Richard Hoagland - I'm calling you out!

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Kandinsky
 




My heart also goes out to Arken, he's constantly being accused of being an attention-hungry hoaxer. He's like a cross between Hoagland and Joan of Arc - no matter how many of his threads are shown to be wrong or hoaxes, he keeps coming back and trying to save ATS. I try and make it a habit to star his posts out of solidarity for his cause. Joan of Arc went to her grave for the cause and she reminds me a great deal of Arken.


How do you permit of this statement on me?
Your statement is absolutely off topic. U2U me if you have something to tell me, directly.

What accusation? From who? YOU?

This is only your personal opinion and few others. And only a YOUR problem.

I'm no one. I'm not hungry of attention nor an hoaxer, my baby.

I'm only courious. I want to know and show what, in my personal opinion, merit attention and scrutinized from other members on ATS.
If this behavior break your state of mind, again, it is only a YOUR problem.










Perhaps I should read all these pages first (seeing I'm reading them backwards but)
Arken is one of the BEST ATS-contributors we have or at least, I believe so. I've enjoyed all his threads/replies.

Why is this even allowed on this thread anyway?


Arken, I'm interested in reading about your opinion concerning Hoagland. And let me apologize one more time for jumping in here and reading this backwards. But I just felt I wanted to say something about Kandinsky remark.




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 

Richard Dolan is a frequent visitor to this website.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by yak055h
 



Back then it was "blue screen" (cobalt blue) and the method was chroma-key.


Similar to this??:



For those unfamiliar, this is a photo snapped ON SET during the production of "The Original Series" Star Trek episode entitled "Space Seed".

(Where, for you trivia buffs, we were first introduced to the character of "Khan Noonien Singh"....or, just "Khaaaaaan!" (The famous shout from the movie version which served as a sort of "sequel" to this episode....).

Here, for a memory jog:



"Shatner's Legacy", just one of many......feel for him!!!!

Anyway, the episode of "ST: TOS" (shorthand that Star Trek fans will recognize) was shot just a few weeks or months before it aired (Official air date was


Original air date February 16, 1967


(Just one source)


At many points in the production of this television series, as is well known, they were delivering the finished episodes to NBC only weeks (or less) prior to the scheduled air dates. This is part of the other trivia points well understood by hard-core fans of the show.


SO, anyways......the ^^^ above^^^ image is I hope, reprsentative of the ACTUAL STATE OF THE ART in the late 1960s....and NOT as suggested by zorgon in the images he showed, from 2005 technology!!!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MadMartian
 


Let me see if I understand this:
Are you and OP saying Richard Hoagland knows more but is holding back? Are you also saying he's employed by NASA and is purposefully putting out just a 'drip' of truth (about the Face on Mars)?

Why? What the hell is gained by that?

I don't understand what you're getting at.

So in theory you're saying, NASA told Hoagland to make his 'conspiracy rounds' for the last 10+ years and just tell a little bit about the whole truth that will change Human history. And while he was doing that, he was to be sure to look like a complete kook and tell the conspiracy listening audience that comet Elenin is actually a cloaked mothership. But he was told to make SURE he DIDN'T tell the people the 'whole truth' about Mars.
Am I getting this correct?
If so.......that's insane!!!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


This is a terrible mistake to make:


Perhaps I should read all these pages first (seeing I'm reading them backwards but) ....


Explains much, though, sometimes...

A "cautionary tale", perhaps??



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

I'll be honest and say I don't know how many photo's have or have not been published and can't be bothered to go trawling for that kind of info but I vaguely remember seeing a figure quoted somewhere (possibly on this forum) that was "quite large". You seem to know a lot about these things so thought you or another viewer on this thread might be able to furnish that information. I guess not though. I have been on those pages before while reading mission transcripts, among other things, but anyway...

That was the smallest point of my post as I think you will agree. Personally, I'd rather spend my time learning about other more relevant (to me) and interesting things than and rather focus on the anomalies of which there seem to be plenty.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Fair enough:


I'll be honest and say I don't know how many photo's have or have not been published .....



However, if one wishes to merely "follow the herd" of the NASA "bashers" that are out there, one should at least take some effort to ascertain the truth. The real truth....yes?



.....and can't be bothered to go trawling for that kind of info.


