Richard C Hoagland

Diabhal Beag

Was just wondering what the rest of you guys think of him. I find him insufferable and so arrogant. He still won't admit he was wrong about the face on Mars ****.

So what are your thoughts?

bytey

how was he wrong about the face on mars , exactly ?

i take it you have been there and proven the structure is not artificial ?

and you are not obviously relying on what NASA has said about it , are you ?

Mahatma coat

Exactly, NASA Havent 'Proven' or 'Disproven' anything, moreso its just attacks on Hoaglands character, Why??

humanji

Well here's a link that gives more recent and more detailed photos. If NASA wanted to hide the fact that there was a giant head carved into Mars, they wouldn't have released photos of it. And it only really looks like a face under certain conditions. That said, I really hope it turns out like this:




As for Hoagland, a lot of what he says is unsubstatiated and a lot of it comes out as nonsense. But bits of what he says makes sense, such as the possibility of life on Europa.

But I think he's a legend because he thinks Nazis escaped into space after the war and these "Space Nazis" are trying to stop the rest of us from exploring the galaxy.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

But bits of what he says makes sense, such as the possibility of life on Europa.

This isn't unique to Hoagland most astro-biologists think there's a good possibility that there's some form of life there, and possibly on Saturn's moon, Titan. In fact there's a few missions in the early planing stage to go to Europa, get under the ice and explore it's ocean. This is spurred on precisely becasue there might be life there.

Hoagland however probably is claiming that there is definitaly life because of some shadow or or out of place pixel.
Frankly the man is a crank and a liar.

digme

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Was just wondering what the rest of you guys think of him. I find him insufferable and so arrogant. He still won't admit he was wrong about the face on Mars ****.

So what are your thoughts?

He's a complete tosser.When i first heard him I thought he was great, but soon after he was on the radio again grandiosely spouting more fantasy with his usual cocky, "i know the meaning of life type insights".He's a child, who I'd say suffers fits of rage quite regularly.

Diabhal Beag

Sorry about the Face on Mars thing but I don't really see enough proof on his side of the argument to say NASA lied about it. Not to say there isn't life on Mars but I don't think the face on Mars is a structure created by aliens.

bytey

no need to say sorry mate !

but id take anything - anything NASA makes public - with a serious healthy scepticism

its a national security agency , not a science department.

the face on mars may not be a face , but it IS artificial.

kryogen

bytey wrote: »

no need to say sorry mate !

but id take anything - anything NASA makes public - with a serious healthy scepticism

its a national security agency , not a science department.

the face on mars may not be a face , but it IS artificial.

How do you know that?

I take it you have been there and proven it IS artificial?

your obviously not relying on what "some guy" on the internet has said about it, are you?

Diabhal Beag

kryogen wrote: »

How do you know that?

I take it you have been there and proven it IS artificial?

your obviously not relying on what "some guy" on the internet has said about it, are you?

This really is a pointless argument. None of us have been to Mars clearly.

iPlop

King Mob wrote: »

Hoagland however probably is claiming that there is definitaly life because of some shadow or or out of place pixel.
Frankly the man is a crank and a liar.

Perfectly correct sir.He is now claiming Phobos 2 is a spaceship :rolleyes:

"As noted in Part I -- as a direct result of the recent "ultra-close-approaches" of the European Space Agency (ESA) Mars Express spacecraft to "Phobos" -- the tiny, inner Moon of Mars -- a variety of scientific experiments aboard that spacecraft have now converged, after analysis of their results by the Enterprise Mission ... on an artificial "moon" hypothesis for "the origins of Phobos"--

As a ~15-mile-long, extremely old and battered ... ancient spaceship.

Imminent, official confirmation of this data -- which we at Enterprise have held (and published on ...) for over twenty years -- will change EVERYTHING.

Mad as a box of frogs!!!



LOL:pac:

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

no need to say sorry mate !

but id take anything - anything NASA makes public - with a serious healthy scepticism

its a national security agency , not a science department.

the face on mars may not be a face , but it IS artificial.

How do you know it's artificial?

Hoagland is pretty much a crank. He constantly criticies NASA as being liars and untrustworthy, yet he uses NASA images all the time to 'prove' his theories!! You can only laugh at his 'logic'.

bytey

you dont need to go there ,
or even view the( NASA altered ) pictures
to know they are hiding something - and if they are hiding - it must be artificial.

the behaviour of NASA towards the object , and the listed attempts of deception in providing pictures, and / or altering pictures by NASA would indicate

1/ there is something to hide
2/ if there is something to hide - it cant be natural.


smoke = fire = simple logical deduction

and yes , its likely Phobos is artificial

kryogen

logic is a mystery to some isnt it

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

you dont need to go there ,
or even view the( NASA altered ) pictures
to know they are hiding something - and if they are hiding - it must be artificial.

the behaviour of NASA towards the object , and the listed attempts of deception in providing pictures, and / or altering pictures by NASA would indicate

1/ there is something to hide
2/ if there is something to hide - it cant be natural.


smoke = fire = simple logical deduction

and yes , its likely Phobos is artificial

Yes with all those high-res images released by NASA and ESA they must be hiding something. Why release any images at all if there is something to hide? Your argument makes exactly zero sense.

And as for Phobos, seems like you are just repeating what Hoagland claims (with no evidence).

bytey

high res
but pre altered

bytey

kryogen wrote: »

logic is a mystery to some isnt it

if you need help with logic , try starting with a box of matches .

namloc1980

bytey wrote: »

high res
but pre altered

How can you pre alter an image??? Do you have evidence of alterations or is it just your opinion? And are you saying that ESA are in on it as well?

kryogen

Thankfully I dont need help with logic

Listen im all for rational debate and knowledge sharing and those who know me know, i am open minded and do accept and believe many CT's

But spouting things as fact when you dont have a shred of evidence, and apparently dont understand what you are talking about yourself isnt going to help matters

humanji

bytey wrote: »

you dont need to go there ,
or even view the( NASA altered ) pictures
to know they are hiding something - and if they are hiding - it must be artificial.

the behaviour of NASA towards the object , and the listed attempts of deception in providing pictures, and / or altering pictures by NASA would indicate

1/ there is something to hide
2/ if there is something to hide - it cant be natural.


smoke = fire = simple logical deduction

and yes , its likely Phobos is artificial

I'm having trouble with this. What non-NASA pictures have you seen? And what is NASA's behavior towards the the object? As far as I know, people have claimed it's a face, and NASA have said it isn't. That's not exactly suspicious behaviour.

Smoke doesn't always mean there's fire. And in this case, I don't even think there's smoke.