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.

 

Have I caught Hoagland in a major blatant lie?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
he is quite within his rights to flip the photo in order to better show what he thinks the anomalies are. This is all pretty standard fare and is nothing whatsoever like a "lie" or a "hoax". NASA flips photos too, and subjects them to all sorts of distortions.


That's kind of hilarious!

"Hello Pot... This is the Kettle... You're Black!"

It's those very actions that Hoagland has constantly used as a method of discrediting NASA... but somehow when he does the same thing, it's suddenly OK... Suddenly valid - relative to his 'investigations'?

Hoagland can't have it both ways I'm afraid! Hypocrisy is by no means a useful method of gaining credibility.

Here's another psychological trick that Hoagland plays on C2C quite often. Firstly he will give you his hypothesis. Then he will give you the official line to a story... Invariably he follows this up with the sentence... "Of course the intelligent listeners of Coast to Coast know better".

In other words, if you are intelligent, then you will agree with him. Of course, people are prone to thinking of themselves in an idealistic sense so they make the 'connection' and give themselves a big pat on the back for believing in Hoagland because it obviously means they are intelligent.

For years Hoagland raved on about the face on Mars. Then a short while before NASA released the hi res images, he came on the air and said he had the leaked image and could now see the steel girders and masonry etc... but you had to come to the next conference where he would reveal all! Can you say money making scam?

As it turned out, the hi res images showed the face to be nothing but a natural structure... and now Hoagland is mysteriously silent on the subject... craftily moving onto other things to divert attention away from the fact he was completely wrong.

In fact, Hoagland has never gone back on one thing he has said. He has never admitted to being wrong because his narcissism and paycheck depend on it. Apparently he is always right... yet nothing ever comes from anything he says.

Hilarious!

IRM




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Have I caught Hoagland in a major blatant lie?
---

Thank's for the thread, OP.

Hoagy's got his admirers and so I don't want to stir the pot. However, I ignore the man's theories and interviews. I'm sure there are Mars Face believers too and that's cool.

But I have not respected Hoagy since the day he insisted people believe it's a face and not a natural anomaly which looks facial. He's a run-on sentence in my opinion and that's too bad as things he comes out with that MAY have importance I miss.

Decoy



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tricky63
Good catch. I listen to Hoagland very carefully and I have notice a few things lately. He did a C2C interview and blasted Edgar Mitchell.He claims Edgar had his memory wiped thats why he doesnt remember seeing anything
. Now....what im getting from him is that anyone who doents "see" things the way he does is either an dis info agent or a liar or just doesnt remember. In another interview for C2C he commented on David Wilcox "disclosure" comment. Now get this he says that David is being lied to by some insiders and he shouldnt trust them.

Here is a guy who says he has "insiders" that he uses as sources that only collaberates (sp) what he alreadyknows
. ......ok. But here is the thing that blows it for him imo. A very thin almost non existant atmosphere was found by the chinese I think. Hoagland claims that this atmosphere wasnt there when the Apollo missions where there why? because he saw the data. So if NASA is lying about about a moon base run by humans from earth,tampering with pics and so on the thought that he could be looking at false data couldnt be the case here is the kicker....the reason for the atmosphere just popping up out of nowhere is because...wait for it........air locks being open at the secret nazi moon bases


I use to be a fan of Hoagland.Not that I belived what he says it was his way of using "real" data to express his views. As with everthing I do I take new info on the subject of aliens and ruins on the moon and mars with a pinch of salt. It seems that every since this "disclosure at the end of the year" thing came about things are tasting really salty lately.

Even thou I believe in the possiblity of intellegent alien life and the possibilty that we may have been visited my brains have not fallen out of my head. Thanks for keeping it real Shrike its guys like you that keep guys like me in check


[edit on 11-11-2009 by Tricky63]

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Tricky63]


Disagree with Hoagland all you want and I won't care in the slightest, but this is the type of post that just drives me nuts. How many inacurate statements can you make in one post? Do you guys just make this stuff up off the top of your head? Seriously, this is a thread calling somone a liar and posts like this add to the claim with more lies then I care to count.

