Is Richard c hogland credible?

I've heard a few interviews from this guy in the past.. He has made some wild claims including the Martian moon Phobos being a alien spacecraft..
I was just wondering how Richard hogland is looked upon in this community? Is he a credible researcher or is he known to be a bit 'out there'
I'm not discrediting the guy, I just wondered what peoples opinions on this researcher were...

i think everyone has a different opinion of people,be it r.c.h.or john lear..
i for one think that richard is a intellegent man but also a fear mongerer..im sure it was him that said the gulf of mexico will blow up due to some gas??

reply to post by Misterlondon


can't speak for the forum but I'm not really that trusting of him.

not that this says anything but south park had episode that was meant to be both cheesy and ridiculous re-tellings of previous episodes titled "City of the Edge of Forever", the 2nd part of the title of hoagland's first book.

Hoagland makes outlandish claims and tries to sell homemade DVDs with his wacky theories.

A credible scientist would publish research and results in scientific journals. No journal would touch Hoagland's stuff because it is not scientifically rigorous. He is like a 21st century version of Percival Lowell, who beleived he saw "canals" on the surface of mars, which later turned out to be imaginary.

But if you are the type to believe there are canals on Mars, then Hoagland should be right up your street.

I will consider his credibility when he finally gets to the point.
I've been waiting since 1994.

I really mean that. I remember the first time I heard him as s guest on the Art Bell version of Coast to Coast.
His story was interesting, I remember connecting to a BBS with my modem to download a photo he was discussing on the show. I think it took about 20 minutes to retrieve the photo. a tiny gif file. Remember BBS's?

However, none of his theories have come to a fruition. Every piece of new evidence he finds, is barely in camera range. Or has to be massively processed to "see" what he describes.
He's a storyteller, a pretty good one. For a while I looked forward to him coming back on Art's show.

I just knew he was going to blow the lid off something. Little did I know that something was a can of smoke.
"Stay tuned" he would always say. I did, for a while.
I could tell that even Art was getting tired of waiting.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
I was just wondering how Richard hogland is looked upon in this community? Is he a credible researcher or is he known to be a bit 'out there'

Did you try the search function? Because there's already a thread on this topic:

What to make of Richard Hoagland

I'd say this comment sums up my view: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by davesidious
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.

Others say he's entertaining and I do enjoy good science fiction as entertainment as long as you realize that's what it is, so I guess it's ok to find him entertaining, but I wouldn't believe a word he says.

when people give him a nickname Hoaxland that should tell you a general feeling about him.

Thanks everyone.. Some good answers... That has kinda confirmed what I was thinking myself..

Originally posted by kristobal
He is like a 21st century version of Percival Lowell, who beleived he saw "canals" on the surface of mars, which later turned out to be imaginary.

But if you are the type to believe there are canals on Mars, then Hoagland should be right up your street.

I think it's outrageously insulting to Percival Lowell to compare Hoagland to him. An eye doctor thinks he can explain what Percival Lowell saw and it wasn't imaginary, and his explanation would explain why nobody else could see it:

www.skyandtelescope.com...

Sherman Schultz, a retired optometrist, notes that Lowell's setup simulates what he used in his practice in examining patients for cataracts. Andrew T. Young (San Diego State University) and Philip C. Steffey also both realized that the small exit pupil might have revealed shifting shadows of Lowell's blood vessels on his retina. .. This effect is a well-known annoyance among planetary observers using very high magnification.

It may be a well known effect today but that wasn't the case in Lowell's time, so he didn't know that what he was seeing wasn't really there, if the optometrist's theory is right. But the blood vessels aren't imaginary, they're real.

I don't think we can say that Hoagland is seeing the blood vessels in his eyes, so it's an unfair comparison.

Hoagland is great entertainment at 2am...and a lot of "coincidences" that he points out are pretty intriguing, but for the most part, I am still waiting for the grand finale.. the big unveiling.... the revelation, but it never comes.

He does raise some pretty interesting points... especially his idea of 19.5 and hyperdimensional physics. The most provoking theory of his is the idea that NASA orchestrates it's program with the placement of constellations, ancient mythology, and sun worship...which ties in with the NASA/Nazi and Operation PaperClip Conspiracy.

reply to post by Misterlondon


Short answer: No.

Long Answer: Absolutely Not.

I've read a few of his books...and imo he's comprable to Kent Hovind.

I think I first heard of RCH in 1988 when he presented his briefing to NASA regarding the MARS Cydonia site. The briefing was about 2 hrs. long and I think it was broadcast on Discovery channel or one of the other documentary channels at the time.

During that briefing, he explained that his team had made, what they believed to be, some very important discoveries regarding something that he described as hyperdimensional physics and what I like to call "sacred geometry." He proposed that the Cydonia site may have been constructed by ancient martian civilizations using sacred geometry as their guidepost. He also discussed the significance of the tetrahedron and the dodecahedron and he went on to make some predictions about what one of our solar probes, (either Pioneer or Voyager) would find when they flew by Saturn regarding energy vortexes located at 19.5 degrees N. or S. Latitude. The predictions turned out to be true, not only for Saturn but for all spherical bodies in the universe.

A couple of years later he did another lecture, regarding the same Cydonia site, where he discussed newly discovered geometry as well as the fact that it had been discovered that the Cydonia site was located at the point on Mars that represented the center of all landmass for the planet, exactly the same is true for the great pyramids at Giza. I think that he closed this lecture by stating that we as humans should at least prepare ourselves for the possibility that we may not be who we think we are.

