Is Richard c hogland credible?

If my memory serves me right, his credentials are not impressive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's a high school graduate with no astronomy credentials. I think I read somewhere he was employed at NASA, but without an engineering, or physics degree how much access to secrets would he actually have? His photo's of structures on the moon are questionable at the least. They're not clear photos and he tries to create images in viewers minds by making suggestions that some objects look like structures or mining trenches. I see better images in clouds than in his photos. I personally think he's a charlatan. Who knows, in time maybe he'll prove me wrong.

reply to post by WeRpeons


Question: Is anyone here even remotely familiar with the work of Joseph P. Farrell? Why do we focus so much on the non-credible types in the alternative research community but never the "unknown" jewels?


p.s. His work correlates with a lot of what hoagland says, but at least Farrell backs it up with sources or specifically cites when he is speculating.

Originally posted by bigbomb456
Question: Is anyone here even remotely familiar with the work of Joseph P. Farrell? Why do we focus so much on the non-credible types in the alternative research community but never the "unknown" jewels?

You ever hear of the Sitchin hoax?

What does Farrell say about Sitchin? gizadeathstar.wordpress.com...

I wanted also to underscore the interpretation of Sitchin of the Sumerian epic

Do you really want to ask what we think about anyone who underscores the work of a known hoaxer like Sitchin?

The Sitchin Hoax

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker
Slight problem about that.... there are no buildings on the moon or mars!

Funny that you would take the position that, "there are no buildings on the moon or mars!" I really don't believe that you could actually prove your statement any more than Hoagland can prove his, so does this make you a charlatan as well?

When he first proposed that there may be life on Europa under the ice, most scientist thought this was extremely doubtful at best. Most scientist hold quite the opposite position today and much of the ground work has been laid to actually send a probe to find out at some point in the future.

I'm sure that most people told the Wright brothers it was impossible to fly right up until the time they actually flew too.

I would also like to state that it can be a big mistake to discredit someone merely for the lack of a formal education as many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people with considerably less education than Richard Hoagland.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Funny that you would take the position that, "there are no buildings on the moon or mars!" I really don't believe that you could actually prove your statement any more than Hoagland can prove his, so does this make you a charlatan as well?

Let me ask you this. Most of us have seen the LROC photos of the Apollo landing site, and there are only a few pixels involved in the objects of interest so the only thing I can say for sure just from looking at the photo is there's either a lunar lander there, or something like a rock about the size of a lunar lander.

Now isn't the cramped lunar lander most likely smaller than nearly all buildings? Even my small tool shed was bigger than that tiny thing. And with objects larger than the lunar lander, we do have enough resolution to get some idea if it's really a building or not.

So then there are photos, and they don't show buildings (do they?). If they don't, the only reason I can think of is if the buildings are really, really small, like the size a mouse would build, instead of a human. Is that what you're suggesting? Or else the "buildings" are a pareidolia interpretation of some rocks, and if that's the case provide an example. Or, let me guess, every space agency in the world is in on the conspiracy so they aren't showing us the "real" photos, is that it? Even if that's your stance, you can't say "I really don't believe that you could actually prove your statement any more than Hoagland can prove his" because there are images that tell us if there are any buildings, they can't be much larger than the lunar lander, would you agree with that? Your claim would have to be that "the proof is false",rather than "you can't prove it".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Photos can be manipulated, but are you saying that if I were from the moon and I sent an earth lander to this planet and it landed in the middle of the Sahara desert where no buildings are visible, I could safely assume that there are no buildings on earth?

Hoagland, and others have presented numerous photos which clearly show signs of manipulation by someone so I guess the real question is; Who tampered with these photos and more importantly, why?

If you think that NASA has lived up to their original mission goal of being a "public" agency, then you have another think coming. I think they say that american government black op technology is always some 30 to 40 yrs. ahead of the public sector and by the way, they didn't get that way by revealing everything they know to the public.

I'm not confident that other space agencies are part of a collective cover up of this information but I would make mention of the fact that the Russian space agency, which lost a probe during it's encounter with Phobos, as well as the European space agency have shown quite an interest in this little satellite of Mars.

