- Status
Man, I hate to break it to you, but Rich Hoagland is a fraud. He slithers into crowds of hopefuls and true believers and invents just enough jive to drive people to his website. He's the equivalent of a traveling evangelist hustling a willing crowd into hysterics under the revival tent. <i>Literally:</i> the guy does sell stuff...<br /><br />But, hey, if his brand of science fiction is what floats your boat, glad you found him. Otherwise, the best antidote is Phil Plait of "Bad Astronomy" fame, who has looked at the Eye of Insanity and lived to debunk it. Check out Hoagland's claims and see what happens to them under a critical eye. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>
Let WE THE PEOPLE judge what is fraudulent by clicking on this link: http//:www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm. The rest of you two can keep burying your collective heads in the sand.
Uh, sure...<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Let WE THE PEOPLE judge what is fraudulent...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />WE did. We pay tax (heck, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, so I'm definitely part of "The People."). "We" voted Hoagland as fraudulent.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...by clicking on this link: [snip]. The rest of you two can keep burying your collective heads in the sand.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You wouldn't happen to be Hoagland, would you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>
We the people predicted X amount of Right Things.<br /><br />Why does the Earth spin?<br /><br />Not an answer is not an answer - you can't blame Hoagland
Same question, different thread: how many different places are you going to post the link? Just here to spam? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
And for the answer, go here:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=286562&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=4 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Let WE THE PEOPLE judge what is fraudulent<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My vote is for fraud and charlatan. None of his "evidence" is even remotely convincing. He seems to bend real science to fit his predetermined conclusions. IMO
Those of you who are anti Houghland are just repeating mainstream opinion. A few of Richard Houghland's ideas are quite probable, perhaps a higher percentage than stevehw, crazyeddie and mentalavenger. Neil
"Those of you who are anti Houghland are just repeating mainstream opinion."<br /><br />It's an issue of credibility, IMHO. We have a man who is the "captain" of his website, which is a fictional starship.<br /><br />He circumvents known physics and math by offering conspiracies and hoaxes as the reason that things don't work.<br /><br />Where is his science? The best (and only) way to refute that DI didn't impact comet Tempel is to PROVE its impossibility using math and physics as the foundation for his argument.<br /><br />Bandying untested and unexplained theories about as proof isn't exactly how a person would win over the opinion of rational and educated people.<br /><br />I don't know which is worse. The level of insult he delivers on the intelligence of his "believers", or the amount of intellectual insult his "believers" will allow them selves to be force fed.<br /><br />He refutes the obvious in some cases. I don't need to know the scientific difference between an apple and a red rock to understand that my teeth won't break when I bite into the apple.<br /><br />I won't take it on faith that I should throw everything I know about physics and math and their application out the window and disbelieve that we can't hit a comet. I used to be into archery. Even without the math and physics, I know with absolute certainty that my arrow can hit a moving target.<br /><br />Credibility, my friend. That's what is at issue. And every person has to judge how much credibility can be extracted from someone's opinions and ideas.<br /><br />When Mr Hoagland can SHOW me scientific proof that 400 years of physics and math are invalid, I'll eat my hat for you.<br /><br />Currently, I'm not in the market for black magic, smoke, mirrors, snake oil, or the ideology that anything is possible just because I wish it to be so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
<br /><br />Those of you, who are satisfied with "scientific" NASA's explanation?
<br />Forums have been created for that reason. <br /><br />hmmm...those buffs are spinning everywhere they could....If RCH respected himself and his "work" he might want to consider concentrating on making it palatable and presentable to academia, even if he had to spoon feed them a bit at a time with excellent and well written though incremental whitepapers. <br /><br />The evolution of knowlege proceeds by leaps and bounds, not by gradual progression and usually those who are on the leading edge like Galileo, Bohm, Pauli, Bruno suffer a lot before they are recognized, if they survive to see it.<br /><br />At the same time, the reason that Galileo, Bohm and Pauli and Bruno were finally respected as visionary was because of the careful work they undertook to develop their science.<br /><br />RCH has not been at all careful with his image and has shown little respect for himself. The last time I looked at his site(before 5min ago), 5-6years ago, it was loaded with references and comparisons to Egyptian mythology and attempts to link it all together in some grand, conspiratorial scheme...<br /><br />Sorry, I have my hands full with exploring the potentials of entanglement theory, UAP investigation and protecting my credibility and image while working on it...<br /><br />Heck, I am not even an academic but I know how NOT to do it... just take my lesson from the likes of RCH, Skeptical Inquirer, MUFON, Raelians, the Catholic Church, Jeff Rense and others.....
