PDA

View Full Version : Hoagland reveals NASA conspiracy ...to expose NASA



tashirosgt
2009-Jul-08, 08:10 PM
Last night on "Coast To Coast", Richard Hoagland revealed that NASA planted the idea in the public's mind that NASA did not actually go to the Moon. The idea was generated by a small pamphlet distributed by a man in a "Duster" cowboy-type of overcoat who was later seen being introduced to people at a news event by a NASA PR person. The purpose of starting this conspiracy rumor was to distract thoughtful people from the real NASA conspiracy, which involves the well documented fact that NASA discovered the ruins of ancient civilizations on the Moon during the first Moon mission. Since a shadow space program is using the alien technology, such as anti-gravity devices, to establish colonies on the Moon and Mars, the public space program of NASA is merely a diversion. The did-not-go-to-the-Moon conspiracy offers a false explanation of inconsistencies in the public NASA space program. Hoagland feels that since the ruins of the civilization that were discovered came from the space explorations of ancient civilizations on earth, that all people of earth have the right to the knowledge discovered in the extraterrestrial ruins.

Hoagland pointed out that many nations are planning missions to the Moon. This would motivate NASA to destroy any evidence of their 40 plus years of building facilities on the moons surface. He says that the planned LCROSS mission to launch a projectile into a crater on the Moon, may be a cover for destroying the facility that NASA has built there.

He admits that this last idea is speculation.

Aside from that admission, I think that Hoagland gave a fine performance and I recommend the show to all serious students of mental illness.

However the public should be on guard against the possibility that Richard Hoagland is making these statements in order to discredit Richard Hoagland. By apparently exposing the loony nature of the public Richard Hoagland, Richard Hoagland may be distracting people from the activities of the shadow Richard Hoagland, who himself, maybe a project of NASA that is designed to deflect criticism from the real NASA space program by distracting critics of the program with a phantom hidden NASA space program.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jul-08, 08:14 PM
Aside from that admission, I think that Hoagland gave a fine performance and I recommend the show to all serious students of mental illness.

I'm embarrassed to say that I bust out laughing when I read this.

Donnie B.
2009-Jul-08, 08:27 PM
... [The moon hoax was started by] a man in a "Duster" cowboy-type of overcoat...
Mal Reynolds started the Moon hoax meme? ... Huh.

I guess it makes sense, though. "Mal: 'bad', in the Latin."

robross
2009-Jul-08, 08:29 PM
This also demonstrates the transitive property of conspiracy theories. As we all know, conspiracy theories cannot be destroyed, the are merely re-assigned to a new target.


Rob

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-08, 08:34 PM
This also demonstrates the transitive property of conspiracy theories. As we all know, conspiracy theories cannot be destroyed, the are merely re-assigned to a new target.


Rob
Makes sense, though. The CT is not about the subject at hand, but about the mental state of the person that supports it.

pzkpfw
2009-Jul-08, 08:42 PM
Note to everyone: speculation on the mental state (whatever it is) of a person (even Hoagland) is generally frowned upon in BAUT.

We can instead rip the speculations to shreds by dissection of the "evidence" (ha ha).

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-08, 09:45 PM
So our enemies are now working against each other. Should we just sit back and let them do our work for us?

AtomicDog
2009-Jul-09, 02:45 AM
Hoagland pointed out that many nations are planning missions to the Moon. This would motivate NASA to destroy any evidence of their 40 plus years of building facilities on the moons surface. He says that the planned LCROSS mission to launch a projectile into a crater on the Moon, may be a cover for destroying the facility that NASA has built there.

Why would NASA send a public mission to destroy the secret moonbase? Why not send a secret mission?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jul-09, 03:25 AM
Why would NASA send a public mission to destroy the secret moonbase? Why not send a secret mission?

They use a money-based logic. I don't believe that they believe what they say--it's all geared towards making money by selling their books/videos to uneducated, deluded, or willfully ignorant people.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-09, 04:25 AM
They use a money-based logic. I don't believe that they believe what they say--it's all geared towards making money by selling their books/videos to uneducated, deluded, or willfully ignorant people.

And if those uneducated, deluded or willfully ignorant folks would simply bug the crap out of their congress critters to give NASA more money as often as they bug them to release the "secret NASA files," we'd have a decent space program in this country.

novaderrik
2009-Jul-09, 05:25 AM
Note to everyone: speculation on the mental state (whatever it is) of a person (even Hoagland) is generally frowned upon in BAUT.

We can instead rip the speculations to shreds by dissection of the "evidence" (ha ha).

sometimes, it's impossible to separate the "evidence" from the mental state of the person putting said "evidence" forth.

Gandalf223
2009-Jul-09, 05:48 AM
Hoagland pointed out that many nations are planning missions to the Moon. This would motivate NASA to destroy any evidence of their 40 plus years of building facilities on the moons surface. He says that the planned LCROSS mission to launch a projectile into a crater on the Moon, may be a cover for destroying the facility that NASA has built there.

That's just illogical. If NASA had spent 40 years covertly building facilities on the moon, they'd have a lot more motivation to sabotage any other nation's mission to the moon. With 40 years of covert operations in space, NASA would have more than enough experience to get away with it, and the existence of a 40 year shadow project would be proof enough that they would have sufficient funding to secretly ruin any other nation's efforts. In short, it would be easier and smarter to simply make it look as though other nations were unable to execute a lunar mission, or just unlucky.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-09, 12:05 PM
sometimes, it's impossible to separate the "evidence" from the mental state of the person putting said "evidence" forth.

Point! As all "evidence" for a conspiracy theory resides in a person's mind, it naturally follows.

djellison
2009-Jul-09, 12:28 PM
Hoagland pointed out that many nations are planning missions to the Moon.

What he fails to note is that..

Europe
China
India
Japan

Have ALREADY sent probes to the moon in the last decade. ALL able to image something of that scale on the moon. None did. Bases on the moon? Radar would have spotted it.

China and the USA are not exactly friends. If there were ANY hint of this sort of thing, China would have screamed about it.

Id be interested to hear how Hoagland things we got to the moon in these last 40 years. You can just about hide an aircraft in a hangar at an airfield in a valley in the middle of nowhere. But a Saturn V class vehicle? The vehicle that generated earth-tremors detected by geologists, the vehicle that turned night to day on Apollo 17? That's a little harder to hide. Similarly - all these missions to the moon, and not one ham radio enthusiast picked it up. Not one amateur astronomer detected anything (there are amateurs imaging LCROSS regularly at the moment, and it's far small than any manned mission).