Also, the Chinese as well as the Europeans both currently have lunar photographic missions underway which would lead me to ask; Why? Aren't there already enough moon pictures to "prove" that there are no buildings, etc...? What is left to learn from new photos of the moon? Why spend the kind of resources necessary to fund these missions if there is nothing left to learn?

The more educated we become, the more we realize just how much we have left to learn or should I say, un-learn.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Also, the Chinese as well as the Europeans both currently have lunar photographic missions underway which would lead me to ask; Why? Aren't there already enough moon pictures to "prove" that there are no buildings, etc...? What is left to learn from new photos of the moon? Why spend the kind of resources necessary to fund these missions if there is nothing left to learn?

If you did a little homework yourself instead of listening to Hoagland I'm sure you could find an answer to this. But none of the photographic missions have stated objectives to see if there are buildings or not as far as I know, so for you to suggest they are sending more missions to look for more buildings (is that what you're suggesting?) made me laugh.

reply to post by dereks


A simple google search found this on glass as strong as steel, in case you didn't know about Google. (just trying to help you out).

dsc.discovery.com...

I am going to choose to disagree with you on whether or not there are buildings on the Moon and Mars. Eventually, one of us will be proven wrong. I will hang my head in shame if it is me. I suggest you do the same.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you F**king kidding me?? Farrell has gone on the record COUNTLESS times both on radio interviews and in his books to say that he does not agree with Sitchin's translations, but believes he may have been on the right track.

books.google.com... num=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Go to page 78.

Also, even on his facebook, the day Sitchin died, he mourned his lost while specifically stating that "although I didn't not agree him him on several accounts". Nice try though.

Originally posted by bigbomb456
he does not agree with Sitchin's translations, but believes he may have been on the right track.

books.google.com... num=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Go to page 78.

Page 78 doesn't support what you're saying at all, it contradicts it. Farrell mentions that John Anthony West complains about Sitchin's translations, and what does Farrell say? "But it is not so easy to dismiss Sitchin as all that" and then goes on to support Sitchin just as he does on his website I quoted.

So I'm not sure it's worth continuing the debate if you're citing evidence that contradicts your viewpoint as supposedly supporting it.

But thanks and have a nice day.

Edit to add: I see in the index he also mentions Hoagland on page 96 but that doesn't show up in my preview, so I can't really see exactly what he says about Hoagland.

To the people who still give this charlatan credibility:

Is Hoagland credible?

Originally posted by Flatfish
When he first proposed that there may be life on Europa under the ice,

Oh dear, another hoagland lie. he was NOT the first to propose that....

"John Lewis, a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona published an article in 1971 about this in volume 15 of Icarus, a (scientific!) journal of planetary sciences. The article was entitled "Satellites of the Outer Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature". At the time, his arguments were based on somewhat incomplete data, but later he published a paper (with Guy Consolmagno) which appeared in 1976 in the book "JUPITER: Studies of the interior, atmosphere, magnetosphere, and satellites" (edited by T. Gehrels) which gives better details of the moons' interiors. This clearly establishes that Lewis thought of this ocean idea before Hoagland did.

Third, what about Hoagland's claim that he thought of life in those oceans first as well? Guess what-- he's wrong there too. As Dr. Ralph Greenberg says on his page about the history of the concept of life in Europa:

"On June 19th and 20th, 1979, the conference "Life in the Universe" took place at NASA's Ames Research Center. Benton Clark gave a lecture [titled] Sulfur: Fountainhead of Life in the Universe...

Clark then explained how sulfur could play the role of oxygen, and that deep-sea volcanic emissions could potentially provide all the necessary ingredients for a self-sustained ecosystem. In the final part of his lecture, Clark raised the possibility that life might exist in undersurface oceans [emphasis mine] on the icy satellites in our Solar System, including Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto in particular. "
www.badastronomy.com...

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker
A simple google search found this on glass as strong as steel, in case you didn't know about Google. (just trying to help you out)

Except that the claim was "Science shows that glass forged in a vacuum is as strong as steel. "

That was the claim, and they have refused so far to back that claim up....

