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.

 

Is Richard c hogland credible?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well, if you don't want to read the book don't....but I should warn you that you are definitely missing out on a true jewel.




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

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

(snip)
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?


NASA has already proven that there are no surface buildings on the moon with thousands, many thousands, of photos from orbit by Lunar Orbiters (and pre-LOs) and by astronauts from orbit and on the surface.

Hoagland, on the other hand, uses a NASA photo to show his "castle" hovering many miles above the lunar surface. This "castle", according to the photo he uses, should be between Crater Manilius and Rima Hyginus. Use Google Moon and see if you can find the "castle". Or take a look at Crater Ukert and see if it has a perfect triangular central peak which Hoagland alleges cannot be natural. Or find "L.A." and see if you can see the remnants of a destroyed city!



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

(snip)
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?
(snip)


The proof is in the pudding so why don't you provide some pudding? To make it easy on you, show just one photo that Hoagland and others show that it's been clearly manipulated.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
(snip)
- 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...
(snip)


I wouldn't go so far as saying that Tyson is the new Carl Sagan. We've discussed him in past threads and the consensus was that he is not that likable and his manner is sometimes "too much" to take. Sagan had a way about him that Tyson lacks. He may be highly-educated but sometimes too much education can get in the way of presenting "stuff".



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Hoagland never worked for NASA, he held 1 (!!) conference about a theory. He also never worked for JPL, and as for his claim to have worked as a consultant for CBS during the Apollo program, the founder of CBS called his views "hocus pocus nonsense." That's how CBS views him.



pg 448 of Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA

About the authors:

Richard Hoagland was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS news during the Apollo program, former curator at the Hayden Planetarium AND CONSULTANT TO NASA. He is the co-orginator, along with Eric Burgess, of the British Interplanetary Society, of the "Pioneer Plaque" currently carrying a message from mankind on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft. He is author of the Europa enigma, the first extensive scientific article proposing the mechanism by which life might exist in the oceans of Jupiter's moon Europa. This article became the basis for Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2010.

Michael Bara is an aerospace structural engineer with more than twenty-five years experience in the field. He is currently a CAD/CAM consultant for one of the largest engineering software solution providers in north america.


So what the # where you saying? Pardon my french............




Originally posted by MrXYZ
Look, I'm sure there's conspiracies. But Hoagland is a charlatan, watch the videos on page 1. His work has never been peer reviewed by anyone because he won't let people look at results. Not one of his claims has been independently verified, and his hyperdimensional vortex theory is based on complete pseudo-science...and anyone who ever took an astronomy/history class can tell.


You don't even have to buy any of his books, all you have to do is visit his website and watch some youtube videos. They are free you know.....in case you can't afford to spend money!


He is not the only person to bash nasa. Many other people have come to realise there is something very wrong with nasa. In fact if you knew anything at all about how government works you would realise that lots of "controversial" data gets classified under national security concerns.


Introduction II

The governmental institution known as NASA is a department of the executive branch, ultimately answerable solely to the president of the United States, an agency created through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

Contrary to common belief, it was quietly founded as a direct adjunct to the Department of Defense. It says so in NASA's chapter:

"Sec.305 The [National Aeronautics and Space] administration shall be considered A DEFENSE AGENCY of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the United States code."

Sec. 205 No [NASA] information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section[of the act]


Wow you are WRONG AGAIN....

Yes they do hide ANYTHING THEY WANT because they CAN and it is LEGAL to do so.

Other nasa employees have called it OPERATION AIRBRUSH! Read about that and open your eyes.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
Still fall for it? I'm selling tinfoil hats, special thanksgiving price of $9.99, or $14.99 for two!


As for me never having read his books: I travel a lot, and airport book shops are crappy enough to sell his books. I read 2 of them, and they were entertaining. Scientifically complete hogwash, but still entertaining. Like a Grisham novel...but at least Grisham isn't claiming to write about facts.
edit on 25-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I don't believe everything he says and I don't have to, but I believe much more than what nasa and our luciferian government WANTS ME TO BELIEVE. Yes I think our government is luciferian thats why there is a no pray zone at the white house and that is why they thought it was ok for them to kill 4,000 innocent people in nyc and washington, give us the unpatriotic act and homeland insecurity.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You're quoting his career description from his own book. Walter Cronkite from CBS called hims a "fool", and his "consultant" job consisted of 1 (!!!) presentation at Nasa. Now, I've worked as a consultant before, but I'd never call myself a consultant after giving just 1 presentation.