How can he explain these domes and moon-bases existing....but none of the other space agencies or amateurs from around the world, some who would do well out of calling out NASA on a fake like this, calling it in.

It's so far beyond ludicrous that, even for RCH, it's stupid.

And what I find terrifying is that people believe him. They actually believe this stuff. He took one bad duplication of an Apollo image, and has been pedaling domes ever since. It's pathetic.

BertL
2009-Jul-09, 12:37 PM
He admits that this last idea is speculation.
As if his first idea isn't.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-09, 12:48 PM
Id be interested to hear how Hoagland things we got to the moon in these last 40 years. You can just about hide an aircraft in a hangar at an airfield in a valley in the middle of nowhere. But a Saturn V class vehicle? The vehicle that generated earth-tremors detected by geologists, the vehicle that turned night to day on Apollo 17? That's a little harder to hide.
Gee, we haven't detected any of the North Korean launches. Have we? Oh, that's right, we have. Oops, Richard, oops.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-09, 06:01 PM
Point! As all "evidence" for a conspiracy theory resides in a person's mind, it naturally follows.

I have to say, though, that one can usually dismantle the supposed evidence quite handily without making unwarranted medical diagnoses.

In fact, for the record, I don't think he's mentally ill.

solomarineris
2009-Jul-09, 06:03 PM
Aside from that admission, I think that Hoagland gave a fine performance and I recommend the show to all serious students of mental illness.
Hoagland is a great performer. I did listen him last night too. Noory did not make a great effort to distance himself from Hoag's ideas.
I think we do need Hoagland types, even though they are the deep end of rationality and reason.
It was a good entertainment.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-09, 06:03 PM
I have to say, though, that one can usually dismantle the supposed evidence quite handily without making unwarranted medical diagnoses.

In fact, for the record, I don't think he's mentally ill.

I didn't say "mentally ill." I have minors in Soc. and Psych. so I avoid that term. The "attitude", to avoid the term I got scolded for, is definable, IMHO, however.

solomarineris
2009-Jul-09, 06:18 PM
I have to say, though, that one can usually dismantle the supposed evidence quite handily without making unwarranted medical diagnoses.
In fact, for the record, I don't think he's mentally ill.

I agree, he is not mentally ill. But the guy who made this comment (obviously his very own opinion) is not very far off the mark.
Qualified Physicians, routinely diagnose people who see objects, hear the voices, who feel followed even though nobody is behind them.
When Hoagland sees Mars Face, Alien Installations on Moon it technically fits the criteria of some anomaly in his perception senses.

djellison
2009-Jul-09, 06:42 PM
even though they are the deep end of rationality and reason.

There is nothing rational or reasonable about the work of Richard Hoagland. Every time his book gets bought, every time his garbage is listened to - the world gets a little bit more stupid.

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-09, 07:18 PM
One of the best things about this country is that it allows for the free and spirited exchange of ideas, no matter how ludicrous those ideas may appear to another. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Hoagland has made his living selling his brand of conspiracy theories and, while I don't subscribe to his beliefs, he must be saying something that resonates with many people, or else he would have disappeared long since. Thank God for the woowoo crowd. They support our own belief in our rationality.

vonmazur
2009-Jul-09, 07:30 PM
Guys: I thought the best part was the C3P0/Data head in the sparkly crater story....and that was the source of all the improvements in I/T since 1970. At least he did not attribute it to Col Corso....I feel obligated to point out that RCH did in fact state that secret rocket launches would be hard to hide, he stated that the secret missions were done with some kind of secret ancient technology. Which begs the question, Why use the recent L/Cross to wipe out some secret base, just use the ancient ufo??

Also, lately RCH has gone full commercial, so now he wants money for all this, he used to be a true believer, and posted all the baloney for free on his site.....

I was hoping to find the C3PO head pix, but I could not find it...

Dale

Alan G. Archer
2009-Jul-09, 08:36 PM
I was hoping to find the C3PO head pix, but I could not find it...

Hoagland's C3P0 head, or "Data's head," in Shorty Crater (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071214.html) can be found here:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm
http://www.projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-09, 09:46 PM
Hoagland's C3P0 head, or "Data's head," in Shorty Crater (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071214.html) can be found here:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm
http://www.projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html

Wow! That was really . . . pathetic.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-09, 10:45 PM
And if those uneducated, deluded or willfully ignorant folks would simply bug the crap out of their congress critters to give NASA more money as often as they bug them to release the "secret NASA files," we'd have a decent space program in this country.
A lot of the space books written in the 70s saw interest in UFOs as good for space advocacy because it made people think about travel in space.

No. Just no.

solomarineris
2009-Jul-09, 10:58 PM
Hoagland's C3P0 head, or "Data's head," in Shorty Crater (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071214.html) can be found here:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/datashead.htm
http://www.projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html

What are we looking at?
Where's the Head?

Edited to add;
I found it on his website.
Wow.....
Demented.

Halcyon Dayz
2009-Jul-10, 01:06 AM
Last night on "Coast To Coast", Richard Hoagland revealed [...] The purpose of starting this conspiracy rumor was to distract thoughtful people from the real NASA conspiracy...
Thoughtful people? Yeah, right.


There is nothing rational or reasonable about the work of Richard Hoagland. Every time his book gets bought, every time his garbage is listened to - the world gets a little bit more stupid.
And every time Richard C. Hoagland makes a few more bucks.

JayUtah
2009-Jul-10, 02:13 AM
I think we do need Hoagland types...

I don't. The man wantonly makes his living by casting aspersions on men and women of otherwise reasonable integrity, on the basis of nothing more than his unsupported and ill-informed suppositions and deliberate misrepresentations. Hoagland doesn't just stir the pot for some abstract academic reason. He's a snake-oil salesman and I believe what he does is morally wrong.

Starfury
2009-Jul-10, 02:52 AM
Richard Hoaxland strikes again!

Just when I thought his claims couldn't get any more outrageous....I stand corrected.

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 03:11 AM
I think we do need Hoagland types, even though they are the deep end of rationality and reason. It was a good entertainment.

Why do you find lies to be "entertaining"?


One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Opinions are not created equally...some are just WRONG...Hoagland is not presenting any "treasure" here, and everyone should be made aware of that fact.


Thank God for the woowoo crowd. They support our own belief in our rationality.

I don't need the irrational to convince myself of my own rationality. Do you?