For starters Hoagland doesn't depend on government/NASA insiders. He knows first hand that what the "insider" is giving you can either be disinfo or the insider themself might have been lied to. So that is why he thinks Wilkock and others shouldn't trust their inside sources.

A thin atmosphear was not found by the Chinese. Where do you get this stuff? I don't think they've sent anything to the Moon ever.

I have never heard him talk of Nazi Moon bases... ever! He dosn't claim that there are Nazi bases on the Moon. Period.

like I siad, I don't care if you don't see the same things in the pictures that RCH sees. I don't care if you think he's off his rocker, but to just make stuff up and claim somone said them when they didn't is irresponsible at the least and slanderous at most. Get your facts straight before you start claiming somone said things they didn't say. Failing to do so makes YOU the liar.

And to the OP: Learn the definition of the word hoax. As you have said he didn't lie, but he didn't hoax anything either. He posted a picture taken by NASA and provided a link to the original on the LRO website. So by your logic if the picture is a hoax then the hoax must of been made by the LRO team because they are the ones who posted the picture originally. That is not what a hoax is. At best you could say you disagree with Hoagland, but saying he lied in the thread title (you havn't bothered to correct that admitted mistake) or now saying he hoaxed something is just not even accurate.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Hoagland on Apollo astronaunt memory wipe.Hoagland moon impact interview coast to costreply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


There is a C2C interview on youtube you can listen for yourself.As far as how can I say this about a man that I think was at one point on the right track but imo has gone off the rails?Well...because its my opinion.You dont have to like it but its how i feel. Check the C2C interviews.He said what he said. They are dated mid or late oct early nov.I am not one who would make up things. I think Hoagland has good intentions and he has worked had at what he does.Its my opinion that something has happen to him.He doesnt seem rational as he once was and he doesnt like being questioned.
Do I think hes a straight up liar...no I dont.Do I think hes changed a bit...yes I do. So check the interviews then get back with me.
Also to add it was the indian space agency that may have found a super thin atmospere no the chinese
[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63] One last thing... I like Hoagland I think he brings alot to the table. Its data oriented researchers like him that keeps me interested in the whole thing,but no matter how much I like you if you come with some way off the wall stuff im gonna call you on it just as I hope others would do the same to me. Is he perfect...no none is,but come on..... leaking air locks from moon bases?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Tricky63]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Lies???? Lies in MY Hoagiland story!! Unpossible! Although catching Hoagiland in a lie is as about as difficult as beating a man in a wheel chair in a race up a flight of stairs. I do applaud your effort though.
And im sure you have already been informed by someone that
[BS]
the other photo was just put there to discredit Hoagiland, because that is all NASA really does is sit back and produce space images to discredit all the REAL space images that conspiracy writters get from ????????
[/BS]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
[snipped]
And to the OP: Learn the definition of the word hoax. As you have said he didn't lie, but he didn't hoax anything either. He posted a picture taken by NASA and provided a link to the original on the LRO website. So by your logic if the picture is a hoax then the hoax must of been made by the LRO team because they are the ones who posted the picture originally. That is not what a hoax is. At best you could say you disagree with Hoagland, but saying he lied in the thread title (you havn't bothered to correct that admitted mistake) or now saying he hoaxed something is just not even accurate.


It's not necessary to rehash but I did state in a reply that I had 2nd thoughts about my use of the word "lie" but that I couldn't change the thread title to "hoax" because the Edit function was not available. Try editing a thread after it receives replies.

And by Hoaxland rotating the NASA photo and using it to imply something that doesn't exist except in his head is hoaxing. He is trying to acquire customers to his presentations.

When you criticize, which you have a right to do, be accurate in your criticism.

I don't hide the fact that I'm a foe of Hoaxland and you can find my first published criticism of some of Hoagland's claims in the November/December 1995 issue of Perceptions, page 5. Additionally, I debunked another of his claims found in his book "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA" last year at Unexplained Mysteries which earned the support of Jim Oberg.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
And by Hoaxland rotating the NASA photo and using it to imply something that doesn't exist except in his head is hoaxing. He is trying to acquire customers to his presentations.

