What to make of Richard Hoagland.

It has been a year or so that I have discovered the radio program coast to coast am and with it Richard Hoagland. A very interesting dude but I still can not decide where to place him among the group of conspiracy theorists.

His credentials and his claim to be a scientist place him as a fellow with both feet on the ground and only to belief what the facts are telling him. But on the other hand he comes with the most elaborate theories and calculations about things that put him right into the catogory of being an over imaginative voodoo doctor.

In one of the latest C2C programs he discussed the chances for disclosure with George Noory and he made it statisticly probable and most likely that disclosure was about to happen during the state of the union by Obama. He did not base his beliefs on sources but on his personal calculations. For one, the Norway spiral and the Moskou piramide event.

He is so very sure of his theories and knows to communicate them so well that it is hard not to belief him. Yet,.... for as I know,....nothing, he ever said proved to be right......yet?

What do you make of RH?

This thread is not meant to discredit RH, I just want to know what his reputation is in the conspiracy community.



[edit on 28-1-2010 by zatara]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by zatara]

EDIT: All about spelling

[edit on 28-1-2010 by zatara]

Hoagland has been appearing on C2C for many years. I remember back in the 90's he was the "Face on Mars" guru. He's been banging the drum about moon and mars anomalies for years and years. Good work, but like many others, he's probably out to make a buck.

reply to post by coastalite


I like Richard, and have done since i first heard and saw his work.

Very clever guy.

Why is it, especially coming from a capitalist money orientated country, that people are so scathing when someone tries to make a living?

Isn't RH allowed to make a living for the work he does?

What's wrong with genuinely believing in what he is doing, while making a living from it at the same time? If he had a 9-5, he wouldn't be able to do what he does would he, so to do what he does (and does it well) and make an income from it is the perfect solution.

He has no scientific training, and yet preaches about science and scientists and how they're misleading the world. All without evidence.

For a site who's mantra is "deny ignorance", I'm surprised anyone here has any time for him.

He's a kook.

He is an entertainer, and a very good one at that. I actually enjoy listening to him since he has the wonderful rhetorical ability to take a silly point and make it sound credible and plausible. He weaves verbal circles around the hosts on Coast to Coast in a way that is wonderful to behold.

There is no doubt that he is a very intelligent man, although he is not a scientist and I don't think he claims scientific credentials, he does have a excellent layman's grasp of what science is about and scientific methodologies, and is very well self-taught in a number of areas.

I would call him one of those annoying amateurs, like John Anthony West, who obviously love their field, do great background study and spout things that smack the established modes of though about the head and face. Annoying amateurs are good enough to use the language and methods of science but since they are not members of the scientific establishment, they really have nothing to lose by calling it as they see it.

Contributions to science come in a number of ways and from a number of different kinds of people. There are our core scientists, credential and members of the research community. There are science writers, like Gary Taubes and others who communicate science in a form that those of us who are not in a particular field can understand and appreciate what is happening there. I've a number of scientists say that reading about another field -- ow problems were attached by other scientists -- suddenly gave them insights into problems in their own field.

There are also the popularizers of science who communicate to the public and actually build public interest in science, like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, David Suzuki, Jacques Cousteau and others. Do I dare add Bill Nye the Science Guy?

And then there are those annoying amateurs and professional iconoclasts who keep poking at science saying "But hey, what about this.?" The existence of Troy, the discovery of the Gorilla and so many more things..

Hoagland puts on a good show. I don't agree with a lot of what he claims but I think that the most valuable thing he does is entertain his audience while still keeping to the spirit of science. He makes it interesting. The best effect people like Hoagland have is to make the general public say "Hey, I need to find out more about that.." because he has intrigued them.

I don't know if there is a face on Mars, Hoagland's arguments haven't convinced me at all, but I think he would be a total hoot to have dinner with. Personally, several aspects of my own work have been the result of listening to Hoagland, then going to a source he cites and discovering a whole line of investigation that I had been unaware of.

I enjoy listening to him also. Even if a person is full of bologna, it doesn't mean you can't listen and pick things apart. Hell I even listened to the State of the Union Address last evening!

[edit on 28-1-2010 by butcherguy]

hoagland is an interesting story teller, but not a scientist, as he claims.

I agree, that he is an entertainer.

I think alot of the things that he says, are half truth, half fact. He does not have any real scientific training. Even the facts are blurry sometimes...such as second hand info.

I like his ideas, and his speculations. But he is a novelty.