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-10, 03:33 AM
I don't. The man wantonly makes his living by casting aspersions on men and women of otherwise reasonable integrity, on the basis of nothing more than his unsupported and ill-informed suppositions and deliberate misrepresentations. Hoagland doesn't just stir the pot for some abstract academic reason. He's a snake-oil salesman and I believe what he does is morally wrong.

Aye, and how much progress have we lost because so many people subscribe to his ideas? I've heard him give out fax numbers for NASA and other government bodies, telling people to fax all day, since that's sure to get people's attention. Somebody at those organizations, has to put whatever work they're doing (and I don't care if their job is simply to scrub the freakin' toilets, its more important than dealing with his nonsense) on hold, while they handle the mess. No doubt they just unplug the fax machine connected to that number and then call everyone who might need to fax something to them that day, give them an alternate number to fax to, and hope that they didn't forget anybody. No doubt this costs them thousands of dollars to deal with (thus reducing the amount of science that they can do) and delays projects moving forwards. And again, if these people put the same amount of effort into saying, "Give NASA more money." we'd have a viable space program.

Heck, RCH wouldn't even have to change much of his spiel to make this work! Last time I listened to him (and I haven't done that since he claimed NASA had the crew of Columbia murdered), he was claiming that there were two warring secret societies, who were doing elaborate assassinations, etc., to cover up alien technology, their existence, etc. All he would have to do is to claim that there were "Fifth Column" elements within those groups who were leaking information to him, but the amount they could do was limited, and if the government was pressured into having a real manned program again, it would be much easier for those elements to slip him the details of what was going on.

Instead of saying, "Fax them and demand that they release the Sooper Seckret NASA photos!" (which any conspiracy capable of operating on a global scale for centuries would never do, no matter how much public pressure was placed on them), just say, "Put pressure on your elected officials to fully fund NASA. If NASA's on a tight deadline to return to the Moon, they won't be able to control the flow of information coming from the agency as well, and those elements within the two organizations who're working to undermine their oppressive plans will be able to operate with a freer hand!" He'd get the same folks believing in him and they'd be doing something productive.

tashirosgt
2009-Jul-10, 03:34 AM
Why do you find lies to be "entertaining"?


One of my friends is fond of lecturing me that a "lie" occurs when someone deliberately says something he knows to be false. If he doesn't know the statement is false then he has made a false statement but has not lied.

I don't know if Hoagland lies or tells untruths. (Nor would I be so hasty to say that everything he says is wrong (e.g. maybe there was a man in a duster), not that you implied that it all was. ) I do find conspiracy theorists to be entertaining. After all, much entertainment is fiction. If you take a skeptical attitude toward religion and philosophy, much of what people base their lives upon is fiction. People who expect to make all their decisions based on "Truth" have overlooked the fact that nothing practical can be done without discussing Philosophy.

Jason_Roberts
2009-Jul-10, 06:16 AM
I have to say, though, that one can usually dismantle the supposed evidence quite handily without making unwarranted medical diagnoses.

In fact, for the record, I don't think he's mentally ill.

Right. I do think he's clever in his own way, just not in any sense that isn't underhanded.

I'm not really convinced that he actually believes in the things he publishes. And since he seems to have profited quite a bit from the general ignorance people have regarding astronomy, he's not likely to change what works for him.

Fortunately, ignorance about astronomy isn't exactly a permanent affliction and it cannot be reliably exploited one-hundred percent of the time. As a matter of course the entire moon-base racket has been becoming increasingly fragile.

djellison
2009-Jul-10, 08:02 AM
One of my friends is fond of lecturing me that a "lie" occurs when someone deliberately says something he knows to be false. If he doesn't know the statement is false then he has made a false statement but has not lied.


I am very very confident that Hoagland is knowingly lying. Impossible to prove - but I consider it very very likely.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-10, 11:13 AM
The response to this at ATS is quite entertaining:


Why this area is important is a bit of a mystery to me seeing as the crater these craft are going to crash into is in the 'always dark' side of the moon.

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 02:11 PM
I don't know if Hoagland lies or tells untruths.

Well, lets put that to the test. As you posted...


...a "lie" occurs when someone deliberately says something he knows to be false.

When a person is not deliberately lying, merely telling an "untruth", then when they are corrected, they acknowledge that they have made a "mistake".

For years after the Viking "face on Mars" picture was released, Hoagland begged and begged NASA to take higher resolution images of the face, and he stated that he would accept the results if only NASA would re-image the area.

NASA eventually did take higher resolution images of the so called "face", and found it to be nothing more that an eroded hill of rocks.

What was Hoaglands reaction? Did he sheepishly admit that he was in error?, that his mistake might make his other "work" re. the Cydonia region look a little "iffy"?

...Absolutely not...Hoagland simply chose to ignore the "face" as his main argument and moved on to different, other irrational areas of "study" of the region.

Hoagland knows exactly what he is doing, and giving him the benefit of the doubt by "allowing" him to weasel out of his continued lies only serves to fool the public, and line his pockets with money.


I do find conspiracy theorists to be entertaining. After all, much entertainment is fiction.

Perhaps, but it is entertainment based on lies...based on calling others liars....and doing that without any attempt to prove that what they say is actually true.

How that "entertains" is beyond me.


If you take a skeptical attitude toward religion and philosophy, much of what people base their lives upon is fiction.

What do either have to do with Hoaglands continuing attempts to mislead others?


People who expect to make all their decisions based on "Truth" have overlooked the fact that nothing practical can be done without discussing Philosophy.

There is factualness, and there is fantasy...one is real, and one is not.

Why should anyone bother themselves with the pursuit of "things" that are simply not real, yet are 'advertized' as if they were?

thoth II
2009-Jul-10, 02:16 PM
This is not unprecedented in science history. Percival Lowell actually didn't bilk the public for his ideas, but he clearly did not clearly see canals on Mars; those were an optical illusion fueled by his imagination about Martians. In a case like this, with images not quite resolved, imagination can enter the picture.

RCH knows that only a rare soul, like the one poster here who took months to analyze the flaws in the images, will take the time to do that. So a lot of people will look at his fuzzy images, with his powerful persuasion, and read into them what he puts into their heads. And since he's selling books and on CTC, he's on a roll and will continue. Only teaching critical thinking skills to children will allow them to grow up to be a public which can regulate the RCH of the world. You gotta ask why CTC is so popular, even though it's a mishmash of nonsense.