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No, I think what I'm saying is that apparently they don't believe that they have seen all there is to see on the lunar surface. In other words, I don't think that they have a great deal of confidence in NASA when it comes to full disclosure so they decided to look for themselves, not necessarily for buildings but for any anomalies which are unknown to them.

By the way, if I were looking for signs of E.T. habitation on the lunar surface, I would be looking on the dark side as it would naturally be the better location for a number of reasons ranging from observation of the cosmos to concealment from human discovery and for gravitational reasons, it would even be more suitable for interstellar departures and arrivals.

I looooooooove cosmology and astrology. My home library on those subjects is ridiculous for someone who works in a completely different field (real estate). So I totally understand if someone's interested in that subject. But if you really wanna LEARN about it, rather than have a science/fiction mix, check out the following people:

- Neil Degrasse Tyson: Imo he's the new Carl Sagan. I know of no other astro-physicist who can explain things the way he does. Some examples of his work bellow...



Yes, it's long...but that clip should blow anyone's mind. And it's all REAL science, all his claims are backed up. The guy is so cool, if you have a specific question, and email him, eventually you'll get an answer. I actually sent him a mail once because of a thread on here...by the time I got the answer the thread was dead (lol), but I DID get an answer. That's pretty cool considering he's quite "famous"....

- Carl Sagan: Some of the things are a bit outdated nowadays, but he was really good at explaining stuff.

- Michio Kaku: He's on TV a lot, and works for NYU. I've read all his books, and they're all brilliant. In fact, I suggest you read his books over Hawkings' books because he's better at explaining stuff.

- Hawkings: He's the man and without question brilliant. However, some of his books aren't accessible for people who just start reading about the subject.

The cool thing is, you can find all their work in peer reviewed form in magazines and databases such as Proquest.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you blind? He admits both scientists dismissing the impossibility of the whole planet collision scenario, along with several people having problems his his interpretation and translations. I said that he believed he was ON THE RIGHT TRACK (in which case my citations support my argument). Also, you ignored what I had to say about him MANY times SPECIFICALLY stating that he does not agree with many (if not most) of his translations/interpretations.

books.google.com... t&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Pg 42

Here he admits that Sitchin's work is very pseudo-scientific, although he does not deny that that he may have had some valuable insights after all (which supports my initial argument that he believed he was ON THE RIGHT TRACK). You want me to personally ask him himself for you as well? Because trust me, I surely can... also let me know if you want links to interview where he states that he does not agree with much Sitchin has to say.

reply to post by bigbomb456


Just fyi, someone naming his book "The Giza Death Star" doesn't sound very scientific to me. It's one of those "action packed" titles pseudo-scientists use to attract attention. And then fools like me buy those books at crappy airport book stores

reply to post by MrXYZ


Trust me, I thought the exact same thing when I first heard it..the author intended it as a clever play on words.


Hasn't your mother ever taught you never to judge a book by it's cover?

Originally posted by bigbomb456
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Trust me, I thought the exact same thing when I first heard it..the author intended it as a clever play on words.

Hasn't your mother ever taught you never to judge a book by it's cover?

You wouldn't say that if you'd read as many crappy pseudo-science airport books as me. They all have titles like some Grisham novel, and they all suck. The tricky part is, a lot of them mix in proper science with complete hogwash. To the untrained eye it might often seem as if they had a point...trust me, they don't. At least Hoagland never did, and I'll remain skeptical about any book with an "action packed" title.

I'll stick to Kaku and Tyson...both a lot better and entertaining too.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Flatfish
Also, the Chinese as well as the Europeans both currently have lunar photographic missions underway which would lead me to ask; Why? Aren't there already enough moon pictures to "prove" that there are no buildings, etc...? What is left to learn from new photos of the moon? Why spend the kind of resources necessary to fund these missions if there is nothing left to learn?

If you did a little homework yourself instead of listening to Hoagland I'm sure you could find an answer to this. But none of the photographic missions have stated objectives to see if there are buildings or not as far as I know, so for you to suggest they are sending more missions to look for more buildings (is that what you're suggesting?) made me laugh.

Let's see what happens beginning 2016 when astronauts will be sent to the dark side to control surface robots from orbit. That could be an excuse for a real anomaly/structure look-see!