When you criticize, which you have a right to do, be accurate in your criticism.


You might try taking your own advice then, as your criticisms of Hoagland regarding this issue have been anything but accurate.

"By Hoagland rotating the NASA photo..." What are you talking about? It's standard, if you are trying to point out what you feel is a feature of some kind, to orient the picture in a way that you feel allows the feature to be most easily identified. NASA itself has done this many times! As has almost everyone who presents such slide shows. And it's not like he tried to hide the original orientation - he links to it! You have no legitimate criticism here. Sorry.

"using it to imply something that doesn't exist except in his head is hoaxing" What a ridiculous comment. He is allowed to disagree about what these images show, and he is allowed to make the claim that these images are something other than landslides. Are you saying he isn't allowed to use NASA photos if he disagrees with their interpretation of what they show? (Don't his taxes pay for them too?) Just because NASA believes it's landslides, and you believe it's landslides - and for that matter, that I believe it's landslides - doesn't mean that's a "fact" and anyone who disagrees and claims the images show something else is "hoaxing". "it's just in our heads" that's it's landslides too. It's an opinion. It's our interpretation of the photo, just as his is.

You need to learn what a "hoax" actually is, and to stop looking for baseless excuses to attack figures you despise.



[edit on 12-11-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Definitions of hoax on the Web:
fraud: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Malcram
 


Definitions of hoax on the Web:
fraud: something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn



Yes, the very thing you have wrongly accused Hoagland of (after you backed off from claiming it was a "blatant lie")

1. You haven't demonstrated that anything he has done is deceptive or fraudulent.

2. Even if you had, you are still making assumptions about his "intention" to "deliberately deceive". Are you Psychic?


[edit on 12-11-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The ShrikeI don't hide the fact that I'm a foe of Hoaxland and you can find my first published criticism of some of Hoagland's claims in the November/December 1995 issue of Perceptions, page 5. Additionally, I debunked another of his claims found in his book "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA" last year at Unexplained Mysteries which earned the support of Jim Oberg.


Also, this culture of boastful 'scalp hunting' on ATS is really distasteful and does nothing to foster reasonable discussion. Objectivity goes out of the window when people are more interesting in vendettas and point scoring and bragging about how many supposed 'debunks' they are responsible for, etc. This whole thread is based on that idea - "Have I caught Hoagland?".

Well, no. You've tried to make something out of nothing. I'm not even a fan of his, and don't even agree with his his claim, yet I can still see that.


OK, rant over.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



Yes, the very thing you have wrongly accused Hoagland of (after you backed off from claiming it was a "blatant lie")


I didn't back off from claiming it was a "blatant lie." I backed off from calling it a lie when I should have said hoax. It's still a blatant hoax whether you like it or not.




[edit on 12-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


It's not hoax because it doesn't meet the criteria of a "hoax" (you read the definition) and you haven't provided one iota of evidence that it constitutes a hoax. Saying it's a "hoax", doesn't make it so, whether you like it or not.

You're not being reasonable and this is plainly just a thin excuse to continue a vendetta against a figure you dislike and an attempt to up your 'debunker' cred at ATS.

Carry on. I'm done.

PS, I don't think Oberg will be too impressed by this particular effort, and if he is, he's not the man I thought he was LOL.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Say somone is hanging upside down on some monkey bars. Now let's say I take a picture of that person. Now let's say I turn the picture upside down so that the person appears to be right side up, and I say "look at this photo I took of a person." Is that a hoax because I rotated the picture? No it is not. Rotating a photo is not the same as hoaxing the photo.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by The Shrike
 


It's not hoax because it doesn't meet the criteria of a "hoax" (you read the definition) and you haven't provided one iota of evidence that it constitutes a hoax. Saying it's a "hoax", doesn't make it so, whether you like it or not.

You're not being reasonable and this is plainly just a thin excuse to continue a vendetta against a figure you dislike and an attempt to up your 'debunker' cred at ATS.

Carry on. I'm done.

