Richard C. Hoagland

[tommyball]

Now to be clear, I don't believe anything Richard C. Hoagland says. I'm writing this because I just want to know what others here have to add, specifically regarding his moon artifact allegations.

I was listening to C2C because Edgar Mitchell was the guest and then Hoagland pops on and tells his buddy George about all these great new images he has of artifacts on the moon. "Incontrovertible evidence" is the phrase he used. So I had some time to kill and went to his website. It is a labyrinth. I could not find these new images. Does anyone know how to navigate that thing? That's my first question.

There are older images up there which I've seen before (and I think mentioned here in relation to John Lear) and for the life of me I can't see anything... even after half a bottle of absinthe and with Dark Side of the Moon on surround sound. I'm no imaging expert, but I do use photoshop on a daily basis and no filtering or channel manipulation can reveal any sort of artifact to me. Anyone else?

Apparently Hoagland is going to the National Press Club with this info...

I can't wait.

-todd.

 

[Poi]

I've never seen what most anomalists see on the Moon or Mars, Todd. Faces, yes, but I guess we're wired to look for familiar objects.

Have looked through the moon shots John Lear posted at his website and the only thing I can agree with is that it appears some things in some of the images have been whitewashed or smeared. That it appears so doesn't make it so, however. I'm on that fence.

I don't think anyone but really fringy anomalists pay much attention to RCH nor will they at the National Press Club. He's just plain freaky. What tickles me is his abject enthusiasm. It's got to be fun to be nuts!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

It will most likely turn out to look like dirt and rocks. To me at least, but I'm a debunking disinfo agent.

 

[Miah]

I think this pics says it best, which it has said since the interview on C2C:

"Analysis coming soon" basically. He is a quack! He now says that the face on mars is an alien head when it's turned upside-down. He said you could see "girders" clearly.

He needs to join Sereda on the trip to Andromeda.

 

[tommyball]

I don't think anyone but really fringy anomalists pay much attention to RCH nor will they at the National Press Club. He's just plain freaky. What tickles me is his abject enthusiasm. It's got to be fun to be nuts!

Ha!

His enthusiasm does make for an exciting interview. I just listened to his latest C2C appearance and he didn't have anything substantial to back his theory of a massive NASA cover-up. There's a few blurry photos on the site apparently showing that C3-P0 head they brought back from the moon that provided NASA with all the secrets of the universe, but aside from that you have to buy the book or attend a press conference to get at the real incontrovertible evidence. Noory did ask Hoagland a few times what exactly led him to his conclusions, but Hoagland didn't offer much besides "insider" testimony and the old "it's in the book" trick.

He and Greer should host a party together...

-todd.

 

[devan]

On Hoagland's October 9 visit to Coast, he discussed his new book, "Dark Mission", as well as the robot head, lunar glass structures (made by humans?), blue skies on Mars, etc. About 15-20 minutes into the last hour, he claimed that he could and would defend his assertions against the country's toughest interviewers. I've chuckled with everyone else about the talking robot head. Others here have reacted with much more than a chuckle. I also expect that he's been blasted by David (haven't most people been?).

It's not like Hoagland is an unknown just trying to get publicity. He claimed to welcome a chance to defend himself - with evidence - against his toughest critics. Will Gene and David accept the challenge? Would Richard accept an invitation? If so, it would be an immediate classic and could double this show's listener base.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Who will blink first? 8)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

On Hoagland's October 9 visit to Coast, he discussed his new book, "Dark Mission", as well as the robot head, lunar glass structures (made by humans?), blue skies on Mars, etc. About 15-20 minutes into the last hour, he claimed that he could and would defend his assertions against the country's toughest interviewers. I've chuckled with everyone else about the talking robot head. Others here have reacted with much more than a chuckle. I also expect that he's been blasted by David (haven't most people been?).

It's not like Hoagland is an unknown just trying to get publicity. He claimed to welcome a chance to defend himself - with evidence - against his toughest critics. Will Gene and David accept the challenge? Would Richard accept an invitation? If so, it would be an immediate classic and could double this show's listener base.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Who will blink first? 8)

At one point, we actually heard from Hoagland, through an intermediary, indicating that he'd be willing to come on the show.

But when I tried to follow up, he went AWOL

 

[Goody]

I can see the 'pyramids' fairly clear, could be disinformation of some form.

I believe that the tendancy to 'believe' seriously retards our perception & ability to competently collect data; or in other words, it's called 'matrixing'.

Matrixing is what happens when the visual field being observed & percieved lacks enough definition or clarity, leaving the mind to fill in all the blanks. People who study ectoplasms in photographs often fall victim to this problem, although not all researchers do of course.

What I mean to say is that our need to find solid evidence of other life forms & civilisations (AKA: The moon & mars anomalies) distorts our 'critical thinking' such as in Hoaglands case. I believe he has jumped the gun & is now waving a flag that has 'The truth is right here!' on it, when he has barely even considered what else those anomalies could be.

That is how I see it anyway,

Goody.

 

[devan]

At one point, we actually heard from Hoagland, through an intermediary, indicating that he'd be willing to come on the show.

But when I tried to follow up, he went AWOL

That's unfortunate. It could be a great show if he did show up. I just replayed his challenge. Near the end of his appearance, he asked listeners to contact the producers of various major talk shows to request that he and his co-author be "on the show confronting our toughest critics. We will stand toe-to-toe with anybody!".

