Originally posted by Outlawstar
snip

Anyone whos done some real trawling through NASA moon images and the rest of space for that matter, knows at the very least there are MANY "unexplainable" anomalies.

Skeptical Ed: "Please be so kind as to giving us at least one source where one can see an 'unexplainable" anomaly. Merci."

As for helping our own planet instead of going to space, never gonna happen, the status quo WILL be kept unless the public does something about it and thats that unfortunatly.

Skeptical Ed: "You're right about that! The public went to sleep a long time ago. Unfortunately, I'm awake."

Oh and for those calling Hoagland crazy without actually making any sort of argument as to why, grow up please that would be nice.

Skeptical Ed: "Haven't you read any of his unsupported claims? Haven't you read "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA"? Haven't you heard that he sees a 'castle' suspended many miles above the moon's surface. Haven't you read about his 'destroyed' city on the moon he refers to as L.A.? Haven't you read his comments about Ukert Crater's 'triangular' center peak? Haven't you read about his 'Cydonia' city on Mars complete with a 'face'? Haven't you heard/read that he thinks that the astronauts' minds were messed with so as not to remember that they saw alien structures on the moon? He's loonie!"

Originally posted by whattheh
Okay guys take it easy. No need for attacks. Just add your two cents and why you think that way. That is what this place is all about.

And now for my 2 cents...

Frankly I have always thought Hoagland seemed a little off, not just his theories, the way in which he asserts them.

Quite frankly everytime I look at his photos I really can't see crap. How they make shapes out of some of these blurs I don't get.

HOWEVER, that is my whole problem with the moon, the blurry black and white photos we have been spoon fed.

In 1976 we got full color panoramic pictures of mars. Still have none of the moon.
snip

I have to correct you about your statement that you have been "spoon fed" blurry black and white photos of the moon. Nowadays, most everyone relies on the Internet to supply them with NASA photos of the moon. And being digital, they can only be blown up so much before you get pixilization and they become useless for serious research.

NASA published quite a few books back in the '60S and '70s that contain high-quality photos both in b&w and color shot from various orbiters and astronauts. Additionally, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC also published several issues with high quality photos.

I have these:
THE MOON AS VIEWED BY LUNAR ORBITER, NASA SP-200, 1970
EXPLORING SPACE WITH A CAMERA, NASA SP-168, 1968
APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT, NASA SP-362, 1978
LUNAR PHOTOGRAPHS FROM APOLLOS 8, 10, and II, NASA SP-246, 1971
LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON, NASA SP-206, 1971 (The Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon by Bowker and Hughes is considered the definitive reference manual to the global photographic coverage of the Moon. The images contained within the atlas are excellent for studying lunar morphology because they were obtained at low to moderate Sun angles. 675 plates.

The NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC issues I have are:
Feb. '69, May '69, July '71, Feb. '72

With the exception of the ATLAS, which sells on eBay for a few hundred dollars, the other NASA books plus possibly others can be found when public libraries have books sales, also in thrift stores, ditto for the National Geographics.

Originally posted by 0bserver1
I wish there was a tool or maybe some good programmer could make a software tool to 100% unsolved the blurring and smearing on those pictures.

See my reply to whatthe.

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
OK. So thus far the biggest complaints are that his writting style is too colorful and interesting and should be more boring, that he talks too loud and out shouts people (don't know how you get that from reading an article he wrote), and that he Refers to himself in his book (again not this article) as hoagland (how else would you distinguish between which of the two authors did what?)

Skeptical Ed: "You just don't want to deal with the reality that a lot of the replies are from people who think Hoagland is a loon because of what he says in the article you supplied a link to. It's full of crazy allegations and claims and he can't post any evidence to support anything he says. It's all assuming and speculation. And a lot of people have been exposed to him in print and on radio and TV shows and they almost all agree to a man, Hoagland thinks he's the cat's meow."

And then of course there was that link to a website that I think was in Italian with pictures that look like they have Japanese words on them... I assume the site debunks the pictures, but I can't read either of those languages, and it really makes no difference anyway because the pictures shown on that site were not used by Hoagland so it's really just off topic nonsense.

