Richard Hoagland looks at CCD detector noise and sees glass towers

Cool site, thanks for the lead, I don't see whatever you folks are talking about, nicely done. I don't follow him, but the few times I listened, he was enjoyable, but was too busy to listen to whole lectures.

a reply to: Gianfar

Welcome to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle of language. The thing about words is that they are like stones in a pond with spaces in between; I can jump from stone to stone but, alas, I can't fill in the spaces with other stones.

Here is what I experienced:

There used to be a very well dressed and behaved street gang that would daily meet kitty-corner to the front door of my home. One evening about dusk I took my low power telescope outside to look at some stars. This attracted their attention and from a distance they began to shout their interests in astronomy and ask different questions. Somehow the topic changed to the subject of UFO's and they wanted to know if I believed in such things. I responded by saying that you could probably look up into the sky anytime and see one flying by. No sooner had I spoke those words and turned my eyes heavenward when I witnessed a very fast moving double-V formation of bluish white pulsating lights speed along in a southeast to northwest corridor. It was not a single craft as the background sky was still visible behind them at all times. Their individual outlines were not well defined at all and seemed more like blobs without identifying features. They flew at an altitude that I would have to say was medium for a jet, not cruising height but not approach level either. There were at least 7 of these lights per single formation with no detectable exhausts, vapor trails or noise. They continued to stay in very tight formation throughout the entire observation. I pointed in their direction as I cried out for the gang to witness the event with me, but by the time they could orient themselves to peer skyward, the lights were well past any visible horizon. If I had to guess at the speed of these things, I would have to say they were traveling about three times the speed a military jet of that period and at that altitude might travel. When first viewed, each light was about the size of a pea at arms length with extended finger. Many years later I discovered that what I witnessed that night was commonly known as the Texas Lubbock Lights formation type. An alleged photo taken of the original sighting in Texas exists online.

originally posted by: prodiffenon
a reply to: Gianfar



Here is what I experienced:

Interesting and nicely reported. In short, it appears that you are saying that you interpreted the synchronicity (talking about UFOs and then having the event) as a sort of catalyst which either led to an illusion or allowed you to be a part of an illusion. Would this be something along the lines of your thinking?

That wretched, unreadable web page of Hoaglands contains 136 markup errors, according to the W3C markup validation service.

One of the errors is the lack of a TITLE child element within the HEAD element. This makes it illegal HTML. No wonder it doesn't render correctly.

a reply to: Gianfar

At the time I truly believed I had witnessed a real event. The synchronicity of it all was actually making it more difficult to convince those people on the corner I had seen anything.

It was a real illusion, much like a real production company produces the illusion of a movie using props and special effects.

I tend to think that synchronicity is about us all the time but on rare occasions an event emerges to make that specific phenomenon known to us on a conscious level. There is synchronicity in you preparing a meal, discussing an idea, walking down the street, chopping a block of wood or even sleeping.

It would take an entire book to explain but in a nutshell my worldview includes the notion that we are all under the temporary control of a malevolent hierarchy of beings (both visible and invisible) intent on our collective blindness and destruction. That is not a fatalist paranoia; I've experienced extraordinary things all my life and one of my hobbies is to attempt to find patterns in what I've seen or heard. I can't escape the conclusions I have come to accept from looking at my patterns.

I want to end this post with an idea I've been working on: just as bad-science is working in the Hoagland worldview of things happening in outer space to bewitch his audience (including himself), so too is real genuine and proven science also working in humanity to bewitch us all. In other words, real science is also bad science!

This in my opinion of course.

originally posted by: prodiffenon
a reply to: Gianfar

At the time I truly believed I had witnessed a real event. The synchronicity of it all was actually making it more difficult to convince those people on the corner I had seen anything.

It was a real illusion, much like a real production company produces the illusion of a movie using props and special effects.

I tend to think that synchronicity is about us all the time but on rare occasions an event emerges to make that specific phenomenon known to us on a conscious level. There is synchronicity in you preparing a meal, discussing an idea, walking down the street, chopping a block of wood or even sleeping.

It would take an entire book to explain but in a nutshell my worldview includes the notion that we are all under the temporary control of a malevolent hierarchy of beings (both visible and invisible) intent on our collective blindness and destruction. That is not a fatalist paranoia; I've experienced extraordinary things all my life and one of my hobbies is to attempt to find patterns in what I've seen or heard. I can't escape the conclusions I have come to accept from looking at my patterns.