I don't know what reason he could use for not accepting an invitation here. With guests like Dolan, Maccabee, Friedman, Kimball, etc. it's not like the show is hosted by a 30 year-old living in his mother's basement. The only reasons I can think of involve possible competitive feelings with Toast and/or that the questions would be a "little tougher" than those posed by Larry King.

 

[Frootloop]

did the android head look anything like Brent Spiner?

 

[Astroboy]

did the android head look anything like Brent Spiner?

It's not C3PO or Data. It's the Cybermen!

I would like to have a career like Hoagland and identify booger smears on photos as Alien bases.

 

[Poi]

Booger smears?

Well, that explains everything. Those guys as ASU are real clods.

 

[ROY]

Has there been any update on what Hoagland had at his press meeting?
Just interested in know what he released.

 

[Paul Kimball]

At one point, we actually heard from Hoagland, through an intermediary, indicating that he'd be willing to come on the show.

But when I tried to follow up, he went AWOL

With guests like Dolan, Maccabee, Friedman, Kimball, etc. it's not like the show is hosted by a 30 year-old living in his mother's basement.

Hey - I like Stan and Bruce, but Rich and I are still on the sunny side of 40 (and I'm only 40, so I'm almost still in my 30s). Don't lump us in with the elder statesmen of ufology!

Paul

 

[tommyball]

Has there been any update on what Hoagland had at his press meeting?
Just interested in know what he released.

I assume he'll be back on C2C for a follow-up soon. The only other thing I've seen is on Pravda.

Hoagland was on over the weekend with Punnett but he of course didn't reveal much. There's a link on the enterprise site to the press conference release but no incontrovertible evidence of any moon artifacts as far as I can see, just the same old blurry pictures.

Hoagland shows up again and again on Toast to go and on about the giant glass mega-malls on the moon but never really gives up the goods. A lot like Greer and his flashlight loving space brothers.

If I had evidence along the lines of what he's been talking about, I'd make thousands of copies and send them out all over, not invite people to a $150 per person private conference. There was the National Press Club event, but aside from Pravda, I really wonder how many other journalists were there.

-t.

 

[Frootloop]

Again, as with so many "promised" releases of photos, such disclosures rarely amount to much.

The dialema is that we have plenty of stories that are FULL of information, but as they are lacking in photos, video or other hard evidence, they could easily fall into the catagory of creative sci-fi. In others we have a collection of photos or a compelling video BUT no verifiable witnesses or at the best, week information to corroborate the story. However, in the rare case of a story having both photos and reliable, credible witnesses, it is usually heavily debunked by public and the PTB

Is there a winning solution?

 

[tommyball]

Again, as with so many "promised" releases of photos, such disclosures rarely amount to much.

The dialema is that we have plenty of stories that are FULL of information, but as they are lacking in photos, video or other hard evidence, they could easily fall into the catagory of creative sci-fi. In others we have a collection of photos or a compelling video BUT no verifiable witnesses or at the best, week information to corroborate the story. However, in the rare case of a story having both photos and reliable, credible witnesses, it is usually heavily debunked by public and the PTB

Is there a winning solution?

Yes, Paul Kimball's "Best Evidence." That's what needs to get out there. Unfortunately, when ufology and the mainstream media do meet, you have people like Hoagland or Robert Miles or David Sereda (add your own...) that undermine it all.

In my opinion, if "Best Evidence," "Out of the Blue" and Dolan's "UFOs and The National Security State" were the stock information that the media used instead of Roswell and Area 51 whenever the UFO topic arose, we'd know a lot more about the subject. The weight of the evidence presented in those three works would easily stand up to the attacks of any skeptic.

-todd

 

[Frootloop]

In my opinion, if "Best Evidence," "Out of the Blue" and Dolan's "UFOs and The National Security State" were the stock information that the media used instead of Roswell and Area 51 whenever the UFO topic arose, we'd know a lot more about the subject. The weight of the evidence presented in those three works would easily stand up to the attacks of any skeptic.

-todd

I have watched "Out of the Blue" and am definately looking forward to buying the new version. But Roswell and Area 51 are part of popular culture and is naturally what everyone latches on to when "Aliens" or "UFOs" are mentioned.

 

[Paul Kimball]

In my opinion, if "Best Evidence," "Out of the Blue" and Dolan's "UFOs and The National Security State" were the stock information that the media used instead of Roswell and Area 51 whenever the UFO topic arose, we'd know a lot more about the subject. The weight of the evidence presented in those three works would easily stand up to the attacks of any skeptic.

-todd

I have watched "Out of the Blue" and am definately looking forward to buying the new version. But Roswell and Area 51 are part of popular culture and is naturally what everyone latches on to when "Aliens" or "UFOs" are mentioned.

Yes, but whose fault is that? Ufology's. They have plugged Roswell, and abductions, and government cover-up, for decades now, instead of focusing on better cases, data, and trying to make the argument for a serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

Paul

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yes, but whose fault is that? Ufology's. They have plugged Roswell, and abductions, and government cover-up, for decades now, instead of focusing on better cases, data, and trying to make the argument for a serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

Paul

Yes UFOlogy has plugged the above for decades but you can't seriously believe that mainstream media is interested in the nuts and bolts stuff, they couldn't care less. All they are interested in is the sensational side to the field and are not adverse to editing out anything from interviews that doesn't meet their criteria.