Here we go again another famous ATS character assignation job! like disclosure threads there as regular as clockwork!

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE


It's not character assassination to call someone out on the logical fallacies they are operating under, such as not being a scientist and claiming science/scientists are wrong It's called denying ignorance

He lost me when he aligned himself with David Wilcock.

One person with no credibility agreeing with another person with no credibility.

And getting by because they know the listening audience has NO idea what they are talking about.

reply to post by calcoastseeker


No different than some fundamentalist preachers.

One of my favorites I listen to while lawnmowing is the first Art Bell/Richard Hoagland interview. He tells a damn fine story, and is one original bull# artist.
If he's not a paid spook, or out to make his fifteen+ minutes of fame and money, I wouldn't be surprised.
Suppose he could actually be insane. Have any of you ever read his fanclub on Facebook? I don't happen to recall the name. Looked through it and it struck me as written by someone with a massive amount of paranoia.
Then again, who knows. He did speak at the U.N. right?

Originally posted by Marrr
He did speak at the U.N. right?

no he did not actually. he hired the National Press Club in Washington, DC which anyone can do

www.thespacereview.com... has a review of the talk...
"There were about 23 people in the room, including three speakers, myself, and two or three cameramen. There were three cameras there, from (I think) two different film companies—okay, maybe they technically qualify as “press.” One of the cameramen was there on behalf of a Russian media client. The other was apparently there on behalf of a documentary media client that may have been hired by Hoagland’s company. From a brief snippet of conversation that I overheard between them, they apparently thought that the assignment was bull#."

reply to post by dereks


Chalk up another one to - Hoagland's fabricated claims. A shame really. Secretly, I'm kind've rooting for him.

Hoagland may be a bit "out there" with some of his theories, however I really like him because he keeps a fire built under NASA's butt.

I am not so sure of his moon theories but I think he is spot on about Mars and I think it is being actively hidden from us.

We need more people who have managed to get a pulpit from which they can attack the lies and secrecy surrounding things which should be true and open to the people that PAID for it.

reply to post by InertiaZero


I, too, agree he's an entertainer. I love listening to him though! He's one of my fav C2C guests. He really opens up ones mind to the possibility of there being structures on the moon, or the moon itself being a structure!

Everytime he presents new pictures of these supposed buildings I examine them for long periods of time, hoping to catch a glimpse of something cool. Sadly, i usually can't make it out.

Not that i feel Hoagland is crazy. I believe him, i just wish i could see it with my own eyes.

Personally I do not enjoy listening to him. However, I enjoy reading what he writes. I'd really like to see some of his theories be proven true. They are quite interesting to me.

I've listened to C2C for about 13 years now, and Hoagland ranks as one of the top three guests I enjoy. Like many here, I feel his theories and ideas are at times outlandish, but you will not find a more indepth, fact-theory weaving son-of-a-gun anywhere. You can sit there saying this is absolutely horse stuff, and in 30 minutes, he'll have you saying..."Hmmm, maybe there's something to this."
Go to his site..it is deep and if you have like a spare 2-3 days, sit and look in the archives... my favorite is how the NASA projects and events are all tied to ancient Egyptian/Summerian sun worship and the location of significant stars... kind of like rites and sacrifices. Deep.
I'll never look at mars and 19.5 the same again...lol.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I've listened to C2C for about 13 years now, and Hoagland ranks as one of the top three guests I enjoy. Like many here, I feel his theories and ideas are at times outlandish, but you will not find a more indepth, fact-theory weaving son-of-a-gun anywhere. You can sit there saying this is absolutely horse stuff, and in 30 minutes, he'll have you saying..."Hmmm, maybe there's something to this."
Go to his site..it is deep and if you have like a spare 2-3 days, sit and look in the archives... my favorite is how the NASA projects and events are all tied to ancient Egyptian/Summerian sun worship and the location of significant stars... kind of like rites and sacrifices. Deep.
I'll never look at mars and 19.5 the same again...lol.

Yeah,...I agree, that is what I like about this man. Many call him an entertainer and in many ways he is. When RH is on the show I am always looking forward what he has to say next. It would be good for his credibility to stay away from predictions tho.

He also convinced me about the lies NASA has been spreading over the the last 50 years. He brought me into serious doubt about what there is to see on the moon and I dare not talk about what might be to discover on Mars.

There is one other question that is bothering me. People say he is not a scientist. Can a scientist only be called a scientist if she or he has a scientific education? Or is a scientist anybody who is investigating something in a scientific way?