What about the fact that he won't allow people to peer review his work and look at his data. Why is he talking about hyperdimensional vortexes at 19.5 degrees N/S if those have never been demonstrated to exist? He's a crazy old fool who lives in a fantasy world at best, and a total charlatan at worst.

The fact that you don't like Nasa should make you believe his crap just because he agrees with you about NASA. For crying out loud, look at the facts instead of repeating his crap...start with properly assessing his career claims!

And "no pray zone"? Are you for real? Why do you bring religion into this, we're talking about reality here, and facts...not philosophy or mythical creatures that have no evidence as backup.

If you believe Hoagland, you might just as well go all-in and start believing Kent Hovind as well

edit on 27-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Let me put it this way
I read one chapter and threw the book away. His book and this forums are what made me start questioning my beliefs in UFO and all the junk spewed out on the internet



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You're quoting his career description from his own book. Walter Cronkite from CBS called hims a "fool", and his "consultant" job consisted of 1 (!!!) presentation at Nasa. Now, I've worked as a consultant before, but I'd never call myself a consultant after giving just 1 presentation.


I assure you CBS does not hire anyone off the street and neither does NASA. He must have been an astro-phycist with high credentials but when he turned against the establishment he became a non-persona; unknown and unwelcomed by some.

Reminds me of countless other professionals who are forced to keep quiet and thus prolong the world's misery such as Bob Lazar who worked at S-4 at Area 51, Stephen Castello who worked at the Dulce labs, Phil Schneider an architect of many DUMBS, John Lear famous pilot and son of the learjet founder, Alex Collier, David Icke, etc.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
What about the fact that he won't allow people to peer review his work and look at his data. Why is he talking about hyperdimensional vortexes at 19.5 degrees N/S if those have never been demonstrated to exist? He's a crazy old fool who lives in a fantasy world at best, and a total charlatan at worst.


How is he keeping his work "secret" when its been published in books and scientific journals?

Just because no one OFFICIALLY(unofficially they do) agree with him and constantly attack him, how does that qualify as "won't allow people to peer review his work"? Have you considered the possibility much of what he revealed was unjustly classified and he thought people should know about it?

Just saying if NASA is going to pretend they are a public(for the people) agency isn't it only fair they live up to our expectations?? I mean we have been paying them top dollars for many decades, I kinda feel cheated to be kept out of such great information even if its scary at first..........


Originally posted by MrXYZ
The fact that you don't like Nasa should make you believe his crap just because he agrees with you about NASA. For crying out loud, look at the facts instead of repeating his crap...start with properly assessing his career claims!


I dislike liers and cheats. It does not matter if its the government screwing me over or my neighbor john deck!


Originally posted by MrXYZ
And "no pray zone"? Are you for real? Why do you bring religion into this, we're talking about reality here, and facts...not philosophy or mythical creatures that have no evidence as backup.
edit on 27-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Well either you love lies and can't stand the truth OR your too lazy to do any research of your own. You wan't it all in a silver platter so you can then deny it and crack ad-hominem jokes on people who disagree with you.

Here is a proposal: Raid the pentagon and steal as many pertinent documents as you can. Then we will definetly know who is lying and who is telling the truth. Just becarefull you don't get caught and sent to fort leavenworth kansas.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


So CBS is behind him the...riiiight




Walter Cronkite has since called Hoagland's views "hocus pocus nonsense."


LINK

And he isn't an astro-physicist...he was a CURATOR!! The man doesn't even have a degree and certainly isn't a physicist.

And he never worked for NASA! Prove me wrong by finding any source proving that he did!! He never backs up any of his claims with evidence, he makes random statements...like the whole hyperdimensional vortex claims. Not once has it been demonstrated that those things exist, yet along at his 19.5 degrees N and S.

