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 predicts Moon Structure/Possible ET Disclosure in Weeks.

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I wish we would see disclosure... FULL disclosure. However, I don't think it will occur anytime soon. In fact closer to never. I see it happenening little by little (and I mean little as in miniscule) over time where as people become more open minded and 'into' the bigger picture of things, enough time will pass where we make some sort of contact with the aliens on a more routine type of circumstance. Like say as we begin to visit the other planets.

As far as what Richard says... well, Richard likes to talk while in the limelight




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Richard C. Hoagland? Sounds like Richard C. Hoax-land to me...

I read some of his book about glass structures on the moon - it's absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Not necesarily. You call the evidence that you likely haven't looked at as pixels or glitches, and I call it anomalous and worthy of further investigation, SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THE IMAGES and no more funds would be needed...

After all, Clementine did snap millions of hi res pics, but we have only gotten a fraction of them and they are all low res compared to what the tech was capable of delivering.

I dont know if i can post the pics on here, since they are in Hoagland's book, but just look up the Spire, the tower in Mare Crisiium, the castle over sinus medii, all of which intrigue me.

I just see the need to ask questions and further investigate, before drawing conclusions one way or the other, where apparently others would rather just accept what the overlords say as truth. Well, that doesn't make much sense to me in any regards, whether it's NASA, the FED, irresonsible deficit spending, illegal wars, it doesn't matter, accountability and truth should never be assumed...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deejayiwan
im into it................

i really feel something BIG is about to happen for sure...

look at it this way...no one expected economy failure, but it happened, no one expected swine flu, it happened....

my point is...you cant always predict how things are going to unfold....


Actually They have been tracking both H5N1 and H1N1 very closely predicting a potential future pandemic for many years.

And some people did predict the economic collapse. Here is a good article that mentions a number of the warnings leading up to it.

www.homelandstupidity.us...

But I digress, I wish this did not get as much attention as it did. This whole pre Christmas disclosure reminds me so much of Blossom goodchild it's not funny.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


THANKS! I DID enjoy.

I really rate Richard Hoagland. You can hear and feel the excitement and enthusiasm that he has for his research.

It's amazing how he can focus in on details and data and at the same time embrace the big picture. Science with spirituality is the creme de la creme, IMO. Very exciting.

Richard is enthusiastic and excited and that's the way he makes me feel about all this stuff.

I was very interested to hear his thoughts and research on the LCROSS mission and how it could tie in with this drip-drip disclosure that is taking place.

While I was listening to it, a thought occurred to me. I wonder if he is communicating with and even advising Barack Obama?

In an unofficial capacity? Just a thought.

I rate Obama highly as well.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Hoagland and Wilcock are friends. But friends can disagree.

If I remember correctly, and I think I do, it was more about David Wilcock (who I have a LOT of time for) ...about David saying that ETs who look like us could be/would be interviewed by the president?

And he was concerned that David had maybe been duped by very clever disinformation specialists. Because he, Richard didn't think that something like that would be plonked on the public, without more of a build up. I don't think it would be either. I think discovery of Luna Ruins would be a good place to start.



Regarding what you said about ETs and the face on Mars. Hoagland believes that structures/domes etc were built by very very distant relatives of OURS. That it's all 'in the family' so to speak.

Whether anything about domes and structures on the Moon are made public in the near or not-so-near future, remains to be seen.


It was a massive thing for Richard to make the speculations that he did about the Luna Ruins being made public soon(ish).

And declaring that - "Something big is coming" - that the workings of the hyper-dimensional universe are cranking up - that we may all be getting more tuned in to everything around us.


We are living in very exciting times, I think. Yay!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I agree that we live in very exciting times. And in fact, I had told a friend of mine about 3 years ago that we would see disclosure within five years.

I agree that something is around the bend, if you will.
I will just reiterate that I think Hoagland goes about things in a completely wrong way.
Just my opinion however.

I think he does the field a disservice when he talks about these things.

You are right, he speaks with great conviction, and he is time and again proven to be incorrect.
Like I said, I liken his approach to the "no planes" theorists on 9-11. Muddying the waters by taking ideas way beyond where they need to go at this point.

I mean, I am very open about UFOs and alien activity in my every day life. I'll talk about it with anyone, given the chance. And I'm telling you right now that if you are trying to brace someone for the possibility that we are being visited by aliens the LAST thing you want to drop on them is that there are ruins on the moon. Or a base on the moon. Or anything of the like. That will immediately gain you that "Oh, I see, this guy is crazy" look.

.02



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

I think he does the field a disservice when he talks about these things.


I absolutely disagree.



You are right, he speaks with great conviction, and he is time and again proven to be incorrect.



Would you care to give an example.



Like I said, I liken his approach to the "no planes" theorists on 9-11. Muddying the waters by taking ideas way beyond where they need to go at this point.



I think you're confusing Richard Hoagland with John Lear.



I mean, I am very open about UFOs and alien activity in my every day life. I'll talk about it with anyone, given the chance. And I'm telling you right now that if you are trying to brace someone for the possibility that we are being visited by aliens the LAST thing you want to drop on them is that there are ruins on the moon. Or a base on the moon. Or anything of the like. That will immediately gain you that "Oh, I see, this guy is crazy" look.



In your every day life!! LOL. Talk is just talk.

Moon is a bit too close for people you think?

'Aliens' from many light years away is more palatable?





edit to add a very necessary question mark after 'palatable'. HA!

[edit on 18-10-2009 by sum-one]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 


In my opinion the "glass domes" and the face on mars have been sufficiently shown to have been bunk. There is two.