I want to end this post with an idea I've been working on: just as bad-science is working in the Hoagland worldview of things happening in outer space to bewitch his audience (including himself), so too is real genuine and proven science also working in humanity to bewitch us all. In other words, real science is also bad science!

This in my opinion of course.

That's pretty deep. Does your view preclude physical people living on other planets? And why does it have to consist of a malevolent hierarchy, as compared to other possibilities, such as a hierarchy of beings in a cosmic stratum of evolutionary development, from say primates to immortals?

You also mention that we are in a 'temporary' subjugation to this malevolent hierarchy. I'd like to know more about that as a possible component of my own world view. For example, would this hierarchy consist of different, inter-dimensional species and would that explain so-called alien contact experiences? Is a belief that one has experienced contact one of the psycho-spiritual preconditions propagated to satisfy a human requirement for full acquiescence? Is there a parasitic nature to these beings?

Also, would you consider Hoagland a victim of this phenomena or perhaps attribute a more fundamental explanation such as physiological delusion?

a reply to: Asertus

Loads fast, no extra nonsense pages to load. Seems like a well laid out web page to me. With that being said, I don't bother with Richard Hoagland one way or the other.

a reply to: Gianfar

My worldview is Christian and the Judeo/Christian Bible supports the development of my ideas and pattern identification.

I believe there could indeed be life on other planets but certainly not in this solar system. It is as if God has planted a cosmic "keep off the grass" sign in our soil while He deals with us on the matter of sin and reconciliation.

Apparently the alleged ufonauts aren't listening.

I think it funny that there have been so many types of alleged spacecraft and alien forms reported through the ages and for some strange reason which few ever talk about, every single one of these very different alleged craft with their diverse occupants have visited our lonely atmosphere.

Now unless we have the only public bathroom in the sector, I can't imagine why our planet has been especially favored by the entire collective of possibilities for unknown craft and unknown beings. That is one of the reasons I believe the whole UFO/ET phenomenon is part of a controlling deception: there is just too much variety! I'd expect three or four variations...but hundreds to thousands of varied types of alien vehicles and lifeforms, and more coming every day? No way!

The reason I say the entities controlling this deception are malevolent is because I have personally experienced it at their hand. They are benevolent until you question their motives: then they begin to display their true intentions.

Here is something else I believe evidences a pattern by way of a question: ask yourself if any aspect of the UFO/ET phenomenon would be acceptable in our time were it not for the gradual and generational insinuations of evolutionary philosophy and science into our ways of thinking about ourselves. If the conclusions of evolutionary thought are real then ET's COULD be real; and if we were to ever be introduced to a very well played out illusion of them, then the centuries old deeply culturally and globally embedded thoughts regarding evolution would jump any gap in our believing until we are compelled to accept that ET's MUST be real!

From WHAT IF to COULD BE to MUST BE. Without the WHAT IF and COULD BE, we would never accept any deception on a global level such as that promised by a MUST BE type of alien contact. There would be no precedent for thinking along those kinds of mental pathways.

Look at what Hoagland is purporting on his site. All kinds of what if scenarios with just enough bad science to be able to conclude it all could be. Should the day come when an alien deception is upon us, instead of seeing it as such, Hoagland and his followers would proudly proclaim that it must be! He's being carefully groomed in the soon to arrive deception that is going to engage the entire planet.

You use the term interdimensional. I find it interesting that without our modern sciences and scientific lexicons, we would not be in a position to summon ideas or words like that with any kind of construction. And as I pointed out earlier, I believe science is itself part of a deception.

Its The Sting meets The Matrix. The movie The Sting softsold us into believing we could be deceived on a grand scale and when the time was right, the movie The Matrix hardsold us into believing we could escape any deception no matter how grand. If we believe, culturally and globally that we cannot be deceived, partly due to Hollywood, science, and applied technologies, as well as the recent lexicographical terms like "interdimensional" then why should we ever question a grand planet wide deception should it ever show up? We are swamped with too much intellectual noise to the contrary to ever question our own abilities to discern the difference between what is real and what is not real. We too are being groomed just like Hoagland.

Are ET's real? Of course they are...just ask the history of words, philosophy, science and applied technologies. They are our (false) witnesses. Many will greet these deceptions with open arms and smartphone captures!

Hoagland is under a psychological delusion but so are scientists around the world who are engaging in any endeavor. From our perspective, we can look at Hoagland and say, he must be using bad science and is delusional. But from the perspective of these controlling entities, are not we also using bad science and are delusional IF the endgame is to deceive us?

