At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
Again..just how do "silly claims" about aliens in any way "support" the landings???He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens.
A claim wholly at odds with anything NASA says about the Moon.He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon...
No. Hoagland simply needs the lunar landings to be genuine in order for his claims to hold. The legitimacy of the lunar landing stands on its own merits. It doesn't need Hoagland's help, or the help of any other fringe claimant....and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy.
Nonsense. The claim that Apollo astronauts found evidence of ancient civilizations on the Moon in no way supports the conventional story of the Apollo missions. Hoagland's claims presuppose only the fact that astronauts actually landed on the Moon, and so disputes the hoaxed-landing theory. But Hoagland's further claims are that NASA covered up what they actually found on the Moon. That's just another hoax theory.He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens.
Yes, your claim is dumb. Hoagland is a crackpot. He's just a different kind of crackpot than those who claim we never went to the Moon.Pretty dumb.
I think you missed Joshua's point JayUtah. Joshua is not saying Hoagland was a serious CT type. He is pointing out that Hoagland was appealing to a special demographic, a subgroup of nonmainstream thinkers, people that sort of go for CT type stuff. Still, Hoagland is definitely pro NASA and pro official landing story. He even gave a talk at NASA once that was well attended. It is pretty silly I think, the Hoagland stuff. Maybe we can get my friend Kristen to log on. She's read all the Hoagland stuff. What is "order of Kilopi" Jay ?
(posted in full awareness of this individual's banned status and likely identity, but out of an obligation to respond to points made directly to me, and to contribute to the discussion...)
Asked and answered. Hoagland has made a career lately accusing NASA of one sin or another, but not before begging NASA to take him seriously. While he believes that NASA legitimately landed on the Moon, he still accuses NASA of covering up what "really" happened there. All brands of conspiracism require something to be real, if only to have a toehold upon which to hang their particular conspiracy theory. Hoagland is no different. He has tried in vain to get NASA to take him seriously, but in the end he has decided that he will smack-talk NASA for profit.Still, Hoagland is definitely pro NASA and pro official landing story.
Hoagland gave a presentation on Cydonia at NASA in about 1990 as part of a general lecture series on interesting subjects, not as a solicited expert speaker. But Hoagland spun it to that effect on his radio program, making it seem like his views on the Face on Mars etc. were legitimately interesting enough to warrant serious attention from NASA. It was attended by about 50 people. Hoagland later claimed that NASA was preparing a documentary series on Hoagland's Mars claims, but in fact NASA PAO simply recorded excerpts of his lecture to be made available to PBS stations if they wanted it, heavily disclaimed as being Hoagland's personal claims and having nothing to do with NASA.He even gave a talk at NASA once that was well attended.
Hoagland has a long, long history of amplifying his stature with NASA and with other space-faring organizations to make it seem as if he were well-connected and well-respected. He continues to spin general-interest engagements as if he were a consulted expert, and attempts to claim credit for others' work. But in the final analysis he is simply a wannabe who has employed various tactics to ride others' coattails to a position of some notoriety.
That's quite a lane-change. If it's "silly" then why would skeptics be wrong to dismiss it? Non-traditional thinkers are interested certainly in non-standard ideas, but why would they be interested in something that's silly? This statement tries to equivocate between legitimizing Hoagland's claims as appealing to rational, if non-traditional thought and recognizing that many of Hoagland's claims are patently crackpot.It is pretty silly I think, the Hoagland stuff.
No need for "Kristen."Maybe we can get my friend Kristen to log on.
As have I and many others. We can draw our own conclusions; we don't need additional people to come here and try to be expert witnesses on what other people have said and done in public. However this does reveal a certain aspect of the conspiracism mindset: conspiracy theorists tend to believe that we dismiss conspiracy theories because we aren't sufficiently informed on them. Conspiracists like to style themselves as educators, and tend to believe that we'd agree with them "...if we only knew what they know." This is part of a larger mindset of using conspiracism as a proxy for legitimate education.She's read all the Hoagland stuff.
It's a secret.What is "order of Kilopi" Jay ?
NASA "sponsors" many events. In this case it was simply a brown-bag session in a general-interest series open to any NASA employee as a perk, not some high-level briefing or consultation as Hoagland says.The dude spoke at a NASA sponsored event.
So you simultaneously agree with Hoagland's basic premise that the astronauts found and photographed secret artificial structures on the Moon, yet you say he's a fake and not worth anyone's time. Please clarify. I notice you've quickly found and posted in all the defunct threads in which various Apollo hoax claimants are discussed, variously decrying them as fakes and frauds, yet also seeming to say NASA cannot be trusted. Any particular reason to this pattern?I think the basic idea is if there are buildings on the moon, of any kind, then there were astronauts there to photo them. ... I wouldn't give the clown a dime's wortha time.
Here's a thing I've always wondered. How do you tell a "disinformation agent" from someone who's just really, really wrong? I mean, you don't have to look at conspiracism to find people who are stupidly wrong about things. In any field, there they are. We all know this. So what makes conspiracism special, that the default assumption is that they're paid, not just ignorant?
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Richard C. Hoagland is not stupid and likely does not believe most of the sensational stuff he has spouted in recent decades. It gets him an audiance and name recognition which are helpful if you want to make a difference in our society. Possibly someone invited him to visit NASA in hopes that they could moderate some of Hougland's nonsence. What has Hougland said recently? Long ago, on the Art Bell Show, Hougland was about 90% mainstream, but much of the 10% was far out. If we want to be open minded we need to consider at least briefly some of the crackpot ideas as about one in a million of them become next years science. The process is called brainstrorming. Neil
I spoke at a NASA center, and at Caltech, in 2009 - when I was just a Visualization Producer for a medical training company in the UK. So what? The CEO of Fender - the guitar company - spoke at a NASA center last week.
It means nothing.