And one indication that he is tarting himself up for massive public consumption is that his web site is looking sillier all the time: for example the sexy cartoon holding a smoking gun. That says a lot, I think.

tashirosgt
2009-Jul-10, 04:33 PM
What real scientists often do when faced with evidence that contradicts their theories, is to explain why the evidence is wrong. Who was it that coined the phrase "saving the phenomena", meaning to analyze a phenomenon in a manner that preserves a theory about it? It might have been Plato. Stubbornness and duplicity are hard to distinguish.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-10, 04:57 PM
I'd like a cite for that "often." Something that shows how it fits in with the sweep of scientific history. "Sometimes," I will grant you.

As for the entertainment factor of conspiracy theories, well. Yes. Fiction can be entertaining, sometimes even when it's fiction based on real people. (I call your attention to Being John Malkovich.) I will note, however, that I did not find Capricorn One entertaining; I found it ponderous, dull, and full of obvious plot holes. (They were going to fake a lengthy landing on a set that small?) This is, for one, because fiction must contain a modicum of believability and internal consistency, which these sorts of stories do not unless you're willing to turn off thinking altogether, a thing I've never been able to do.

For another, it's one thing when everyone admits it's fiction and quite another when it's either delusions or lies. Calling NASA murderers for Apollo 1 or Challenger? That's not entertaining to me. It really starts entering the realm of the sad or the infuriating, depending on who's making the claim. Do we really think John Cusack enters John Malkovich's mind in fifteen-minute increments? No, and no one asks us to for longer than the stretch of the movie. But someone like Hoagland or Sibrel really does expect you to accept whatever idea they have unchallenged.

And, finally, people believe this stuff. It takes away from the sum of human knowledge. In some cases, it takes away from whatever group of scientists are Evil this week. And it can spread from parents to kids who don't know any better, the worse if the parents are trying to keep science out of the schools.

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 05:13 PM
What real scientists often do when faced with evidence that contradicts their theories, is to explain why the evidence is wrong.

Granted..."sometimes" this can happen with an unscrupulous scientist...


...but what does this have to do with Hoagland??

solomarineris
2009-Jul-10, 06:23 PM
I don't. The man wantonly makes his living by casting aspersions on men and women of otherwise reasonable integrity, on the basis of nothing more than his unsupported and ill-informed suppositions and deliberate misrepresentations. Hoagland doesn't just stir the pot for some abstract academic reason. He's a snake-oil salesman and I believe what he does is morally wrong.
Jay,
(this is my personal opinion) You are taking life way too seriously, most of us do too, when we are working, running a business, etc., but here we are insulated against consequences of reality,, so we can express our opinions.
I don't know if you ever listened Hoagland, especially on his C3PO broadcast, he sounded so convincing, sincere, I don't think he is a pious believer or deliberate. Whatever he claims, he sounds sincere. So, if he has some hard core followers, those people who swallow Hoag's **, deserve to be fooled, I have absolutely no empathy for them.

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 06:41 PM
...he sounded so convincing, sincere, I don't think he is a pious believer or deliberate. Whatever he claims, he sounds sincere.

Just because a person "sounds" sincere doesn't mean that they believe what they are "selling".


...those people who swallow Hoag's **, deserve to be fooled, I have absolutely no empathy for them.

But you just said that he was so convincing...so sincere.

Why no empathy for those who are fooled by someone who "sounds" so sincere??

thoth II
2009-Jul-10, 06:47 PM
Take me for instance.

I am entertained by RCH and always listen to him (but don't give him money), but I can edit his comments based on my knowledge. I can ditto this comment and substitute "Stan Friedman" for RCH . I actually only bought one product ever from thiese two gentlemen, when Stan did his "scientific" study of flying saucers book (it really was a social science based statistical study instead of a real scientific investigation). Everyone listening to him should be able to do that. But since he sounds scientific, and his website (used to) look scientific, masses will fall for it without any ability to sort it out.

I actually listen to CTers all the time, and I sort it all out based on my knowledge. It comes down to individuals being able to apply critical thinking.

But I think I agree with those who think certain of these people are doing morally bad things for profit because they know people like BAUT won't fall for the con, but the masses will, which is why they use outlets like CTC. In that sense, RCH is getting into (or already there) Bart Sibrel con country. In Stan Friedman case, I think he is a true believer, which I say because his belief in UFOs goes way back to 1958 when he saw what he thought was a cover up of the true statistics of the unknowns in the blue book report 14. Being only 20, he was very pliable in his thoughts ; started just giving talks because he was a real believer; and then saw he needed to do it full time: but undeniably to do it full time he knew he had to get paid for books and speaking engagements.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jul-10, 06:52 PM
Just because a person "sounds" sincere doesn't mean that they believe what they are "selling".

That's one of the basic characteristics of a con man. Every time I read about someone getting conned out of their money they always say something like "But he seemed so nice and honest."

JayUtah
2009-Jul-10, 07:06 PM
...

(this is my personal opinion) You are taking life way too seriously, most of us do too...

You think there's nothing wrong with swindling people out of their hard-earned money. I find that repugnant.

Whatever he claims, he sounds sincere.

So did Bernie Madoff. That doesn't excuse his actions, nor does it comfort his victims.

...deserve to be fooled, I have absolutely no empathy for them.

I prefer to address the source of the problem. Richard C. Hoagland makes his living through deception, misdirection, and falsehood. You can feel sorry for people for being suggestible. But please tell me what is the morally-justified attitude to hold toward those who deliberately exploit that for their own gain?

Gillianren
2009-Jul-10, 07:26 PM
That's one of the basic characteristics of a con man. Every time I read about someone getting conned out of their money they always say something like "But he seemed so nice and honest."

Not just conmen, either.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jul-10, 08:46 PM
Not just conmen, either.

Ted Bundy come to mind.

KaiYeves
2009-Jul-10, 09:49 PM
Heck, RCH wouldn't even have to change much of his spiel to make this work! Last time I listened to him (and I haven't done that since he claimed NASA had the crew of Columbia murdered)
If I was the kind of person who used swear words, you can bet reading that would have made me call RCH some very unprintable things.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-10, 09:52 PM
Ted Bundy come to mind.

As do a couple of my ex-gfs.

Jeff Root
2009-Jul-10, 09:54 PM
When a person is not deliberately lying, merely telling an "untruth",
then when they are corrected, they acknowledge that they have
made a "mistake".
You have missed several critically-important possibilities:

First, the "correction" might not be correct at all. The person you
think is lying could be telling the truth, and what you think to be the
truth is actually wrong.

