It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:26 PM
Ok, i try to stomach as much as I can when listening to Hoagland's drivel and give him a chance. He is intelligent and behind most of the rhetoric he talks about, there may be a grain of truth.

With that said, I listened to most of his interview and noticed quickly, I think he makes this stuff up as he goes. He's constantly contradicting himself.
There were many in the beginning of the clips but the most obvious was at the end. He says to watch the youtube vid showing the mission to prove his point about something. But then says after the first caller, that the clip on Youtube is not the same live version and has been replace or altered.

Give me a break.

He also goes on to say that the mission was to destroy ruins, but then says that we're on the verge of some big disclosure. He goes on to say that some rep for NASA told on live radio/tv I"m not sure "we probably will find water but we're not telling you" end quote And then says "NASA is finally opening up to the public, we're discovering the moon again for the first time".

He's all over the map!

And he's narcissistic. When the first caller says it was a privilege to be on the show, George is quiet but Hoagland says thank you. All smiling and feeling like the caller's only talking about him.

Sorry, had to vent about this guy. I can't take him serious about anything

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:38 PM
Maybe the moons really hollow with a thin crust that would explain the absence of an Moon shattering Kaboom!
The Moon should have popped like a balloon!

[edit on 18-10-2009 by MOTT the HOOPLE]

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:09 PM
What makes you think NASA would disclose anything? I mean lets look at their record. Nothing will be made of this what so ever judging on their mentality. I'm sorry, they lost me when they thought that moon dust would plume up at minus -300 degrees Fahrenheit.

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by jar11

YES! I was listening to Richard on C2C that night. It was interesting when he said that Hubble nor astronomy spectators spotted any of the impact or events proposed by NASA. Very interesting, I believe what Richard has been saying all along. Why need moon dust now, when Apollo collected it years ago. Why the interest now? Why not sooner? Something is up and it isn't the truth, haha, NASA cover up again!

Die Hard C2C fan!

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw

No, Mr. Hoagland's biggest flaw is his ego. He also made so many wrong predictions and absurd statements that I don't even listen to him anymore. He's more of an entertainer than a scientist.

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
Well it is now Monday morning where I am and Hoagland still hasn't posted part 2 of his 'paper'.

I am very unimpressed with him lately.

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:52 PM
I listen to Coast to Coast and I subscribe to StreamLink. I have read Richard Hoaglands book, Dark Mission. I have read many of his articles on I always look forward to his appearances on the show because he is pretty interesting and quiet the showman. I have a few concerns with Mr. Hoagland and his claims though.

First, I believe we all want to (emphasis added) have proof of Extra Terrestrial Life. We all share a deep curiosity of the unknown. Where as Richard Hoagland refers to people with a deep interest in UFO's as 'UFO crazies'. I, to this day, don't know why he marginalizes certain people. Perhaps to give credence to his claims and his statments of scientific proof and purity. Richard Hoagland has the ability to present information in a fast pace, somewhat hysterical manner and then always finishes his claims up with, "I'm currently writing a scientific paper on this that can be found on Enterprise Mission" and "I use science to prove my claims!" "I'm always so busy, please forgive the mess". Much of his claims seem imaginative and not scientific, he uses a lot of science fiction as reference points. Perhaps too much and too frequently to his claims as being scientific and with proof positive, unquestionable inside sources.

Like Data's (from StarTrek) head found on the Moon. Pretty science-fictiony to be claimed/proven as scientific fact.

More over there have been some credibility issues with R.C. Hoagland. I think the biggest issue he has yet to face would be his claims about Europa (a moon of Jupiter) and being the first to claim it's covered in thick ice. NASA and a few science fiction authors beat him to it though. Again science-fictiony.

Another issue of his imaginative claims is that the recent news event, which was a major focus of his last appearance on Coast to Coast, was the boy in the UFO stunt. R.C. Hoagland went on at length how the boys name is Falcon, and mythological references to moon symbology, upcoming 2012 matters and mass consciousness behind a full discloser to take place in the next few weeks. Oh and Obama had a Star Party, that was the nail in the coffin, there is definitely going to be discloser now. - But wait, it was just released that the Balloon Boy was a hoax. How does this effect R. C. Hoaglands claims?

What will people think of R.C. Hoagland and his claims if there is no discloser or revelation to the mass consciousness as he claims will take place in the next few weeks?

Lets slow down and consider what he says, take a look at his history and his past claims before we hold hands and jump off a cliff with this guy. All we have to do is wait a few weeks to see if any announcements are made to support his claims.

I'll either eat my words, or knock one more 'expert' off the list.

I agree with previous posters here.. Hoagland has a HUGE ego. It's hard to take him serious. Yeah, he really was all over the place. Like a ring announcer just throwing more and more information out no matter if it made sense or not. A lot of bloviating and a few pompous/arrogant statements.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Mr.Hyde]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:18 AM
You have to ask: "Where would a person such as Hoagland get any kind of information regarding the alleged moon structures and ET disclosuses?" What is he privvy to and can whatever it is be trusted? The thread title says "predicts" and he couldn't predict the failure regarding the Cydonia face claims and his book Dark Mission was panned.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:27 AM

Originally posted by The Shrike
You have to ask: "Where would a person such as Hoagland get any kind of information regarding the alleged moon structures and ET disclosuses?" What is he privvy to and can whatever it is be trusted? The thread title says "predicts" and he couldn't predict the failure regarding the Cydonia face claims and his book Dark Mission was panned.