Oh, well.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Hi '___'


There are many images held back - from Lunar Orbiter to Clementine of the Moon. There was a McDonalds that was abandoned that had many many many images that were found!

These have now mysteriously disappeared. Zorgon has done many threads on missing NASA images (mainly of the Moon).

Why do they hold them back or hide them from public viewing - well I think the "Brookings report" answers this question - which basically states IF ETs were contacted - it would scare the pants off most of the globe (unfortunately the western world lives in a fear space - so I guess this would probably be true for the western world - it is slowly changing in a positive way now though)

Now look at South America - where the people there do not live with the fear based reality - there they are very open - and many do believe in ETs and would WELCOME them because they know through their histories.

Also Asia and India would be more open. For some silly reason the "world" seems to only involve western "powers" and what they think/want. Hopefully most westerners can cross the bridge of fear and relate to all people from across the globe and discuss the possibilities and realities.

The FEAR is holding us all back. Let it go I say. then the party will begin.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

I never follow the herd. I think (maybe not always correctly) for myself based on what I have "discovered". As for bashing,please show me where I have done that in this thread. Thanks!
I do obviously appreciate your concerns for my mental health and/or limitations but fail to see how you arrive at your opinion or scathing comments. If that is the best you can do then I think our discussion, at least on this thread, is over.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Hi watchZEITGEISTnow (cool name by the way, a movie everyone should watch, all of them) and thanks for the info. I do remember a McDonalds vaguely. Weren't they doing some analysis in an old McDonalds too? Could be wrong on the last bit. I will check out some zorgon threads. He seems to have a lot of interesting info but the trouble with some of the threads is that they get buried quickly under the lighter ones. I was clicking links in your sig and finding new people with old threads, from memory mike singh, who seemed to have quite an epic one. The trouble with searching is that so many hits come back that its hard to see the stars through the galaxies.


The Brookings report is a new one on me too but thanks for the synopsis. It reeks of speciesism (like racism almost). I would be scared the first time only if "it" jumped out from behind a building unexpectedly. After that, my curiousness would kick in very fast. I think many of us are actually more than ready to meet other possible forms of life. Especially as here on earth we are all locked into a never-ending mundane nightmare of drudgery and poverty and pointlessness (speaking for myself at least, anyway). If I could be in outer space on some far flung world with a being who wanted to suck my brains out, I can't imagine it being much worse than here at the moment.


Fear is our only God and I have been forced to lose mine (fear that is) due to circumstances. Anyway, thanks for the info, food for thought and further research.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

Hera ya go - a DOOOOZY:
Missing Lunar Orbiter Tapes Found In an Abandoned McDonalds
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

Missing Apollo Data tapes
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 

Thanks!
Subscribed for reading material for tomorrow.

ETA Hmm, "subscribe" doesn't seem to be working for me here (Firefox). No problem though, this thread is subscribed so I'll have a reference point to work from.
edit on 23/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


They seem to loose a lot at NAZA!

Nasa Have lost the moon landing videos...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Incidentally, zorgon, don't you think perusing NASA images for "artifacts" while claiming that the folks who took those pictures were faking it trying to have your cake and eat it too?


It seems you have become confused.

While many researchers say that the moon walks could have been faked and lied about, some of these same researchers believe that the lunar orbital photographs are still useful, even though they (the orbital images) might also have been subject to manipulation.

*This cannot be compared to eating ones cake whilst still retaining external possession of said cake.

A more apt analogue would be a cake researcher researching a cake which he has declared there to be something 'off' about. And then he proceeds to eat the cake while he's at it, all the while people like you look on in confused exasperation: "But how can he indulge in the cake whilst impugning it?!"

That is what you are dealing with.

edit on 24-12-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
SO, anyways......the ^^^ above^^^ image is I hope, reprsentative of the ACTUAL STATE OF THE ART in the late 1960s....and NOT as suggested by zorgon in the images he showed, from 2005 technology!!!



I believe that a more apt comparison would be the effects used in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
2001 A Space Odyssey The example you used seems chosen to reflect some of the lower-budget effects available at the time. I can only hope that this was not intentional.

