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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
First let me say, I am in no way a fan of Hoagland....in fact, when I listen to C2C and he comes on, I tune out. Never liked the man, but because I don't like him does not mean he is any less of a man.
The absolute funniest thing about this topic is...HTF do you know anything of which you claim....I have to pause to catch my breath, laughing too hard. OK...is the photo right side up or upside down
Did NASA first turn it around or did Hoagland

When you can answer these two questions, you just may have your hoax. Until then maybe close this thread and start another titled "I, just like thousands of other people on this planet, blatantly disagrees with Hoagland".

Peace




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
First let me say, I am in no way a fan of Hoagland....in fact, when I listen to C2C and he comes on, I tune out. Never liked the man, but because I don't like him does not mean he is any less of a man.
The absolute funniest thing about this topic is...HTF do you know anything of which you claim....I have to pause to catch my breath, laughing too hard. OK...is the photo right side up or upside down
Did NASA first turn it around or did Hoagland

When you can answer these two questions, you just may have your hoax. Until then maybe close this thread and start another titled "I, just like thousands of other people on this planet, blatantly disagrees with Hoagland".

Peace


You think that by posing your 2 inane questions you have something on me. I've already stated that if you look at a photo of Marius Crater you can see the same effect all around the rim and the whole photo cannot be rotated. If you isolate parts of it, as Hoaxland did, you can claim anything. Dig yourself. Go look at the whole damn photo! Why should NASA rotate a photo? Hoaxland did that. The whole thing stinks and I'm the one getting the heat? What a bunch!

In case you haven't bothered to look at other replies and other Hoagland-associated threads, a lot of people don't like Hoagland. He is one major b.s.er You can admire him all you want, to me and a lot others he is a scam artist.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Good Show Matey!

Even IF this was a crystaline structure, look at the shape! What could it possibly be FOR!

Mega-sized abstract art?

A building? What being could possibly use a building of this shape?

A Landing strip? Maybe for drunken Martian pilots?

Signals to alien beings on other planets? Would YOU respond to such a signal?

Come-on now!

Lets get real and start working on de-programming our brain-washed society, not perpetuating it, Richard! (I proudly have 2 more friends who now realize/accept that they've been washed since birth and are now in recovery, and doing very well)

Hoaglands' kinda funny the way he blows things out of proportion then asks for a donation, (buy my book) but really, He does his bit to try to get folks interested in doing something other than turning over their minds to the Gov./Media complex, too bad he gets mixed up in shenanegans like this.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keymaster1
[snipped]
Hoaglands' kinda funny the way he blows things out of proportion then asks for a donation, (buy my book) but really, He does his bit to try to get folks interested in doing something other than turning over their minds to the Gov./Media complex, too bad he gets mixed up in shenanegans like this.


Hoagland has always been an enigma. But his problem is that he has never been on the side of reason and logic. He puts out a lot of stuff that can be easily debunked and I've done a bit on some of his claims starting back in the '90s.

Just go to his announcement, see my opening links, and look at the list of presenters and their topics. Strictly flim-flam. Then you see him recently in documentaries dealing with 2012 and there he is spouting b.s. Then you see him in a documentary dealing with glass skulls and there he is spouting b.s.

You can't say Richard C. Hoagland without adding B.S. They go hand in hand.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You keep bringing up the photo of the crater you posted as if it's some great proof of something. It's silly. The picture you posted is a thumbnail. You can't see any detail in it at all.

Do you really think the picture you linked to (or any other picture) has even close to the same resolution as the image taken by LRO!?

No you can't see the landslides in other pictures, certainly not the one you linked to anyway.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I have two opinions of Hoagland that are hard to reconcile. On the one hand, he's a narcissist, a charlatan and maybe even a sociopath... On the other hand, he's always entertaining to listen to, as long as you realize everything that comes out of his pie hole is completely fictitious. The biggest problem though, is that a lot of his audience doesn't seem to know that, so all in all, he's probably bad for the community as long as he keeps up the science man charade.