Second, different people always have different standards for
determining what is true and what isn't. Those standards vary from
one situation to another-- even from one moment to another. Just
because you are convinced that this thing in a photo is a rock, not
a hamburger, doesn't mean everyone else will be convinced of it.

Third, people believe things that are in direct contradiction to the
evidence that they have. It happens all the time, with everyone.
It happens more dramatically with some people than with others.
A person who believes that the majority of people around him are
aliens disguised as humans is not likely to have his opinion changed
by any amount of evidence. Expressing a belief is not lying.



For years after the Viking "face on Mars" picture was released,
Hoagland begged and begged NASA to take higher resolution images
of the face, and he stated that he would accept the results if only
NASA would re-image the area.

NASA eventually did take higher resolution images of the so called
"face", and found it to be nothing more that an eroded hill of rocks.
Yes, it was badly eroded in the millenia since the aliens carved it.
So?



What was Hoaglands reaction? Did he sheepishly admit that he was
in error?, that his mistake might make his other "work" re. the Cydonia
region look a little "iffy"?

...Absolutely not...Hoagland simply chose to ignore the "face" as his
main argument and moved on to different, other irrational areas of
"study" of the region.

Hoagland knows exactly what he is doing,
Prove it. Show that he doesn't believe what he says.



and giving him the benefit of the doubt by "allowing" him to weasel out
of his continued lies only serves to fool the public, and line his
pockets with money.
If he believes what he says, then he is not lying. Nomatter how
obvious it may be to you that what he says is wrong from beginning
to end.

I'm responding to just a fragment of the next comment, out of context:


...and doing that without any attempt to prove that what they say
is actually true.
Do you have eyes, R.A.F.? All you have to do is look at the photos to
see all the evidence you need! Just look, man! It's all right there in
front of you if you just open your eyes and look at it! What more
proof do you need, for heaven's sake?





If you take a skeptical attitude toward religion and philosophy, much
of what people base their lives upon is fiction.
What do either have to do with Hoaglands continuing attempts to
mislead others?
Clearly, Richard Hoagland is not the first person to invent a detailed,
complex fiction and pass it to a willing and eager public as truth. We
are immersed in such fictions. If you happen to have seen my recent
discussion with Ken G about antimatter having antigravity, you should
realize that I am doing it, myself. I came up with an idea more than
thirty years ago, and have gradually been adding to it. Chances are
that it is no more than a fantasy built on a poor understanding of the
relevant physics, but so far I have not been convinced that it is in
error. I am willing to champion my idea against people telling me that
it is contradicted by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I do that because, in some way, to some extent, I "believe in" my idea.
It is my creation, my child, my fantasy, and I want to nurture it and
make it grow. So far, to the extent that I often drop the caveat that
this idea is only a speculation. I know it is only speculation, but I don't
say so every time I write about it.



There is factualness, and there is fantasy...one is real, and one is not.
And converting fantasy into fact is what people do. Whether by
science, engineering, art, commerce, or philosophy and religion.



Why should anyone bother themselves with the pursuit of "things"
that are simply not real, yet are 'advertized' as if they were?
People have needs. "Things" sometimes fulfill those needs.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 10:47 PM
You have missed several critically-important possibilities:

That is your opinion...an opinion I do not share...


...the "correction" might not be correct at all. The person you think is lying could be telling the truth, and what you think to be the truth is actually wrong.

So anything is possible, eh? Irrelevant distractive nonsense...


...different people always have different standards for determining what is true and what isn't.

I'm not debating irrational standards of evidence...again, irrelevant.


...people believe things that are in direct contradiction to the evidence that they have. It happens all the time, with everyone.

Perhaps it happens to you, but don't include the rest of us in something that makes not a "lick"
of sense. Again...irrelevant to this discussion.


Expressing a belief is not lying.

Prove that Hoagland believes what he says...


...it was badly eroded in the millenia since the aliens carved it.

??? Are you serious? I don't see a smillie, yet I can't imagine you would say such a foolish thing unless you were "kidding".


Show that he doesn't believe what he says...If he believes what he says, then he is not lying.

Explain to us all how Hoagland could possibly believe all the nonsense he spouts. Heck, it isn't even self-consistant.


I'm responding to just a fragment of the next comment, out of context:

Then why bother...


Do you have eyes, R.A.F.? All you have to do is look at the photos to see all the evidence you need! Just look, man!......

I see no reason to read this "junk" any further...

thoth II
2009-Jul-10, 11:18 PM
It seems like everytime Hoagland's on CTC he is coming out with a grand new "revelation". He must know that the great number of "reveals" he spouts out stretches credulity. I mean, I heard him on CTC talking about dark mission, anti gravity affecting Explorer, LCROSS IR image anomalies; and his website is getting crowded with stuff: it's just too much. Just scroll down his homepage enterprise mission.com and it really looks like the site of a con . If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-10, 11:28 PM
...his website is getting crowded with stuff: it's just too much.

If it wasn't bad enough before, it really is a "mess" now.

...and by that I mean it just has a cluttered, haphazard, disconnected appearance. It really is difficult to read.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-10, 11:36 PM
It seems like everytime Hoagland's on CTC he is coming out with a grand new "revelation". He must know that the great number of "reveals" he spouts out stretches credulity. I mean, I heard him on CTC talking about dark mission, anti gravity affecting Explorer, LCROSS IR image anomalies; and his website is getting crowded with stuff: it's just too much. Just scroll down his homepage enterprise mission.com and it really looks like the site of a con . If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Then there were his plans to send probes to the Moon to take pictures of alien artifacts which were supposed have launched some time before 1996, but somehow never materialized, nor were mentioned ever again.

Then there's the whole business of his "Angstrom Award."

JayUtah
2009-Jul-11, 07:08 PM
Then there's the whole business of his "Angstrom Award."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html#angstrom

Weltraum
2009-Jul-12, 11:46 PM
I have to say, though, that one can usually dismantle the supposed evidence quite handily without making unwarranted medical diagnoses.

In fact, for the record, I don't think he's mentally ill.

It's my hypothesis that conspiracy nut-type thinking is the sane end of schizophrenia.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-13, 12:47 AM
It's my hypothesis that conspiracy nut-type thinking is the sane end of schizophrenia.

Welcome aboard! Read the rules and stay awhile.

Actually, we've had a rather exhaustive discussion on this subject, and my opinion is that while it can be the healthy end (sane is a legal term), it isn't always. Depends on how the person deals with everything else in their lives. On the other hand, sometimes, it's a manifestation of very serious problems indeed. Say instead, I think, that it can be a symptom.