There is not one person who lived or is living that can ever prove 1+1=2. He may show that 1+1=2 using Peano Postulates and the rest of the axioms of our real number system, but it remains unprovable. One may also take note that Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell failed in their voluminous work Principia Mathematica to prove that 1+1=2. They were, however, able to demonstrate the symbolic line of thinking that leads to a conclusion that 1+1 might equal two. This inability to resolve the simplest of the number and equality operations led Bertrand to despair ever writing about the subject again.

Are we so easily deceived that we can't even be certain of 1+1? What then shall we say about the rest of experiences in life? Logic, science, evidence, facts are all meaningless in trying to comprehend ourselves and our universe.

This is why the Bible reveals truths while mankind forever searches for truth outside the Bible and never finds it.

But that is the subject for a book.

a reply to: prodiffenon

You use the term interdimensional. I find it interesting that without our modern sciences and scientific lexicons, we would not be in a position to summon ideas or words like that with any kind of construction.

Just to make a point, thats not entirely true. Many Hindu gods are indeed "inter dimensional" some having the ability to exist in at least 3 separate cosmic eggs at once!, two is alright but 3??, thats impressive.

The language has evolved for sure, but the concept has remained the same.

a reply to: Bellor

From cosmic eggs to interdimensional worlds.

Yet, attempt to engage the UFO/ET phenomenon as we know it today using the terms "cosmic eggs" in any critical analysis of the subject.

Words carry an evolutionary sophistication with them, and as time goes on, it is these evolved sophistications that, properly fitted within a discussion, work to convince us of anything. Additionally, a sophisticated term permits us to look at a lesser sophisticated term tongue-in-cheek.

Do not our sophisticated scientific words mock the less sophisticated worlds of myth, legend and superstition? That is why they are called myths, legends and superstitions: our current words have dethroned their eminence.

It's hilarious to me. It has only recently been discovered that myths were a condensed shorthand for safekeeping and preserving oral traditions (in a time when few could ever read or write) by way of symbols, archetypes and epic level verbosity. Who would have thought that a myth is now a pretty good contender for the precise science of historical recordkeeping. Myths now have precision attributable to them. But no one is listening because it took too many generations to finally figure that out. So for most folk today, myths are still myths, thanks to the evolution of science which is also a system of symbols, archetypes and epic level verbosity.

What goes around, comes around. There is nothing new under the sun.

a reply to: prodiffenon

do not our sophisticated scientific words mock the less sophisticated worlds of myth, legend and superstition?

Personaly im not convinced

Hindu cosmology

The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything, but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.

The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles

The concept of multiverses is mentioned many times in Hindu Puranic literature

. Further conversations talk about the atoms or anu at quantam level and inside each quantam level are different universes

As adaptable as language can be, as I think illustrated perfectly in Hindu epics, it is simply not feasible to constantly engage in purely scientific terminology.

Prodiffenon said; Are we so easily deceived that we can't even be certain of 1+1? What then shall we say about the rest of experiences in life? Logic, science, evidence, facts are all meaningless in trying to comprehend ourselves and our universe. This is why the Bible reveals truths while mankind forever searches for truth outside the Bible and never finds it. But that is the subject for a book. [quote/]


If this is true, what about religion - how do you process the validity of the bible as being the real truth? Wouldn't the paradigm of deception have infiltrated the historical contexts of the bible over the millennium? So, how do you test the accuracy and truthfulness of the bible? What if the miracles of Jesus is just another version of the miraculous extraterrestrial vision? Suppose that religion and Christianity were simply the archaic paradigms of the deception, replaced by alien contact and miraculous technocracy for modern thinkers.

originally posted by: Telos
Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information.

Like his information on the "Face on Mars"..

Like his claim Elenin was not a comet but some kind of time capsule....

a reply to: Gianfar

Good questions.

I don't think I can answer them in this post however (as it relates to Hoagland's site). Also, I am new here. I need at least 20 posts (?) to be able to start my own thread.

Why don't you start an on topic thread for me in the appropriate forum and show me where it is? I will post my answers there later (after I eat).

a reply to: prodiffenon

I PM'd you 20 mins. ago.

a reply to: Gianfar

I can't find your thread.

a reply to: prodiffenon

Check your private messages in the my ATS page.

a reply to: Gianfar

I did. It just says Religion. I can't find any new threads by that name; or in the Forums with Religion as part of the name.

a reply to: prodiffenon

PM me.

a reply to: Gianfar

I tried but this is the message I got when I tried to send it off to you:

"You may not send private messages to anyone but ATS Staff."

The only way I can answer your questions is if you start a new thread and give me a direct link to it here in this post.