...

www.halexandria.org...

www.mufor.org...

www.enterprisemission.com...

Take it from there and realise that this is not just Hoagland going off on his own tangents but his continuation, in his mind and in my opinion, of the work of some of the very best minds ever and most certainly of the nineteenth century.


I don't have a doctorate in physics, and decided half way through college that I didn't want one.


Better late than never as they say. A degree in physics is not a bad thing but it does tend to focus one's mind on issues , to say nothing of likely approaches to solutions, that should not be and solutions that do not solve many or any great mysteries in consistent ways.


Why should I have to find all of my own answers?


Because that's the way truly interested minds prefer when it comes to gaining knowledge? I can give you some pointers or probable solutions but if you don't like me it will at best taint the ideas and at worse lead you to ignoring them.


On the other hand, I do want the information I do understand to be verified by multiple, independent sources.


It depends on how many sources you need for verification really as i found that most people in the end prefer to go with the majority view... If you only feel safe supporting the majority views your going to have a hard time while reading Hoaglands work ...


I am a member of Coast to Coast's Streamlink. Every morning during my commute I listen to the first hour, when Hoagland usually speaks. I have missed few if any of his interviews since approximately 2005.


Happy to hear your that open minded but it's not surprising as he does seem to have a certain gift for public speaking...


In that time, he has never addressed these claims, despite being given hours of air time. Furthermore, he runs a website where he has total control over the content, and no rebuttals have been forthcoming.


I have heard him addressing these claims even if i don't recall it being in much detail. I really do suggest you rather go with written material as i'm not sure where to find links to him 'explaining' ( it's not much more complex than the statement that energy comes from a 'higher' dimension and according to Bearden that's the time dimension) it in any great detail. You might want to check the C2C archive...


People are certainly allowed to believe what they want and listen to whomever they please.


I'm happy to hear you say that.


The problem is that there are so many questionable characters in ufology and related topics today that drown out people trying to find valid, verifiable answers to complicated questions.


There are many far more questionable characters running the US government, the world bank, the European Union, which are part of the CFR and the Bilderberg group. If you want crazy go listen to some of the things they discuss publicly and then consider just how far fetched , and certainly not nearly as scary as the average 'nut' on C2C has no power to influence the world, and murderous some of those ideas are. I'm just always surprised when people want 'verifiable' answers but don't really want to dig for it or believe the small groups of scientist that mostly support the alternative views...


It is manifestly unfair that someone like Hoagland or even myself should be allowed to present themselves to the public as experts, and dominate the conversation.


People like listening to Hoagland ( they would not have him on the air otherwise; unless this is according to you some kind of conspiracy) and that's why he is such a frequent speaker. I have certainly enjoyed the many hours worth of recorded Hoagland interviews on C2C and i am quite confident that i am a better informed person for it. I still think the articles on his site are far more fascinating and detailed ,than anything he presents on air, but i guess some people just can't be bothered to go where the real information is.

Continued

[edit on 13-2-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

As a result, at least with ufology, the common perception is that those who study the subject and think there is something to it are mentally imbalanced.


The planetary science community also think that of fellow scientist who believe that there is life on Mars, that there was once more planets, that HIV does not cause aids, that low dosages of radiation is in fact of great benefit to the immune system, that GR has been falsified repeatedly, that free energy can be extracted from the active vacuum and have been since day one, that FTL propagation has been observed, that quantum physics is a bunch of confusing nonsense understood by no-one and so forth and so on; i could go on for pages but time wait for no man.

I don't myself consider the study of aliens to be something very many people should spend time on ( and most certainly not the ignorant mob normally found actively engaged in 'discussion') but i know their ' out there' ,or not so far away, ( Icke makes for mind numbing , and not in bad way, reading) and that if their not around here now they most certainly frequented this little rock in the past.


The problem is that everyone's freedom to listen to whom they want has created a dissonant atmosphere where speculation and wishful thinking are pointed to the public as the opinion of us all.


I just don't see what can be done about the situation but i share your disgust in what sort of people are allowed to voice their opinions; freedom of speech most certainly has it's downsides and i will be the first to admit it considering what i regularly put up with on this forum.
That being said i wouldn't have it any other way.


This is a subject ripe for speculation. But without creating a canon of agreed-upon facts, and rejecting openly the dissonance, no progress in this subject will ever be made.


I treated you far more harshly than you deserved earlier ( i'm thinking this effort is fairer.... ) and i agree that there must be a basis for speculation and building out alternative views on. In the end ,sadly i must admit, i must advise most any student of reality to go and familiarise themselves with the standard views( or progression of events )as without knowing what is 'real', and the processes and means by which it was achieved, i think one is setting sail in a small boat in which you will have to face storms of exception severity with 'calms' that will dull the mind with no compass, stars or land in sight with which to set your course by. In fact the less you know about the reality they have created for you to believe in the smaller that boat becomes and the f
vaster the sea you will have cross.

/me takes off the drama-queen drab.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Ponder These Images He Didn't Show You, I Always Do.









posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Sorry, Left Out The Close Up.




posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberEnforcer
 


Good post. I got in trouble with the John Lear supporters when I called him crazy but a good kind of crazy. The same people who say we faked the moon landing also say we went there and saw structures/aliens. Don't they realize they can't have it both ways?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
can't se images! denied.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite8
 


I suggest that before you continue believing and promoting Hoaxland, you read the report found at: dorkmission.blogspot.com...

And before you continue thinking that John Lear was operating on all 8 cylinders that you google him and read some of his weird statements.


[edit on 13-11-2009 by The Shrike]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join