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 02:06 AM
Welcome aboard! Read the rules and stay awhile.

Actually, we've had a rather exhaustive discussion on this subject, and my opinion is that while it can be the healthy end (sane is a legal term), it isn't always. Depends on how the person deals with everything else in their lives. On the other hand, sometimes, it's a manifestation of very serious problems indeed. Say instead, I think, that it can be a symptom.

Thanks for the welcome! Is there a subject not thoroughly known to the people of this forum? :lol: After dealing with the moon hoax nutters for a while on the Pravda forum (I'd link the thread again if it wouldn't be held up waiting for approval), I've started thinking about the conspiracy mindset. But I'm certainly more of a beginner in that than I am in the Apollo hoax issue!

Edit: I'm very interested in getting people from this forum to visit that thread on Pravda. I don't know how much of it might be new to people here - I suspect none, but it's unique in being a forum dominated by the conspiracy lovers and having just a few people to stand up to them. I in fact became the main one after I'd first gotten past believing in the hoax myself.

The thread name is "Apollo 11 Landing : FAKE of CENTURY" and was started by the forum member "Cosssack" [sic]. It's immensely long but also entertaining. I think my favourite part of the whole experience was debunking a number of CTs'/HBs' photographic analyses. The thread is at like 180 pages now, and is something like 6 months old. My signature is from one of the most recent posts in that thread, too.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-13, 02:17 AM
Welcome aboard! Read the rules and stay awhile.

Actually, we've had a rather exhaustive discussion on this subject, and my opinion is that while it can be the healthy end (sane is a legal term), it isn't always. Depends on how the person deals with everything else in their lives. On the other hand, sometimes, it's a manifestation of very serious problems indeed. Say instead, I think, that it can be a symptom.

Being a CTist requires a resolute refusal to accept reality.

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 02:34 AM
Being a CTist requires a resolute refusal to accept reality.

That is certainly a good basic description of it. We had a kook called Alexis show up at the Pravda forum and argue not only against all space travel beyond the Van Allen belts, manned or otherwise, but against dinosaurs (claiming they were plaster/plastic fabrications) and nuclear energy (the Sun is a "chemical reaction" and there are no A-bombs, H-bombs or nuclear power stations).. I'm wondering whether he's also paid this forum a visit, perhaps under the name of Moon Man? I'm going to see whether that thread of his shows many hallmarks of the "Alexis" I saw on Pravda. Both have at least proposed that travel to the moon was never done, and I have a long way to go in reading Moon Man's thread.:)

Egregious Philbin
2009-Jul-13, 02:46 AM
Hoaxland is in a last ditch effort to get as much $$ as he can before LRO maps the moon, and doesn't find any of his crazy stuff, just like the Mars orbiter did before.

A complete huckster and liar, and a grifter.

When will this pinhead go away?

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 03:05 AM
Hoaxland is in a last ditch effort to get as much $$ as he can before LRO maps the moon, and doesn't find any of his crazy stuff, just like the Mars orbiter did before.

A complete huckster and liar, and a grifter.

When will this pinhead go away?

Well, his little operation is in a legal loop-hole, isn't it? He is entitled to have his opinion and publish anything he likes about it. Now, if it were "hate speech" or some such thing, you might find a way to attack it, but since it isn't that, free speech remains free speech.

So maybe if our free speech is eroded a bit further, he can be stopped..

Egregious Philbin
2009-Jul-13, 03:48 AM
Well, his little operation is in a legal loop-hole, isn't it? He is entitled to have his opinion and publish anything he likes about it. Now, if it were "hate speech" or some such thing, you might find a way to attack it, but since it isn't that, free speech remains free speech.

So maybe if our free speech is eroded a bit further, he can be stopped..


Nowhere did I say that I wanted his freedom of speech stripped.

I just want him to fade away after everyone realizes he has not ever been right about anything, and continues to be discredited.

Don't go and try to make me out as a censor.

peter eldergill
2009-Jul-13, 04:10 AM
I would agree with that sentiment, it was really uncalled for..."Oh, no, someone disagrees with me!!! It *must* be censorship!" .. sheesh

Pete

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 04:13 AM
Nowhere did I say that I wanted his freedom of speech stripped.

I just want him to fade away after everyone realizes he has not ever been right about anything, and continues to be discredited.

Don't go and try to make me out as a censor.

I'm not trying to make you out as a censor, actually. What I mean is, that is the only way you could ever be rid of guys like him. After all, many people will only hear the latest claims these kooks make and not be aware of how hopelessly wrong they have been about other issues.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-13, 04:40 AM
Being a CTist requires a resolute refusal to accept reality.

Mmm. For one thing, an ignorance of reality will do quite nicely in most cases. If you don't understand the technical stuff of Apollo, you can probably be convinced relatively easily that the technical stuff works the way an HB thinks it does. I would suggest that the average person doesn't really know much of anything detailed about spaceflight. Ignorance makes confusion easier. And, again, most CTs don't reject all reality. Just their one little area of it. I've got a couple of friends who are moderate JFK CTs, and other than that, they're both mostly reasonable people with a clear grip on reality. What some people seem to be assuming is that the way these people treat Apollo or what have you is how they treat the rest of their lives, and it's almost certainly not true.

peter eldergill
2009-Jul-13, 04:41 AM
Well, his little operation is in a legal loop-hole, isn't it? He is entitled to have his opinion and publish anything he likes about it. Now, if it were "hate speech" or some such thing, you might find a way to attack it, but since it isn't that, free speech remains free speech.

So maybe if our free speech is eroded a bit further, he can be stopped..

My bold

I think this is what I misunderstood then...it seems a little...provocative to me, as if you are defending his position and such, or some other social comment. Can you be a little more clear? (I'm not trying to be a pain, but the way you wrote it could easily be misunderstood)

Oh, BTW, welcome to BAUT

Pete

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 05:22 AM
My bold

I think this is what I misunderstood then...it seems a little...provocative to me, as if you are defending his position and such, or some other social comment. Can you be a little more clear? (I'm not trying to be a pain, but the way you wrote it could easily be misunderstood)

Oh, BTW, welcome to BAUT

Pete

Thank you, Pete. To be clear, I was just thinking of things like hate speech legislation when I wrote that. I didn't consider how it might be interpreted and failed to explain why I wrote it. Whoops! :silenced: :)

Dave J
2009-Jul-13, 05:44 AM
I'm not trying to make you out as a censor, actually. What I mean is, that is the only way you could ever be rid of guys like him. After all, many people will only hear the latest claims these kooks make and not be aware of how hopelessly wrong they have been about other issues.