On topic with the thread though, yeah, you totally busted him, good work. S&F.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I caught Hoagland in a lie once too..I walked by him and he had his mouth open so I knew he must by lying.


Nice job nailing him though.


Of course, Hoagland lies. The man has to make a living after the so-called Face Mars petered out a decade ago. What's a guy like him to do for a living? Hoagland, by dint of his early reporting career, is an entertainer, a showman. You know, exactly like Sagan. (Opps, sorry, I forgot for a second there are legions of Sagan worshippers out there!)

Some of these folks do it for money, some to make a name for themselves, and some do it because that is their job given by the PTB, and some are more than one of those rolled together. Collectively we can call them entertainers because bogus or genuine, on the side of UFOs or vocally against (Sagan, again) they are in show biz. That is part of the structure fashioned for us that keeps UFOs/ETs in the mythical "maybe" realm. It is good for the enlightenment-by-slow-degrees business. Now you see it! (Maybe I did!) Now you don't! (Wait, didn't I see it?)

The creator of the Greatest Show on Earth, P. T. Barnum is quoted as saying: "Without promotion something terrible happens...Nothing!"

Analyze it, argue over it, create hoaxes, try to build a DIY UFO, blame the government, set out for all night vigils, whatEVER! It is all part of the process, folks. Enjoy it all. ('Course, its gets tiring to some us as old as dirt.)



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


You say a lot of truth. That's the bad side of UFOlogy in that most of the popular voices belong to people who prey on the gullible who are their only audience. I've read almost every book published with UFO as the subject starting in 1957 with "FLYING SAUCERS HAVE LANDED" by Desmond Leslie & George Adamski. An Air Force captain loaned it to me while we were in Sidi Slimane, Morocco. That was also the beginning of my becoming a skeptic for after that book, everything else was difficult to swallow. Since the authors were only reporting what was told them, they had to embellish a lot because if they didn't their books would get boring and repetitive by the second page!

It's been like that since then with some exceptions where the level of reporting was higher than the subject material. People such as Jacques Vallee stood out. But all of the modern books, since the late '70s, and especially by authors such as Stanton Friedman, are to be avoided unless you like to be taken for a fool.

Hoagland realized that if you sell questionable material interest grows because the majority of readers are not research prone to try to verify what they read. I could never be like that. Give me a library any day and I'll be in there until they close!

Hoagland is easy to debunk because he doesn't stay behind the scenes, he's out front, he makes ridiculous claims that anyone with some time and appropriate materials can prove him wrong. I caught him and co-author Bara in a ridiculous claim in their book "DARK MISSION: THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA" and I posted my research results at Unexplained Mysteries and also Bara's Blog. Bara turned out to be a bigger anal cavity than Hoagland, as everyone who deals with him finds out, but at least Oberg put in his 2 cents backing my research.

People like Hoagland have always and will always be around. So will I.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
So everyone that makes money is a fake or somehow evil? When you buy a sandwitch do you think the deli is evil and selling you spoiled meat? Acorrding to your logic, they must be selling poisoned products and rancid meat, because they are making a profit off of it.

People have to make money to live. Would you guys feel better if these guys lived in the streets or starved to death? Everyone needs money, and the flaw in your argument is obvious.

edtit to add:

What about NASA? Those guys make money off of what they do so they must be distorting the truth by your logic.

In fact every thing you swear by is based off of the work of somone who has made a profit off of their work. So by your own logic everything you belive, or present as a fact is compleate bunk and a pack of lies. You do see the problem with this line of thought don't you?

[edit on 16-11-2009 by fieryjaguarpaw]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I always liked Hoagland; he seems like a friendly and truthful guy



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I agree! And I really think its a discrase that c2c use him as a science advisor...
He say he has all this data , data, data and data.... I have never seen any proof of this good data... Im getting really tired of him....



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join