PS, I don't think Oberg will be too impressed by this particular effort, and if he is, he's not the man I thought he was LOL.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by Malcram]


Your thinking betrays you. You couldn't come close to the way Oberg thinks, it's beyond your ken.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Say somone is hanging upside down on some monkey bars. Now let's say I take a picture of that person. Now let's say I turn the picture upside down so that the person appears to be right side up, and I say "look at this photo I took of a person." Is that a hoax because I rotated the picture? No it is not. Rotating a photo is not the same as hoaxing the photo.


You seem to be missing the point. It isn't just the rotation of a photo, it's what he added underneath the photo: "NASA-LRO Image of More "Crystalline Ruins on the Moon" ...." You know damn well that the photo doesn't show "Crystalline Ruins," the photo shows a natural feature.

And then he tries to hook you with "stunning new official images." You know damn well that what follows that link is not stunning new official images. It's one image, and it's not stunning, it's just a natural formation.

Why is it that people such as you don't see the obvious? Hoaxland depends on the gullible to support his weird theories and you and Malcram qualify as gullible supporters. Never mind that I'm reporting his weak attempts at getting the popularity he craves. Anyone else could have beaten me to the b.s. he specialises in. I'm proud to have caught him in yet another lie, nay, hoax!


BTW, do you think that he will really be able to deliver on the following: "Hoagland’s presentation will also include -- on this 46th anniversary of JFK's tragic assassination -- official new government documentation – discovered by Hoagland this past summer, while pursuing additional evidence for the Revised Dark Mission -- revealing for the first time exactly “who” ... connected directly to NASA ... ultimately ordered President Kennedy killed."


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



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 






That seriously made me laugh.

So you are upset because RCH used the plural form of the word image when there was only one image to look at?

I can't stop laughing at that. thanx for the chukle



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
NASA regularly flips their images upside down and calls what would normally be anomalous, "natural phenomena".

The surface looks entirely different upside down. And yet, this is how we've seen much of the moon's surface all our lives.

Hoagland was one of the first to indicate NASA was doing this. NASA will flip an image so the viewer cannot orient it correctly.

When you turn certain unnatural features upside down they appear quite natural.

That's all that was happening there. Hoagland is no fraud.

Just my two cents...



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Your thinking betrays you. You couldn't come close to the way Oberg thinks, it's beyond your ken.


My thinking betrays me? LOL. More psychic prowess in reading my thoughts?

You were the one who bragged of your previous supposed "debunking" of Hoagland and proudly claimed to have won the support of Oberg in doing so. Clearly Oberg's approval means much to you. I'm just saying that I don't think he will think much of this recent effort.




"BTW, do you think that he will really be able to deliver on the following..."


Who knows? Are you intent on attacking him for things he hasn't even done yet, also? And if "failing to deliver" is such a crime then lets lay into NASA, as I'm still waiting for the 10 mile high plume on the moon which they promised


By the way, "I'm not a gullible supporter" of Hoagland. I've said I don't believe that these are crystal structures, as he does, and I'm no fan of Hoagland. Search my posts. I don't think I've ever mentioned him until you started baselessly attacking the guy.

But he is entitles to his opinion and interpretation of the evidence, just as you and I and NASA are.


[edit on 13-11-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Whether or not he's a liar doesn't matter,but to think the aerial view of a landslide looks like a tower(or towers)shows a serious problem with with three dimensional viewing....are the towers painted on the moon's surface?Well,then he's allright.....but severly handicaped!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by silversurfer6161
Whether or not he's a liar doesn't matter,but to think the aerial view of a landslide looks like a tower(or towers)shows a serious problem with with three dimensional viewing....are the towers painted on the moon's surface?Well,then he's allright.....but severly handicaped!


What reference are you relying on to know what non-existent "towers" look like? Hoagland has never been to the moon. Like everyone else on earth, he looks at NASA photos and comes up with weird opinions. There's nothing wrong with 3-D viewing. Painted? What crap! He's severely handicapped, mentally!

I provided a photo of Marius Crater. Why don't you find it and see for yourself that the whole crater rim looks just like the section he picked to illustrate his fantasy? And while you're at it, go to google images and bring up craters, there's a ton of them with similar features that may or may not be landslides. But they sure as hell are not "Crystalline Ruins"!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join