"At the same time, the reason that Galileo, Bohm and Pauli and Bruno were finally respected as visionary was because of the careful work they undertook to develop their science."<br /><br />I have to disagree with you on this one, arc...Galileo was told to shut up or be tortured. Bruno was burned at the stake. Their vindication had nothing to do with the careful scientific work they did, and it did not come in their lifetime. Their "careful scientific work" was scoffed at and ridiculed at the time. They were called heretics, lunatics, nutjobs, and possibly even woo-woos....lol. Their vindication only came because many, many more followed who validated their findings and made it impossible for the naysayers to say nay any longer.<br /><br />(Not to put RCH in the same class as Galileo or Bruno, I think he is a huckster.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
GRR8, the 1st thing to lose any audience here is to quote Richard Hoagland. sorry. it's just the way it is. you're new here i suppose, so you are entitled to some mistakes; i still make them. but never do i side nor associate with RCH. drop him like a bad habit even you are the biggest alt-sci freak on earth --don't run with RCH. he's bad news. and you will not be taken seriously.
I used to listen to Richard C. Hoagland with an open mind… until he said Iapetus was an artificial moon made by aliens. That was pretty much it for me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">Iaccotta - Those of you, who are satisfied with "scientific" NASA's explanation? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br />Forums have been created for that reason. </font><br /><br />Yes, quite right. Thank you for pointing out that there are many science forums discussing the topic of science and the many fields that relate to it. Thank you for further emphasizing that RCH's quasi-mythological ramblings have nothing which satisfies science and we should defer to NASA's scientific explanations regarding those matters.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
lacotta,<br /><br />Just a bit curious here: It certainly is ok, but what on God's Green Earth possessed you to delve "<i>WAY BACK</i>" in the SDC archives to find a 2 year old thread about Richard's assessment of the "Deep Impact" mission (which in a single post degenerated into bashing Richard Hoagland, never even discussing his Deep Impact data assessments) ???<br /><br />What is <b>YOUR</b> opinion of Deep Impact, and Richard's ideas about that particular mission? Has anyone here even <i>READ</i> Richard's paper about Deep Impact?<br />-------------------------------------------------<br /><br />onesmallstep: Your "huckster" comment aside, you hit it right on the head: <font color="yellow">"Their "careful scientific work" was scoffed at and ridiculed at the time. They were called heretics, lunatics, nutjobs, and possibly even woo-woos....lol. Their vindication only came because many, many more followed who validated their findings and made it impossible for the naysayers to say nay any longer."</font><br /><br />Hopefully we will not have to be "shamed" into vindicating our Hoaglands and Carlottos by the validation of more honest <i>foreign</i> space agencies, i.e. China, etc.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------- <br /><br />bonzelite: <font color="yellow">"GRR8, the 1st thing to lose any audience here is to quote Richard Hoagland. sorry. it's just the way it is. you're new here i suppose, so you are entitled to some mistakes; i still make them..."</font><br /><br />Lose an audience here? Is that why my <i>"Coincidences Are So Cool"</i> thread has clocked over 47,000 views? <br />Speaking of mistakes, umm, did you look at the DATE on GR88's post? He not only is not new, he is long since gone.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"but never do i side nor associate with RCH. drop him like a bad habit even you are the biggest alt-sci freak on earth --don't run with RCH. he's bad news. and you will not be taken seriously."</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
don't worry, Zen, i'm just as much the blacksheep as ever. hoagland raises good points but goes WAY too far to accept apparently anything that appears anomalous. <br /><br />i do like and believe some of his ideas, but he has tarnished his image by taking any tom, dick, and harry lunatic fringe idea as being possible or credible. like the "artifacts" and "tools" and "wreckage" he insists is in EVERY martian and lunar landscape. he must not have heard of "rocks."<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
I'm a bit late on the discussion here but a bit of info on Hoagland.<br /><br />He began his career of finding alleged anomalies by claiming the face on Mars was part of a system of artificial constructs and of course, claiming NASA was covering up.<br /><br />If he'd stopped right then and there, his credibility could be intact today. But Mars wasn't enough, he went on to claim there were obolisks on the moons farside, that one of Saturns moons was an artificial construct. All the time claiming NASA was covering it all up, "They dont want us to know" ooooh ahh.<br /><br />If there were this much alien activity going on, most folks would personally know an alien by now.<br /><br />RHCs entire career since the FOM is based on NASA imagery and other data. He has no way to provide evidence for his claims except through NASA images that he finds patterns in and then claims these patterns to be associated with alien activity.<br /><br />While its possible we have been visited by ETs, Hoaglands claims are not what I would consider reliable evidence for such visitations. But thats just me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
<i><b>"If there were this much alien activity going on, most folks would personally know an alien by now. "</b></i><br />^^^LOL!!!!! yes!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha!! OMG!! tell me about it! <br /><br />he goes waaaaaay too far. literally, to him, "everything" is evidence for ET. the guy is a whack job.
Doin okay, how bout yourself? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Watch 2 gorgeous supernova remnants evolve over 20 years (timelapse video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
Satellite images overlay 2024 and 2017 total solar eclipses sweeping across US
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram