Hoagland's link to NASA?

[JoshuaJericho]

[Note to mods: I am not advocating anything here. I am being curious. ]

Richard C. Hoagland calls himself "a former NASA consultant", although that claim is dismissed as groundless (or exaggerated). However, I have just came across this blog post discussing 4th Conference on Planetology and Space Mission Planning, which took place in 1972, at the time of Apollo 17 launch. The post discusses that the conference proceedings have never been published (which it attributes to the financial problems of the event organizers); however, it includes a conference agenda. Between Asimov, Mailer, Sagan, Minsky, etc. we have:



Considering that the conference was ridiculously expensive, that's pretty surprising. I'd guess that his employer had to finance the trip. Looking around I found this site debunking Hoagland, which contains the following quote:



Hoagland at a mission control. On top of this, somewhere on the Hoagland's site there is a black-and-white photo from the Apollo/Viking era (judging by the clothes and furniture style), which shows Hoagland and some other guy in an office standing above a table covered with photographs. The caption goes something like "Hoagland points out problems with [Lunar Orbiter? Viking?] data to NASA scientists". Unfortunately I have been unable to locate that photograph now (that site is a mess), but let's assume for the sake of discussion that it exists.

My question then is the following:

Hoagland seems to take his credentials from the fact that he was somehow involved with NASA in 1970s. There is evidence of him actually visiting the NASA facilities and hanging out with NASA scientists. So, does anyone know:

1. What was Hoagland actually doing in the 1970s? Is anyone familiar with his employment history?

2. Hoagland apparently was visiting NASA facilities in that era. Now, I am not that familiar with U.S. customs, but I don't think you can just walk around NASA facilities without getting a badge or something. He claims that he was a "NASA consultant", but does that mean he was actually contracted? Or, was he just going around the facilities with a press accreditation?

Always thought that was obvious. Hoagland is a NASA inside operator. He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon , and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy. He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens. Pretty dumb.

[Swift]

Always thought that was obvious. Hoagland is a NASA inside operator. He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon , and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy. He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens. Pretty dumb.

Do you have any evidence that he is an inside operator, or is this just your speculation?

[R.A.F.]

He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon , and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy.

How does "wacky" speculation about structures on the Moon in any way contribute to the legitimacy of the Apollo missions???

He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens.

Again..just how do "silly claims" about aliens in any way "support" the landings???

[R.A.F.]

Hoagland is a NASA inside operator.

I'm with Swift on this, and would like to see evidence for this claim.


Aside...I do know that Hoagland "fancys" himself as a NASA "insider"...he just seems incapable of doing actual science, instead choosing to go the "woo" way.

[JayUtah]

Hoagland is a NASA inside operator.

Not according to either Hoagland or NASA. Your claim, your burden of proof.

He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon...

A claim wholly at odds with anything NASA says about the Moon.

...and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy.

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.

He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens.

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.

Pretty dumb.

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.

[ClaudiaT]

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 ?

[Abaddon]

I think you missed Joshua's point JayUtah.

No.

Joshua is not saying Hoagland was a serious CT type.

Correct. Hoagy is a scam artist out to bilk the gullible out of what meager funds they have.

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.

Correct. Hoagy appeals to those most vulnerable, in order to maximise his financial return. Do you find this acceptable behaviour? To lie for money? To actively seek out those most likely to part with cash they can ill afford?

Still, Hoagland is definitely pro NASA and pro official landing story.

That is disingenuous at best.

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.

Present your ideas in your own words, not some vicarious other person.

What is "order of Kilopi" Jay ?

If you have to ask, then you weren't there.

[JayUtah]

(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...)

I think you missed Joshua's point JayUtah.

That's for Joshua, not you, to determine. I don't see the value in a third party trying to tell me what someone else must have meant. I'm very familiar with Hoagland's claims overall and his history in making them. Hoagland appeals to people who don't do much research on their own and who will simply take him at his word. He doesn't appeal to "free thinkers," only to non-thinkers.

Still, Hoagland is definitely pro NASA and pro official landing story.

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.

He even gave a talk at NASA once that was well attended.

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.

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.

It is pretty silly I think, the Hoagland stuff.

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.

Maybe we can get my friend Kristen to log on.

No need for "Kristen."

She's read all the Hoagland stuff.

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.

What is "order of Kilopi" Jay ?

It's a secret.

[chrisbobson]

[Note to mods: I am not advocating anything here. I am being curious. ]

Richard C. Hoagland calls himself "a former NASA consultant", although that claim is dismissed as groundless (or exaggerated). However, I have just came across this blog post discussing 4th Conference on Planetology and Space Mission Planning, which took place in 1972, at the time of Apollo 17 launch. The post discusses that the conference proceedings have never been published (which it attributes to the financial problems of the event organizers); however, it includes a conference agenda. Between Asimov, Mailer, Sagan, Minsky, etc. we have:



Considering that the conference was ridiculously expensive, that's pretty surprising. I'd guess that his employer had to finance the trip. Looking around I found this site debunking Hoagland, which contains the following quote:



Hoagland at a mission control. On top of this, somewhere on the Hoagland's site there is a black-and-white photo from the Apollo/Viking era (judging by the clothes and furniture style), which shows Hoagland and some other guy in an office standing above a table covered with photographs. The caption goes something like "Hoagland points out problems with [Lunar Orbiter? Viking?] data to NASA scientists". Unfortunately I have been unable to locate that photograph now (that site is a mess), but let's assume for the sake of discussion that it exists.

My question then is the following:

Hoagland seems to take his credentials from the fact that he was somehow involved with NASA in 1970s. There is evidence of him actually visiting the NASA facilities and hanging out with NASA scientists. So, does anyone know:

1. What was Hoagland actually doing in the 1970s? Is anyone familiar with his employment history?

2. Hoagland apparently was visiting NASA facilities in that era. Now, I am not that familiar with U.S. customs, but I don't think you can just walk around NASA facilities without getting a badge or something. He claims that he was a "NASA consultant", but does that mean he was actually contracted? Or, was he just going around the facilities with a press accreditation?

Read Hoagland's own book. The dude spoke at a NASA sponsored event. He's big time fakaroo that Bizoo. I think the basic idea is if there are buildings on the moon, of any kind, then there were astronauts there to photo them. This is all old non news . I wouldn't give the clown a dime's wortha time.

[JayUtah]

Read Hoagland's own book.

I have. Just because Hoagland claimed it doesn't mean it happened that way.

The dude spoke at a NASA sponsored event.

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.

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.

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?

[Gillianren]

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?

[neilzero]

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

[goodnightsnookieukums]

Always thought that was obvious. Hoagland is a NASA inside operator. He says way out whacky things like there are buildings on the moon , and it reenforces the notion of lunar landing legitimacy. He basically supports the conventional presentation of lunar landings by way of these silly claims about aliens. Pretty dumb.

I read in Hoagland's own book he spoke at a NASA Center. Pretty "incide", but conceivable.

[djellison]

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.