• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

More Moon Stuff


And I’d suggest you thinking Randall’s comment was “shitty”was definitely a personal attack but as usual the Don is never wrong.
 
My my my... The hate factor really seems to be rev-ed up. Take a break and chill.
And I’d suggest you thinking Randall’s comment was “shitty”was definitely a personal attack but as usual the Don is never wrong.

Thats correct, I said the comment was shitty .. not Randall. Now, had I said Randall was shitty ... That would be a personal attack. Hope that is clear.

Decker
 
Randall, do you have a point to make or is this simply your way of tweaking me? I have known DICK Hoagland for 30 years. If you were simply attempting to be shitty ... well buddy, you managed that well. If you don't like who I have on as a guest ... don't freaken listen ... but I don't need your cheap shots which is exactly what you just did.
My post was simply a response to this one that echoed the implied sentiment of that poster. No "tweaking" or attempting to be "shitty" to you. In fact I can't think of a single time I've gone out of my way to be "shitty" to anyone. Unfortunately however, there are those who are prone to thinking they're being treated "shitty" personally when someone expresses a different perspective than theirs. IMO they could benefit from learning to be more objective. In this case you used the word "if" ( implying you weren't certain ), so I hope this clears that up. My personal take on Hoagland is that although he's out there on the fringe, he's become an interesting character on the ufology landscape. Beyond that I don't know the guy. I remember trying to figure out if his Accutron watch torsion field detection theory was sound, and that led me into some other interesting fringe stuff.
 
Last edited:
My post was simply a response to this one that echoed the implied sentiment of that poster. No "tweaking" or attempting to be "shitty" to you. In fact I can't think of a single time I've gone out of my way to be "shitty" to anyone. Unfortunately however, there are those who are prone to thinking they're being treated "shitty" personally when someone expresses a different perspective than theirs. IMO they could benefit from learning to be more objective. In this case you used the word "if" ( implying you weren't certain ), so I hope this clears that up. My personal take on Hoagland is that although he's out there on the fringe, he's become an interesting character on the ufology landscape. Beyond that I don't know the guy. I remember trying to figure out if his Accutron watch torsion field detection theory was sound, and that led me into some other interesting fringe stuff.

Randall I can attest to the fact that you're one of the nicest guys I've ever met, while not taking any crap from anyone.

@Decker: Why defend Hoagland or give him a sounding board?

1. He doesn't have a shred of scientific training or credibility.

Although he has written of "my decades-long, demonstrated scientific competence"[3] he has no special knowledge of, or standing in, any branch of science. He has no education beyond high school and his count of peer-reviewed publications is exactly zero.

2. He lies. Repeatedly. Consistently.

  • The Face on Mars has been created by extraterrestrial intelligence.
  • "I was co-creator of the plaque on the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes that was a message to extraterrestrials" (actually Hoagland had no part in its creation at all.)
  • "The hammer-and-feather stunt on Apollo 15 was my idea" (actually it was Joe Allen's. Hoagland had nothing to do with it.)
  • "I coined the phrase "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"" (actually New Yorker cartoonist Peter Steiner did.)
  • The Juno rocket that launched Explorer 1 benefited from a secret anti-gravity boost.
  • Eclipses and transits create "torsion waves" that change the inertia of everything they pass through.
  • The Abydos helicopter is, well, a representation of a helicopter.[11]
  • The Apollo 1 astronauts were murdered.[12]
  • Iapetus, one of Saturn's moons, is artificial,[13] as is Mars's inner moon Phobos.[14]
  • There are semi-transparent glass structures on the Moon.[15]
  • 9/11 was not only a conspiracy, but a magic ritual, part of a secret war between the Freemasons and Knights Templar who control the US government on one hand, and the hashashim (which include Osama bin Laden as a key member) on the other.[16]
  • Judy Wood is correct in her analysis that the WTC towers were brought down by a directed energy weapon.[17] Planes did also hit the towers, but they were "copies" of the flights the media reported.
  • NASA has covered up nearly everything found by space exploration, because The Brookings Report (1960) said knowledge of ET would cause world chaos (actually, it didn't say that at all.)
  • NASA has an "obsessive, relentless"[18] fixation on launching only when any of five specific stars are at any of five specific elevations, as seen from either the Cape or Houston[note 2].
  • The Norwegian Spiral wasn't only a failed Russian missile test; the missile was intercepted mid-flight with a torsion field weapon, most probably — by "Nazi-derived off-world colonies", in order to intimidate Obama, who was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo at that time. Apparently, the intimidation ploy succeeded and Obama cancelled the Constellation program, "blackmailed" (…) into "imprisoning" Humanity on Earth…[19] (If only someone else had manned spaceflight capability!)
3. He can't do basic, high school levels of math - yet attempts to use math to prove his theories.
I'll leave this to the interested reader to count the math mistakes on this one page alone:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

Hoagland is untrained, incapable of understanding math or science, and a proven liar. He's an embarrassment to anyone that's actually trying to understand anything about this field.
Richard C. Hoagland - RationalWiki
 
Back
Top