I can't believe people can be so gullible


Since you don't seem to want to check up on his credentials, I'll do it for you:

1) He never got a degree, not even an undergrad degree.

2) His Angstrom Medal for Excellence in Science is a FAKE!



Uppsala University in Sweden, with approval from Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, gives out the Angstrom Prize, which includes a medal and a cash award, given in the honor of 18th Century Swedish scientist Anders-Jonas Angstrom. Hoagland's medal, however, came from the separate Angstrom Foundation Aktiebolag (AFAB). This is a privately-owned company with no connection to Uppsala University or the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.


3) His claim that he was the one to fist propose there's an ocean under Europa's ice crust is WRONG!

LINK

He claims in 1980 he made that claim as the first person ever. Well, in reality, he made that claim 9 years (!!!) after the first person...but close enough, right?


4) Face of mars, moon, and other bollox...totally random.

He uses geometric shapes and draws a lot of line. But if you actually look it up, he adds the most random hills and formations to make his theory "fit". Like when he's drawing an even triangle between hypothetical artificial structure...some of them are always random hill that in no way, shape, or form could be mistaken for artificial structures.

5) Never worked for NASA, if anything, he gave 1 presentation.

6) He's being criticized by CBS as being a fool...even Cronkite says so!

To summarize, he's a good talker...but his scientific knowledge is seriously lacking. The only "science" (lol) advisory he did was on Coast to Coast...and yeah, we all know how reliable that is



edit on 27-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Why is he talking about hyperdimensional vortexes at 19.5 degrees N/S if those have never been demonstrated to exist? He's a crazy old fool who lives in a fantasy world at best, and a total charlatan at worst.


FYI, here are just a few demonstrations that energy vortexes exist in the vicinity of 19.5 N/S on earth as well as most, if not all, of the planets in our solar system.

1. (SUN) Most sunspot activity occurs at or near 19.5 N/S.
2. (Venus) Volcano complexes Alpha & Beta Regio are near 19.5 degrees.
3. (Mars) Olympus Mon shield cone volcano is at 19.5 degrees.
4. (Jupiter) The "Red Spot" is located at 19.5 degrees.
5. (Neptune) 1986 Voyager II discovered a similar spot at 19.5 degrees N..
6. (Earth) Mauna Loa, Hawaii (19 degrees 28 mins. N., 155 degrees 37 mins. W.) The largest shield volcano is at 19.6 degrees N., which is Mauna-Kea on the big island of Hawaii. Or how about, Mexico City (19 degrees 23 mins. N., 99 degrees 10 mins. W.) 40 miles southeast from Popocatepetl volcano. Then there's the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan at 19.6 degrees N. and Avebury (largest stone circle in the world located near Stonehenge) Not to mention the curious little fact that NASA chose to land the Mars Pathfinder at 19.5 degrees N. lat. and 33 degrees W. longitude on 7/4/97.

There are numerous additional earth hot spots that correlate with 19.5 degrees that I will not mention as I would hope that I have "demonstrated" enough. If it's absolute, irrefutable proof that you're waiting for, only time will tell who is right.

I believe that in the future much of Hoaglands work will prove to have been on the right track so I choose to remain open to his ideas, yet somewhat skeptical. Also, as previously stated, Nassim Haramein, whom I also believe is on the right track, gave a very enlightening lecture on quantum physics at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library where he demonstrated the universal relationship between the sphere and the tetrahedron throughout our universe and all life within it.

Ancient civilizations have left numerous clues to the importance of this sacred geometry that mankind is just beginning to recognize so if I were you, I'd take a little more of a "wait & see" attitude.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
you should check out the drawing an ex military remote viewer did of what approached phobos just prior to its malfunction. quite spooky.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 


I would love to check it out, do you have a link where I can view it?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

The proof is in the pudding so why don't you provide some pudding? To make it easy on you, show just one photo that Hoagland and others show that it's been clearly manipulated.