*Zorgon, has made some excellent points thus far.

edit on 24-12-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



A more apt analogue would be a cake researcher researching a cake which he has declared there to be something 'off' about. And then he proceeds to eat the cake while he's at it, all the while people like you look on in confused exasperation: "But how can he indulge in the cake whilst impugning it?!"


Don't complain if you get cramps, then.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Don't complain if you get cramps, then.


Are you agreeing with my analogy?

There is no need to be so cryptic, DJW001.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Arken
 


Oh, please?! "All"????


The Space/Moon/Mars missions (all) are deliberately faked for the public opinion.


This is where reason has left the building. And is headed to "Skunk Works".


I agree with your assessment of this thread in general, but I have first hand knowledge of the Skunk Works and to bring them into a discussion on hoaxing is disingenuous to the Skunk Works. They are quite real and not in any way a joke.

As to the thread's subject, Richard Hoagland, he is a disinformation shill of the PTB. He is a distraction from the truth. They knew there was "something" up there, they (NASA) knew this from all the orbital cameras they had over the moon that they used data from to choose landing sites.

There are reasons for the poor quality of the pics, go watch a commercially produced VHS tape on your wide screen HDTV and you'll see what I am talking about. There is a vast difference in technology you have to consider and you have to consider that there were the "security" issues too. They found things up there that they did not want anyone (USSR/China) to get an inkling of when they sent the orbiters up there to map the moon for landing areas. They were afraid to go public with it due to the Brookings Institute study. They did not want an upheaval of the status quo. There were very upheaval-producing artifacts and creatures there, "...yes there is a Santa Claus." as one astronaut said as they came from around the backside of the moon, for instance.

The cameras they carried where THE state of the art in technology of the time and they spent many hours learning to use them so as to get as many good pics as possible of the area where they landed. Very precious few of these photos have been released and many that have been, have been heavily doctored, as were the video files...yes, ON PURPOSE!

We are certainly not alone in the universe and these tapes and pics were the proof NASA needed and kept to themselves. A hoax as big as hoaxing the moon landings would not have been possible to keep under wraps for this long a time. Someone or more than just one person would have cracked, but no one credible has.

Then there are the images of Clementine, a high quality camera aboard the moon orbiter, that have shown in great detail, the places the missions landed. Then there are those pesky moon rocks that have been examined by every leading university on the planet and who have unanimously agreed that they could NOT have been produced on the earth. (No we did not have any robotics capable of gathering and returning them. It would not have been possible. The computers of the day were horridly incapable of such complex functions.) And of course, there is that little laser reflecting device they set up that is to this day used to determine the distance to the moon from the earth and other functions, and also, the seismographs they left up there that still produce data.

Anyone who does not believe we went there is grossly foolish.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Arken
"...yes there is a Santa Claus." as one astronaut said as they came from around the backside of the moon, for instance.


Instance of what, please? Of unacknowledged secrets on the back side of the Moon? I think not. The quote was from Jim Lovell, Command Module Pilot of Apollo 8, on Christmas Eve 1968. It was Lovell's sole responsibility to perform the engine retro-burn that would put the spacecraft in lunar orbit, because the burn had to happen when Apollo 8 was not in communication with Mission Control. It had never been done before and, since they were not on a free-return trajectory, failure would have had catastrophic consequences. That was the reason for the celebration.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asertus

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Arken
"...yes there is a Santa Claus." as one astronaut said as they came from around the backside of the moon, for instance.


Instance of what, please? Of unacknowledged secrets on the back side of the Moon? I think not.


Because you "think not" does not make it untrue. Fact is, it was a coded message that teh astronauts understood. "Santa Claus" was frequently used as the subject in such communications. To use Santa Claus as a message of the completion of one of the maneuvers would be illogical since there were automated data streams of information and radar tracking from the earth and aboard the orbiter to confirm that the maneuver was successful. He didn't need to say so and especially, he needn't have to cloak it in code.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zedta
 


You are talking about something else entirely:


I agree with your assessment of this thread in general, but I have first hand knowledge of the Skunk Works and to bring them into a discussion on hoaxing is disingenuous to the Skunk Works. They are quite real and not in any way a joke.


I did NOT mean Lockheed's "skunk works".

I meant the Forum here on ATS that they have labeled "Skunk Works". Yes, I have a "beef" with that term as it applies here, but it is their right to use it as they see fit, here.





top topics
 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join