...and so we, his "opponents", will just continue rebutting the hoax in any of it's many forms. Just repeating the truth, educating, informing, ...me may not be "rid" of him, but we can try to dwindle the numbers of his ignorant followers. Small steps...

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-13, 06:06 AM
Mmm. For one thing, an ignorance of reality will do quite nicely in most cases. If you don't understand the technical stuff of Apollo, you can probably be convinced relatively easily that the technical stuff works the way an HB thinks it does. I would suggest that the average person doesn't really know much of anything detailed about spaceflight. Ignorance makes confusion easier. And, again, most CTs don't reject all reality. Just their one little area of it. I've got a couple of friends who are moderate JFK CTs, and other than that, they're both mostly reasonable people with a clear grip on reality. What some people seem to be assuming is that the way these people treat Apollo or what have you is how they treat the rest of their lives, and it's almost certainly not true.

A well educated populace is our only defense against people like Hoagland (and a great many other evils as well).

Weltraum
2009-Jul-13, 06:32 AM
...and so we, his "opponents", will just continue rebutting the hoax in any of it's many forms. Just repeating the truth, educating, informing, ...me may not be "rid" of him, but we can try to dwindle the numbers of his ignorant followers. Small steps...

:doh:And has it ever felt like a losing battle on Pravda! I can't determine whether any poster in that thread who started out arguing for the hoax (besides myself) has ever woken up. The only such testimony I've seen in that Apollo 11 thread was from werewolf, the guy who said he came here and was more or less convinced of the moon landings' authenticity. Big D'OH! But it's my hope that people have read and will read that thread and wake up, too.

AlekseyA
2009-Jul-15, 04:55 AM
I just found at about the Coast to Coast program, very interesting. One speaker was Mellen-Thomas, a very interesting spiritual speaker. And I heard one man talking about Planet X and 2012, it was interesting, I doubt it's true however,

NorthernBoy
2009-Jul-15, 08:11 AM
That's one of the basic characteristics of a con man. Every time I read about someone getting conned out of their money they always say something like "But he seemed so nice and honest."

Because, of course, the unconvincing ones don't manage to actually extract any money from someone.

Hoagland being sincere is neither here nor there when deciding if what he is doing is moral or not. For comparison, look at criminals. Many people who rub, cheat, and steal are totally convinced that what they are doing is morally fine. They have convinced themselves that their victims are deserving, or that the criminal's need is greater. This does not mean that we say "oh, that's OK then, please continue".

No, sincerity or sounding convincing is a red herring.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-15, 12:27 PM
I just found at about the Coast to Coast program, very interesting. One speaker was Mellen-Thomas, a very interesting spiritual speaker. And I heard one man talking about Planet X and 2012, it was interesting, I doubt it's true however,

Why would you doubt the existence of an extra planet wandering about the solar system that thousands of astronomers have missed but was detected by a people that hadn't invented the wheel when they decided that everything would "end" in just a few years?

Weltraum
2009-Jul-18, 05:43 AM
Why would you doubt the existence of an extra planet wandering about the solar system that thousands of astronomers have missed but was detected by a people that hadn't invented the wheel when they decided that everything would "end" in just a few years?

I for one would place more faith in ancient peoples than in some guy claiming to interpret their ancient writings (e.g. Zecharia Sitchin). I would like to remind everyone that evolutionist thinking has gotten in the way of how we think of our ancestors - they were human beings and had wisdom all their own. They built great monuments and invented things (like the Roman arch) that we still use today. And so, if there is a real record, correctly interpreted, which tells of a planet-type visitor to our solar system, I would certainly pay it heed. But I for one have NOT seen the clay tablets that Sitchin claims to understand and have not heard other opinions from scholars who may have seen the same or similar materials. I also wouldn't presume to judge which techologies an ancient civilsation had and which they did not. Certainly it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something! So before you go suggesting that ancient Sumerians did not have the wheel... ;)

Hans
2009-Jul-18, 06:16 AM
"So before you go suggesting that ancient Sumerians did not have the wheel... "

He was referring I believe to the Maya. Who didn't use the wheel. Some wheeled toys have shown up in meso-america but no indication of a large scale/work use of a wheel. The definitely had wheels and used them extensively.

Not to worry, old "sticky" was pretty much wrong about everything he made up.

You can find translations of the Sumerian tablets here: http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/#

If you want to see the actual tablets you'll need to get into books which most large Universities will have. There may also be limited number of images of selected tablets online, such as, http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?-op_id_text=eq&id_text=P000249

Van Rijn
2009-Jul-18, 06:57 AM
II would like to remind everyone that evolutionist thinking has gotten in the way of how we think of our ancestors - they were human beings and had wisdom all their own. They built great monuments and invented things (like the Roman arch) that we still use today.


I'm at a loss to understand how "evolutionist thinking has gotten in the way of how we think of our ancestors." There is no presumption in evolution that humans in historical times were less intellectually capable than today's humans. Some "alien astronaut" proponents claim that humans were incapable of building pyramids, etc. without help, but that has nothing to do with evolutionary science.



Certainly it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something!


Heh. See my sig.

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-18, 07:57 AM
Certainly it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something!It depends upon how you define "nonexistence." If I were to blow up the Earth, I'd say that this would pretty much settle the matter of its existence. You might argue that I didn't really blow it, I just enabled it to move to another plane of existence, but then, if I were the kind of guy who'd go around blowing up planets, I'd probably just kill you at that point, and the argument would be over as far as I was concerned. :D

Jeff Root
2009-Jul-18, 10:36 AM
I'm at a loss to understand how "evolutionist thinking has gotten in
the way of how we think of our ancestors." There is no presumption
in evolution that humans in historical times were less intellectually
capable than today's humans. Some "alien astronaut" proponents
claim that humans were incapable of building pyramids, etc. without
help, but that has nothing to do with evolutionary science.
I suspect that many people who are completely comfortable with
the idea of evolution and have a worldview of everything tending
to evolve and improve over time-- people like me-- could get a
mistaken or exaggerated notion of the amount of change in human
intellectual capability over a period of a few thousand years. Even
if anthropologists don't believe anything of the kind, the general
population could very well perceive ancient people as having been
less intellectually capable than people today, on average. I think
that is likely the source of Weltraum's comment.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-18, 11:04 AM
I for one would place more faith in ancient peoples than in some guy claiming to interpret their ancient writings (e.g. Zecharia Sitchin). I would like to remind everyone that evolutionist thinking has gotten in the way of how we think of our ancestors - they were human beings and had wisdom all their own. They built great monuments and invented things (like the Roman arch) that we still use today. And so, if there is a real record, correctly interpreted, which tells of a planet-type visitor to our solar system, I would certainly pay it heed. But I for one have NOT seen the clay tablets that Sitchin claims to understand and have not heard other opinions from scholars who may have seen the same or similar materials. I also wouldn't presume to judge which techologies an ancient civilsation had and which they did not. Certainly it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something! So before you go suggesting that ancient Sumerians did not have the wheel... ;)

As noted above, my reference was to the Maya, not the Sumerians.