I like hogland for entertainment, but that is about it for now. As for "clear manipulation" how about the cover of his book "Dark Misssion." A masonic flag photoshopped over the american one? I know it was in jest, and yes I did read the book, and I did enjoy parts of it, but right there is the clearest evidence of photo manipulation for you. All to judge a book by it's cover, and make more money.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Quite a wild (and rather unsubstantiated, because they could all be coincidental) claim:


...just a few demonstrations that energy vortexes exist in the vicinity of 19.5 N/S on earth as well as most, if not all, of the planets in our solar system...


Let's skip Earth, for the moment. and look at Mars, Jupiter. You may actually wish to look up Olympus Mons...it is very large, and encompasses a great deal more than just "19.5 degrees" north.

Jupiter?? Seen the latest info? The original "large" red spot moves a lot...but, get this! Another is forming.

BTW...you do realize that Jupiter, what we see, is the atmosphere, right? The tops of the upper clouds, and weather patterns. That is all the red spot is, a huge, long-lasting storm. So, this compares to volcanoes in a zero way.

Red spot junior


Red Spot Junior is roughly half the size of its famous cousin, but its winds blow just as strong. This mighty new storm formed between 1998 and 2000 from the merger of three long-enduring white ovals, each a similar storm system at a smaller scale, which had been observed for at least 60 years. But it was not until February 27th of this year that Philippine amateur astronomer Christopher Go discovered that the color of the newly formed white oval had turned brick red. Astronomers were witnessing the birth of a new red spot.


Now Earth, since we know her best, being so nearby and all.....

You singled out the Hawai'i chain...reason more than one there, is plate tectonics, and crustal movement over a "thin" spot in mantle layers, below, that allow expulsion of the hot magma, normally contained. You mentioned Mexico City region, too. Again, these are coincidences, in terms of latitude. Why not look at the entire globe, and volcanoes locations? (How can we so soon forget the one in Iceland?? Or, Indonesia??):

www.geo.mtu.edu...


Hoagland's style is similar, it seems. Pull a few coincidences out of his butt, make them into something "special", when they aren't, and hope that the dazzling display of "brilliance" will fool enough people, who are already inclined to hang on his every word...and that they don't peek behind his curtain of fallacy, and fakery.

I mean, gawd forbid, people should ever think for themselves, study and learn and investigate!! Instead of just accepting people like Hoagland at their "word".....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, darn it! Now you got me intrested in Venus!!

Beta Regio is at 25.3 degrees North:
en.wikipedia.org...

But wait! There's more!


Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map),


And, here is the article, avec MAP:

volcano.oregonstate.edu...

Man!!! They're all OVER the place!!





edit on 28 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
He is credible in his field. His life mate is even more credible and one of the big players on earth today...

Truth.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't ever remember Hoagland stating that the energy vortexes are limited to 19.5 degrees, only that they are most prominent is these regions. I could have named numerous other earth volcanoes located at or near 19.5 degrees but I chose not to in order to shorten my response.

As far as Jupiter's Red Spot, you're right it is an atmospheric storm, much like our hurricanes which also like to form and strengthen in the vicinity of 19.5 degrees and the farther they move away from these regions, the weaker they become.

More information can be found by researching the earth's energy grid or what some call ley lines.

In Nassim Haramein's lecture, he explains that in physics there are two infinities, infinitely large and infinitely small. In geometry, the geometric shape which contains the largest volume is the sphere and the shape that contains the smallest volume is the tetrahedron. I could never do his lecture justice by attempting to explain it myself but, if you start with an infinitely large sphere (like our universe) and begin to reduce it to it's most infinitely small element, you would do so by creating a fractal inside of the sphere. I think that the only perfect fractal is tetrahedral in nature which may be a direct indication that in the world of quantum physics, these two geometric shapes are quite significant. I really think that more study is needed before we write these people off as charlatans.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





In Nassim Haramein's lecture, he explains that in physics there are two infinities, infinitely large and infinitely small.


And saying stuff like this makes Haramein a pseudo-scientist. FYI, you can't attribute a size (small vs large) to INFINITY. If something is infinity, it isn't small by the very definition of "infinity".