Did you mean, " His book Dark Mission was banned"? - Because I got it at Barnes & Noble. The pictures that he claims to be Earth shattering and undeniable to "those with a trained eye" look just like any picture of dirt. For all we know it could have been from the dirt in my back yard. I guess I don't have a 'trained eye'.

Hoagland used to be a reporter. He claims to have many 'scientific papers' and many papers to come. They are all pretty much the same, they don't present anything shocking or as a matter of fact, clearly written at all. But to your question, I have no idea where he gets his information. I do know, however, that he is an adoring fan of Arthur C. Clark, StarTrek and Star Wars. I think this fact may speak to his imaginative claims.

For all we know, he could be a dis-info agent. A dis-info agent to add a little bit of kookiness and outlandishness, a discredit to those of the UFOers and Paranormal crowds.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Mr.Hyde]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by Mr.Hyde

panned: express a totally negative opinion of; "The critics panned the performance"

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Hyde
For all we know, he could be a dis-info agent. A dis-info agent to add a little bit of kookiness and outlandishness, a discredit to those of the UFOers and Paranormal crowds.

As you have brought up the subject.

Many people on this thread could be disinfo-agents. ? ? ?

Anything to do with Richard Hoagland brings them out in droves.

The same old, same old angles that are used all over internet forums, when-ever his name and research comes up.

I expect Richard has a whole chapter in the disinfo-mannual all to himself, LOL.

Yes, of course people are entitled to their own opinions about his work and about him - but - you can kind-of sense when the anti-Hoagland posts come - who is genuine and who is not.

It's obvious from my posts in this thread that I rate Richard Hoagland highly. From what I've seen of him - I make a judgement - MY judgement.

And I trust him.

The hyperdimensional model is paradigm-busting stuff. Amazing. Liberating. Facinating.


posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:13 AM
There plenty of theories that i can speculate about on this issue.

One of them is as such I believe we have visitors guys. Setting up for the show. The earth once again is about to cross a milestone in science. I believe they know the LHC is going to work this time and are setting up the beach chairs on the moon to watch. It is important to realize that if we do open up a whole new understanding of physics with this feat it may very well be the key to disclosure from ET's that have been trying to come out. But what if the superpowers that be like the way it is. Don't want interstellar communication between us. It would be VERY hard to introduce yourself as an alien being without governmental support and saying "hey its alright, these are our friends". And i thoroughly believe that this is the case.

The more likely and non off the wall explanation is that the recent survey probe India launched was probably some kind of vehicle to deliver nuclear weapons onto the lunar surface. And this whole charade was us eliminating the threat.

The Third and last theory I have is that it was indeed a geographical study to find out if there was some other substance than water. I do believe we are going to start drilling holes into any accessible non earth mass we can get our hands on within the next 50 years and this may be the start of capitalism in space... God help cause we know its working out so well here.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:26 AM
reply to post by sum-one

One of Richard's finest hour's was when he became a part of the THEMIS leak and gained access to the real image data that shown what was under the muck at Cydonia:

The big image

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by Mr.Hyde

yeah I share your point, all you have to do is just have a look in his site's archives and check all of his so called prediction. For example the one before 2000.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:27 AM
reply to post by jar11

Richard Hooagland seems to see allot of things where other people don't. I check his Enterprise Mission out allot and am trying to read Dark Mission at this time. Maybe it's me but I have a hard time with his so called facts I just can't read into allot that he says is. Martian and Moon anomolies are my favorite subjects but I just don't get allot out of his presentations so when I hear he sees artificial structures in the plume of debris or that disclosure is near (which to me is a moot point) I don't get very excited.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:53 AM
I do believe that the governments are working towards at least a partial disclosure. Here in the UK, the government have recently released a great deal of documentation kept by the Ministry of Defence on UFO sightings by military personnel and commercial jet pilots. Again, this seems like a step towards easing the population into disclosure by giving them a little information at a time.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:38 AM
I looked for an opinion like mine on this thread before posting, didnt see anything like it, so here's my twist. The LCROSS mission was sent to crash in an area previously visited by Neil Armstrong on his mission to the moon is this correct. And its decided to drop this satillite into an area where its claimed that there are artifacts of a building or structure that he (Neil Armstrong) supposely entered and filmed. So as this "bombing" takes place in this pre-determinded area of alien artifacts, sudden there are flashes of light eminating from around the site, seemly in response to this satilite's eminent impact into this structure.. doesnt it seem as if those lights represent some sort of attempt to defend the site with some sort of defensive weapon..and then there is not record of an impact..the satilite dissapears like so many satilites have as they have crossed or circum-navigated near moon orbit.. Why are there not any follow up shots of this area after a "sucessful impact". We dont have the capabilites yet to close in close enough to show whether there was or was not an impact. Or would zooming into this area only confirm the presence of alien structures.. Tear it apart .but makes me wonder.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
One step closer

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:22 PM

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 has them.

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 underground...
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 actually
a) hospitable.
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?
ZERO. Right?

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.


[edit on 19-10-2009 by spacebot]

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:01 AM
this lcross mission isnt a secret...its very public...i dont think disclosure is coming either....however if it does probly wont be what everyone is thinking...maybe just microbacteria or somethin discovered on another planet? i dont think intelligent ET life will be disclosed

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in