As for the ancients, let me ask you, would you prefer to be treated for a brain tumor by a very intelligent Cub Scout with one lesson in first aid under his belt or a surgeon with years of practice and proven performance? That's the difference between the Sumerians and modern astronomers.

thorswitch
2009-Jul-23, 01:03 PM
Last time I listened to him (and I haven't done that since he claimed NASA had the crew of Columbia murdered)

I've recently started a new blog about "politics and other human stupidity" which includes conspiracy theories, so I'm trying to gather on some of the different conspiracy theories out there as well as why those theories are bunk, so I can include posts on those topics. With the Apollo hoax theories getting a recharge from the 40th anniversary (and the announcement that some of the tapes are missing,) I figured this would be a timely subject to write about.

This particular claim - that NASA had the crew of Columbia murdered is a new one to me. While I can, and will, google for info on it, given the reputation of this board's members in knowing their stuff, I was hoping maybe one or more of you could recommend a good, reputable site with info on what, exactly, the CTs believe, what "evidence" they claim supports their belief, and why it's all crap.

Thanks!!

Egregious Philbin
2009-Jul-23, 02:19 PM
I looked at Hoaxland's site last night. He has the "smoking gun" on LRO. Some babble about heat signatures supporting his domes on the moon.

Zero specifics, one crappy photo, and "stay tuned for part 2"

I'm guessing that for the REAL info, you will need to attend his conference for $150.

What a grifter

Gillianren
2009-Jul-23, 05:15 PM
This particular claim - that NASA had the crew of Columbia murdered is a new one to me. While I can, and will, google for info on it, given the reputation of this board's members in knowing their stuff, I was hoping maybe one or more of you could recommend a good, reputable site with info on what, exactly, the CTs believe, what "evidence" they claim supports their belief, and why it's all crap.

Our own Jay Windley's Clavius site is about the best one around. Our own Bad Astronmer's site also has some stuff, specifically about the stupid Fox special, as I recall. I know several other members have sites. I just can't remember who, I'm afraid.

djellison
2009-Jul-23, 08:25 PM
Some babble about heat signatures supporting his domes on the moon.

He's used one uncalibrated IR image from the LCROSS flyby that - totally unastonishingly - shows the moon being warmest at local 'noon' and cooling off at local dawn and dusk.

Funny, isn't it. China, Europe, Japan, India...all sent probes to the moon and ALL missed his 'domes'.

He's a fraud, a liar, a cheat, and by pedalling this nonsense for cash, a thief.

Egregious Philbin
2009-Jul-23, 09:17 PM
He's used one uncalibrated IR image from the LCROSS flyby that - totally unastonishingly - shows the moon being warmest at local 'noon' and cooling off at local dawn and dusk.

Funny, isn't it. China, Europe, Japan, India...all sent probes to the moon and ALL missed his 'domes'.

He's a fraud, a liar, a cheat, and by pedalling this nonsense for cash, a thief.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I figured the picture represents, oddly, the moon is hotter when the sun is shining on it!

But wait, somehow the number 19 will factor in, because, as we all know NASA is an agency of Masonic overlords.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-23, 09:42 PM
Yeah, that is pretty much what I figured the picture represents, oddly, the moon is hotter when the sun is shining on it!

But wait, somehow the number 19 will factor in, because, as we all know NASA is an agency of Masonic overlords.

The Moon is a 33rd Degree Satellite. Everybody knows that. (And they have a lodge on the dark side for "special" meetings.)

LaurelHS
2009-Jul-23, 10:21 PM
Our own Jay Windley's Clavius site is about the best one around. Our own Bad Astronmer's site also has some stuff, specifically about the stupid Fox special, as I recall. I know several other members have sites. I just can't remember who, I'm afraid.

There's Bob B.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

And PhantomWolf.
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/index.html

Gillianren
2009-Jul-23, 11:14 PM
There's Bob B.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

And PhantomWolf.
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/index.html

Thank you kindly.

djellison
2009-Jul-24, 07:22 AM
because, as we all know NASA is an agency of Masonic overlords.

You know what - if that were true, I'd be VERY annoyed with my Great Uncle who is a mason, and who hasn't got me 'in' to NASA.

Grrr.
:whistle::lol:

Egregious Philbin
2009-Jul-24, 01:43 PM
You know what - if that were true, I'd be VERY annoyed with my Great Uncle who is a mason, and who hasn't got me 'in' to NASA.

Grrr.
:whistle::lol:


Tublecane

Tuckerfan
2009-Jul-27, 04:37 AM
You know what - if that were true, I'd be VERY annoyed with my Great Uncle who is a mason, and who hasn't got me 'in' to NASA.

Grrr.
:whistle::lol:

You just didn't use the correct phrase. In distress, one's supposed to say, "Will no one help the Widow's Son?" To gain access to NASA all you have to say is, "I believe my cheese is green." They will respond with, "One hand washes the other." To which you must reply, "It's wabbit season!" (What? You didn't know that Warner Brothers cartoons were part of the conspiracy? It was all revealed in Duck Amok (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4r77s_duck-amuck-wbchuck-jones-1953_creation)!) Why am I suddenly hearing the sound of heli---

SquantoTerror
2009-Jul-27, 06:47 AM
You just didn't use the correct phrase. In distress, one's supposed to say, "Will no one help the Widow's Son?" To gain access to NASA all you have to say is, "I believe my cheese is green." They will respond with, "One hand washes the other." To which you must reply, "It's wabbit season!" (What? You didn't know that Warner Brothers cartoons were part of the conspiracy? It was all revealed in Duck Amok (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4r77s_duck-amuck-wbchuck-jones-1953_creation)!) Why am I suddenly hearing the sound of heli---

You've said too much, sir.