What Hoagland and others are doing, is cherry picking random events and occurrences, and then making outrageous claims about them. The whole energy vortex vs vulcanos discussion is an example for that. First of all, he never demonstrated how those energy vortices would create volcanos. He just CLAIMS they do. He then picks all the volcanos that are really close to 19.5 degrees N and S...and ignores the myriads of others that aren't "close enough to make it fit". Indonesia? Left it out! Iceland? Left it out!

It is basically the same thing those timewave zero fools are doing, assigning specific spots on random charts without any logic or rationality. For crying out loud, we know why the Haleakala (btw, I was there...it's freezing up there) formed, we know about plates shifting.

So I'll say it again, he never demonstrated those energy vortexes. He randomly links them to volcanos and then only picks volcanos that fit his theory. What's more, he completely ignores the fact that we know how those volcanos formed...I guess he never read about geology



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!

Originally posted by The Shrike

The proof is in the pudding so why don't you provide some pudding? To make it easy on you, show just one photo that Hoagland and others show that it's been clearly manipulated.


I like hogland for entertainment, but that is about it for now. As for "clear manipulation" how about the cover of his book "Dark Misssion." A masonic flag photoshopped over the american one? I know it was in jest, and yes I did read the book, and I did enjoy parts of it, but right there is the clearest evidence of photo manipulation for you. All to judge a book by it's cover, and make more money.



You're cute but silly! That's not the kind of manipulation I intended. I meant lunar images manipulated to hide lunar anomalies/structures.

BTW, go to THE NEW YORK TIMES and try to find the title of the book as a best seller, as bragged on the top left corner. With enough frustrating digging you may be able to find it but you might also give up! I think it was like #25.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Flatfish
 



In Nassim Haramein's lecture, he explains that in physics there are two infinities, infinitely large and infinitely small.

And saying stuff like this makes Haramein a pseudo-scientist. FYI, you can't attribute a size (small vs large) to INFINITY. If something is infinity, it isn't small by the very definition of "infinity".


You might want to check out some of the following links regarding "infinitely large and infinitely small," especially when it comes to mathematics. The first is by Israel Kleiner and is entitled "History Of The Infinitely Small & The Infinitely Large In Calculus" and can be found here; www.jstor.org... Or you may try this one entitled, "Reconciling The Infinitely Large and Infinitely Small." www.cnes.fr... You may also find this one interesting, it's entitled quite simply, "The Infinitely Small." spacetimeinfinity.com...

Apparently there are many highly educated people who disagree with your assertion regarding the impossibility of the "infinitely small." I think that's what they're currently attempting to determine at the CERN large hadron collider. Aren't they trying to determine if there is a "smallest" particle? I think that some have labeled this elusive quantum particle as the "God Particle" even though it has yet to be proven to exist.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
You won't get any sympathy from me in regards to Mr. Hoagland. He's a big boy, and can defend his theories himself. But whether wrong or right, I have to give the man credit for being willing to go up against the "gods" of the public sector of science.

C'mon guys, really. I notice many of you treat the public sector of science, including "Never A Straight Answer", as some kind of omniscient group of men who live on Mount Olympus. They can't make mistakes, would never lie, and have only your best interests at heart. And anyone who isn't part of the clique couldn't possibly have a good idea or theory. Especially if they don't have a degree, and aren't peer reviewed.

Seriously! You make it sound like the ordination of a priest, or a monk becoming part of the brotherhood in a monastery. Of course they need a degree and peer reviews if that's your perspective. And God forbid anyone like Richard Hoagland would upset the status quo, and blaspheme. By your own standards, that makes all of you who are discussing this, and aren't part of the clique, heathen's at best. (And please, I'm not calling anyone a heathen. It's just an analogy).

I used to be one of the inside crowd in the protestant church many years ago. And it is exactly this condescending mentality (among other things) toward those that weren't part of the in crowd that drove me away from the church completely, and permanently.

Look, I'm not trying to offend you guys at all. It's just an obversation, and I expect to be tarred and feathered for it. But I'm sure glad that some of the great men of the past didn't give up and die when their "peers" scoffed at them, and made sport of their theories.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Klassified because: Correction



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join