Skeptical Ed: "One of the repliers mentioned Bob Dean and his NASA photos much as Hoagland mentions NASA photos that he sees things in. I found a link to explain one of Bob's photos. Me thinks you criticize too much."

And of course there was the post that didn't like the fact that Hoagland had explained the acronym LCROSS correctly. (LOL WHAT?)

Skeptical Ed: "It may have been me that mentioned it and you should have named names, no one's feelings are going to be hurt. The acronym LCROSS - Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) while not created by Hoagland is dumb and a misuse of words. It should have been LROSS."

Oh yeah and then people saying hippie crap like "I hate space period... Why can't we just feed the poor, and build houses for each other, and stop hurting the Earth and learn to give each other free love and spread my disease!?"

Skeptical Ed: "Next time start a thread, specify the kind of replies that'll please you. You don't sound that together, mentally."


So skeptiks...

GREAT JOB!

Originally posted by mrwiffler
The only smoking gun Hoagland has is in his pants. Smoking from the friction of self stimulation.

Lordy, lordy, lordy!

Although i have a hard time seeing many of Hoaglands "anomalies" as other than natural formations, there are a few that just don't ring as natural with me.

With that said .. the most outstanding question i have about the Earth's Moon is:
Why dont we have anything crawling all over Luna snapping photos, retrieving samples and testing them like is being done on Mars ?
This makes zero sense to me.
Why do we only take photos of it ?
(with the exception of the early exploration and the recent attempt)

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Yes the picture is very small not in IR and I do not see a ring. And yes I do see the ring or band around the edge of the Moon on the screen capture that Hoagland used.

It is in IR and it is of mercury and if I magnified and coloured it in it would look the same as the moon picture.

But you seriously must be joking right!? This new picture is not of Mercury... It's of the Moon! Why would you post another picture that shows the same thing Hoagland's picture showed? All you are doing is providing more evidence to support what Hoagland is saying. This must just be some weird game for you, because I can't figure out why you would try and "debunk" something by posting information that confirms the very thing you are trying to debunk.

Of course it's the moon, I even said that and called the link IR moon.

Sigh. I shouldn't have even tried to show you how frail Hoagland's evidence is. I apologise, but please note the alien city and dome has moved to the other side of the moon now. I'm sure it's on wheels and is powered by positive thought.

One last thing. In the words of Padmae "You assume too much." Just because I and others find this stuff interesting does not mean that we belive 100% that it is proof of a giant Lunar dome. I for one am not 100% convinced, but I do think the information presented is interesting and deserves to be looked at. What are some other models or theorys that could explain this and other things Hoagland has put forward in his paper? I would love to hear some alternate theories, that's why I started the thread, but so far all I've gotten is lame personal attacks on Hoagland, a few off topic random remarks, and some misquotes and inacurate accusations.
[edit on 27-10-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]

I assume nothing of the sort. You presented this page and then proceed argue for some of his ridiculous evidence. If you argue for it and don't believe it then you are just being argumentative.

No one will argue with Hoagland because it's a waste of time. I already told you it was diffraction of light around a sphere, but you are too wrapped up in Hoagland's stories. And that's what they are, there is no proof just blurry photos. Listen to his interviews and you'll learn it's all part of the Hyperdimensional torsion field anyway.

You all are going to have to learn how to hit the ignore button on "IgnoreTheFacts.

I want you all to do a little digging on him and research ANY of his posts in ANY thread and you will find out all you need to know. coughdisinfoagentcough. I have never once read anything remotely resembling a positive or uplifting post. Please stop feeding the trolls.
He is obviously better educated than us and has more influential friends than we could ever have, coughnamedroppercough!!! If you want to know just how intelligent he is just ask him, he'll tell you.


That being said, I will have to say that I am trying really hard to see the best in Richard Hogland and hope that he doesn't end up doing more harm than good. I could put Alex Jones and David Icke in this catagory as well.
They may ALL be right on the money but if people are not ready to hear it then you will get the type of reaction that you see for yourselves first hand on this thread.