And no, I'm not confusing Hoagland with Leer. Maybe you should re-read what I said and understand that I was making a comparison.

Also, I would assume you know what I mean about "every day life"... meaning, life outside of an internet discussion forum.

"Talk is just talk."

Very true, but trying to show people photos of an alien world (mars) that were taken from miles above the surface and saying "look at that straight line. and that one. must be a base" is patently absurd.
Ever wonder why all of these so called bases are found in the bottom of some obscure crater that light doesn't reach?

I guess those aliens are hiding their bases from our imaging technology that isn't good enough to see them anyhow.

Show me something that isn't obviously a rock being passed off as a humanoid from one of the Mars rovers and then we'll talk. Until then, nothing has EVER been shown to be ANYTHING extraordinary from ANY satellite image or space-based telescope on mars, the moon, or any OTHER alien world.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by sum-one
 


In my opinion the "glass domes" and the face on mars have been sufficiently shown to have been bunk. There is two.



I'm glad you said...in your opinion. Because I notice that only people who WANT them to be bunk are swayed by the de-bunking.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 


Umm... The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.
Hoagland has claimed that these things exist and he hasn't been able to back it up. Not at all.

A responsible person will look at both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion.

Hey, I'm open to the possibility of alien bases on both the Moon and Mars. I haven't seen any evidence of any, though.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


www.youtube.com...

Above video - Richard Hoagland talking about HIS evidence of Glass Domes on the Moon.

Glass Domes would make sense, IMO. If there is/was very little atmosphere on the Moon?

Ideal for creating an artificial environment?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 


I have no desire to watch that video. I'm sure I've already seen it.

What I find EXTREMELY funny as that people like Hoagland will take poor quality photos and use them to find anomalies and then when better resolution becomes available, or better mapping technology in the case of the Face on Mars issue, the same people say that the exact same source for their argument is editing and omitting things to suit themselves.

The entire process is entirely illogical, imo.

I guess we can agree to disagree? In fact, I'll just do with this like I do all prediction threads... wait and see.
I'd wager that come January 1st 2010, we won't have any information on any alien bases on the moon. I'd also wager that this fact will not dissuade the same people from making the same arguments.

But, I guess Hoagland, like Wilcox before him, left himself an escape clause by saying that this is "possible" within WEEKS!!!!!!




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I'm very skeptical of Hoagland. He's a good talker, but when it comes to really backing up his claims he falls short.

He predicted that we would see a huge plume from the crash. Well, ...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


I think NASA also made that prediction.

Of course, when it didn't happen they were obviously up to no good.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by sum-one
 


I have no desire to watch that video.


No surprise there.



I'm sure I've already seen it.


So what did you think?



I guess we can agree to disagree?


I think we'll have to. As RESPONSIBLE people.

I notice when people use that word, in THE WAY THAT YOU DID, in one of your posts to me previously. I take note.



In fact, I'll just do with this like I do all prediction threads... wait and see.


That's all we can do, wait and see.



I'd wager that come January 1st 2010, we won't have any information on any alien bases on the moon.


You're using the word 'alien' again'. Hoagland thinks that the glass-domes + structures etc are not 'alien'....but were creations of very distant human relatives of ours. Family.

Can't spar with you all night...LOL...so...we'll leave it at that, shall we?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sum-one
 


Yeah, we'll leave it at that.
However, one last clarification, as you apparently missed it when I reiterated it more than once in this discussion. Alien is meant to mean 'not of this earth.'

I know I clarified that at least twice.

It doesn't matter who the originator of the "base" is. The simple fact is that it is a base on an alien world. People living OFF WORLD are aliens. Even if they are human.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


NASA predicted we would see a huge plume. We didn't.

Yes Richard said he thought it would be dramatic. But like NASA he was wrong about that. But then NASA had us all going on that prediction, eh?

In his interview on Coast to Coast about it he now says that they might have hit a structure?

www.youtube.com...


Above is part one. Not sure which part he said about them maybe hitting a structure.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Perhaps extraterrestrial would be more appropriate.

Alien implies.....ummm....something OTHER and not the SAME.

If they were ancient humans, they were off planet, extraterrestrial.
NOT 'alien' IMO.

LOL...shall we leave it NOW?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The skeptiks in this thread keep saying that Hoagland's biggest flaw is that he doesn't provide proof of his claims... Well that's just absurd. What do you guys expect him to do? Do you think he'll build a rocket and fly to the Moon himself? Do you expect him to provide pictures of a better quality than NASA provides? How would he or anyone else do this? The argument is beyond week.

Just for clarification Hoagland presents theories, or models, based on the available information provided from the various space agencys around the globe. He doesn't say that what he presents is 100% proof of anything. He leads us to interesting things and then says the only way to find out for sure is for us to go look.

And he has been proven correct on several things. The most obvious is that Mars isn't as red as NASA has been telling us it is. Just look at some of the pictures from Spirit and Opportunity and you will see he was right all along. NASA has even admitted that some of it's images of Mars are more red than they are in real life.

Hoagland has also said for about ten years that there is water currently on Mars. NASA is finally begining to admit this... and where is NASA finding this water? Exactly where Hoagland's model predicted it would be.

I could go on, but who care? the nay sayers will not belive that anyone but a main stream scientist could possibly have a good theory. I have an astronomy book from the early 90's and it's pretty funny how much in that book is presented as unquestionable fact that today have been proven wrong. So next time you main stream yes men start to bark maybe you should think about all the things that we thought were silly 10 or 20 years ago and now are proven to be correct. Water on the Moon comes to mind as a good example of this.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join