So Hoagland discredits the UFO crowd, so that makes him look more..professional or more trustworthy?
Let's say it's 1970 now and I am a guy that discredit anyone talking about nano technology, this is a a crazy idea and it will never happen.
There! I should be able to look more professional and trustworthy now..
I would expect from a man that seems he has a certain level of intelligence, to at least be precise when he likes to deal with history. Historical
persons, facts etc. Since I used to read him back from 1997 there were extensive historical references in his pages in an effort from him to prove his
knowledge and to ascertain the alleged masonic symbolism about NASA or about politicians he always been talking about.
I perused these references and thought to myself, this guy is a snake oil salesman who thinks he can do history revisionism that some uneducated sob
might actually take him seriously and that would only happen because that poor sob should have been uneducated.
Then I read his claims about the Explorer-Project 1958 and his claims about the involvement of Von Brawn and later as proof the De Palma experiment
which in a few words allegedly might prove that
The secret of gravity and inertia themselves ... revealed as a true "anti-gravity effect" -- somehow operating on Explorer I ... radically
affecting its very orbit!
and I stand there thinking , that guy is a genius. (R.C. Hoagland)
If his claims about the later are proved to not be true than he is just a ..deceitful genius.
One man cannot be inaccurate and extremely clever at same time, at least to the way he presents his work and at what he sites as proof to the public
through this work.
Conclusion. He has an agenda.
Further conclusion, I may listen to him but I have to take everything he has with a grain of salt. Thats HIS fault, not mine.
Now back to the UFO crowd. I certainly witnessed at least some more intelligent and more consistent people than him in this crowd. Every kind of crowd
I think his area of involvement is to blur out the outlines of our definitions regarding space, aliens, possible space archeology etc.
We are not helping the case if we keep these outlines not clearly defined ourselves.
Why any possible moon structure for instance and aliens should mix?
Why there has to be the presence of a glass dome as absolute proof that maybe the moon once a time in history was utilized as a habitat of some kind?
Because Hoagland said so? Where are our glass domes? we actually used a better method for living in inhospitable environments here on earth. We dug
Where is common sense? Where is independent thinking?
Originally posted by Karaokequeen
One step closer
These are just tiny specs of evidence that a planet similar to earth in size might orbit another close star. How many chances are there these are
b) have life.
c) have intelligent beings
d) are already advanced (space travel, (cooperate, "disclosure" etc)), or can become advanced some day
e) want to become advanced "like us" or are similar to us and would like follow us to joint ventures. (be useful to us)
What are the chances of us finding what we are looking for, or what the "UFO crowd" as Hoagland calls it is looking for from these 30 or more new
exoplanets? Or the 400 in total exoplanets of various mass and orbits and number of stars orbiting them and in vastly varying and different
environments from our own?
Should we actually wait for a disclosure or just go ahead and explore things ourselves?
Chances might be that a future disclosure could be a staged event.
GET REAL PEOPLE!
[edit on 19-10-2009 by spacebot]