Well, needless to say, I remained skeptical but I continued to follow his work whenever I could. It wasn't until 2007, when I watched a lecture on quantum physics given by Nassim Harramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library that I began to rethink some of Hoagland's theories. This lecture is in two parts and it's over 8 hrs. long but it was worth every minute, it can be found here; video.google.com...#

During his lecture, Nassim explained the importance of the sphere and the tetrahedron and their relation to each other in physics. He also discussed the repeated appearance of this geometry in almost every ancient culture known to man.

Anyway, when I viewed Nassim Harramein's lecture, it blew me away and Hoagland immediately came to mind because he had made similar statements almost 20 yrs. earlier. I'm beginning to think that there is definitely something to this "sacred geometry" and it may turn out to be the key to quantum or hyperdimensional physics. Even Plato spoke of the geometry of the earth and the importance of the sphere with the dodecahedron within it.

Even though Nassim's peer reviews have been excellent, I still remain a little skeptical but I have to admit that, just like Hoagland's earliest assertion that there may be life on Europa at a time when most considered it to be impossible, there may actually be something to this geometry that we as humans have been overlooking for some time. So, I haven't totally given up on Hoagland yet.

reply to post by Flatfish


First of all, none of Hoagland's work has every been peer reviewed. It hasn't been peer reviewed because he refuses to share the details of his findings. The energy vortexes (lol) at 19.5 degrees N and S have NEVER been demonstrated, all we have is Hoagland's word.

As for Nassim who supposedly peer reviewed Hoagland work, he's a pseudo-scientist without any degree just like Hoagland.

Seriously, you are falling for fake science by people who only care about "fame" and money by selling DVDs/Books. He also claims we have yet to discover a huuuuuuuge massive planet in our solar system, which is impossible given that we can account for all the gravity in our solar system. But maybe it's a magical planet that doesn't adhere to the laws of gravity...right?

He's a charlatan just like Kent Hovind!

reply to post by MrXYZ
I agree completely.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Even though Nassim's peer reviews have been excellent

The only so-called "peer review" I've ever seen Nassim claim is when he submitted his Schwarzchild proton paper to a conference of computer nerds who know a lot about computers but nothing about protons, and while the computer nerds voted his proton paper the best in its category (physics), nobody has been able to tell me how many other papers were even in the physics category at a computer conference, so if his paper was the ONLY paper in it's category, of course it's the best in its category, (and also the worst for that matter), but the fact that computer nerds have no idea about what he's talking about hardly constitutes a "peer review". But if you have some other evidence of peer review besides that laughable claim, please post it.

In a contest between which is more absurd or outrageous between Richard Hoagland and Nassim Haramein, it's a close call, they are both unbelievable

Originally posted by Flatfish
This lecture is in two parts and it's over 8 hrs. long but it was worth every minute, it can be found here; video.google.com...#

Somehow I managed to survive part 1 but it was some of the worst 4 hours of my life and I wish I could get them back, there was no way I could waste another 4 hours watching part 2. He's kind of a charismatic guy and if some of his followers don't know anything about science I can see why they might want to latch on to his kooky ideas but he's every bit as far out as Hoagland in the pseudoscience category.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I never said that Hoagland's work had been peer reviewed. What I said was that Nassim's work had been.

Regarding the unaccountable gravity in our solar system, I think maybe we should be looking for a brown or dwarf star as opposed to a massive planet.

Only time will tell just who is right and that's why I remain "skeptical."

reply to post by Misterlondon


i did come across some of hoaglands vidz/talks.i thought at that time they werent so convincing.but i think he is on the right track. the thing is, his materials are wanting. i can easily provide of "anomalous" images coming from mars that are definitely humanoid images, and had he presented such materials then, things might very well rock for him.
try google mars and you"ll see what i mean...you dont have to search for a pin in a haystack. they're all over...

I have followed RCH's work for over a decade now and have come to know that he has a wisdom and understanding most cannot appreciate because much of what he speaks of is still hypothetical. We do not yet have the technology or knowledge to prove much of what he says.

In light of this, what is there to peer review? You either believe it because it has the ring of truth or you don't. I read his book dark moon and believe that he proposed credible evidence for his findings. (I also loved the JFK assasination theory). If ANY of what he claims WERE proven to be TRUE, it would have to be covered up by the scientific community because it would change our entire perception of our existence. NO peer reviews will ever take place on ideas and the ideas of others who go against the dogma.

While some of his theories are wild and out there somewhat, much of what he proposes will be revealed as truth. True genius is rarely recognized while one is alive and only celebrated in death.

My 2 cents.

Namaste

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker
I read his book dark moon and believe that he proposed credible evidence for his findings.

Such as?

Please give an example or two of what you find to be credible evidence he has presented.

Thanks

reply to post by WisdomSeeker


The problem is, he's trying to pretend whatever he says is scientific...when in reality it just isn't. They'er not even theories in the scientific sense of the meaning.

It's more like a religion...

Also, you're putting your trust in a person who comes up with stuff like that:

On 2–3 February 2010, on the Coast to Coast AM radio show,[73] Hoagland announced that the Russian SLBM had in fact been captured by Dark Forces intent on preventing mankind's exploration of outer space. These Dark Forces, he explained, were probably headed by Nazi officers who had escaped into space after World War II.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/691acf7ee49d.jpg[/atsimg]