Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Sam" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Hoagland is a crackpot.

Opinion. Specific evidence?

Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down his
bibliography.


He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
he's wrong here.

Specific evidence?


You are joking right?

No, I'm Sam.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Sam" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Hoagland is a crackpot.

Opinion. Specific evidence?

Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down his
bibliography.


He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
he's wrong here.

Specific evidence?


You are joking right? Have you seen ANY of the photographs taken of the
"face" in the last decade.

i.e. the ones that show positively there is NO FACE there and never has
been.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...01/ast24may_1/

Start there.

Specific evidence not supplied. Noted. Thanks.

"Sam" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Sam" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Hoagland is a crackpot.

Opinion. Specific evidence?

Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down
his
bibliography.


He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
he's wrong here.

Specific evidence?


You are joking right? Have you seen ANY of the photographs taken of the
"face" in the last decade.

i.e. the ones that show positively there is NO FACE there and never has
been.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...01/ast24may_1/

Start there.

Specific evidence not supplied. Noted. Thanks.

Umm, it doesn't get much more specific than that.

But congratulations, you have succeeded in convincing everyone that you're
an idiot.




--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:47:49 -0400, Sam
wrote:

. . .

I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
this Elenin stuff.

If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.

But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.

Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
people usually want to believe them.

But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
interview are their only source of income.

The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.

This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
basically lead you round in circles.

Congratulations. You seem to be following a similar road as I. There
may come a time when you realize that Hoagland's "yelling and
screaming" has never been valid, i.e., he never really had any "solid
material" to run out of.

Just as with most things like this, there is always the positive side.
As you point out, ". . . it pulls you in with all kinds of fascinating
concepts, and then takes you off on a convoluted trip round the
galaxy, so that your attention is always 'out there' . . ." And this
is its only saving grace. It helps maintains the public awareness so
that valid projects are more likely to receive support.

Did you know that astronomy and astrology used to be considered one
and the same thing? Did you know that many of the people who avidly
support astronomy projects read their daily astrology newspaper quips?
Fascinating people, humanity, eh?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:

Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
bought some of those nifty postage stamps...

http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm

that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...

An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
Paine Ellsworth

A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam

Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
that surrounds Saturn's North pole...

I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"

Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding

Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.

it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
of science.

That is, when science can be of assistance.

When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.

Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
Mars.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

On 10/17/2011 10:02 AM, Sam wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Hoagland is a crackpot.

Opinion. Specific evidence?

Face on Mars.

He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
he's wrong here.

Specific evidence?

Face on Mars.















--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

In article , (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

In article ,
Quaalude wrote:

"An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...

The woo is strong with this one.

Is that what they're calling the good designer drugs now?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:03:09 -0400, HVAC wrote:

Specific evidence?

Face on Mars.

Assclowns, gather around and listen. If someone demands evidence to
back up your assclowny assertions, then responding something
equivalent to "er, over there" is no evidence at all.

Strike that.

It *is* evidence that assclowns have retarded mental capabilities so I
apologize fro my error. lol
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:10:41 -0400, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:47:49 -0400, Sam
wrote:

. . .

I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
this Elenin stuff.

If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.

But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.

Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
people usually want to believe them.

But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
interview are their only source of income.

The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.

This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
basically lead you round in circles.

Congratulations. You seem to be following a similar road as I. There
may come a time when you realize that Hoagland's "yelling and
screaming" has never been valid, i.e., he never really had any "solid
material" to run out of.

No, Hoagland has tons of relevant, worthwhile to investigate material.

Just as with most things like this, there is always the positive side.
As you point out, ". . . it pulls you in with all kinds of fascinating
concepts, and then takes you off on a convoluted trip round the
galaxy, so that your attention is always 'out there' . . ." And this
is its only saving grace. It helps maintains the public awareness so
that valid projects are more likely to receive support.

Hoagland has valid projects.

Did you know that astronomy and astrology used to be considered one
and the same thing? Did you know that many of the people who avidly
support astronomy projects read their daily astrology newspaper quips?
Fascinating people, humanity, eh?

Yes.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:43:43 -0400, Painius wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:

Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
bought some of those nifty postage stamps...

http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm

that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...

An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
Paine Ellsworth

A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam

Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
that surrounds Saturn's North pole...

I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"

Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding

Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.

it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
of science.

That is, when science can be of assistance.

When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.

Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
Mars.

I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
puff out their chests and claim so.