Richard Hoagland looks at CCD detector noise and sees glass towers

originally posted by: prodiffenon
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.

Hi there,

I see you are a new member. New members have to submit 20 posts before they can A] send PM's to other members and B] start new threads.

Cheers

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: Asertus

Loads fast, no extra nonsense pages to load.

What part of "The markup is illegal and the page doesn't render correctly in Firefox" don't you understand?

a reply to: Bellor

I've always been fascinated by vedic texts and the ancient Hindu works. What I've read comes from authors who write about them in modern terms. My questions is, how do you know that these texts are really discussing things like quantum particles and the present day multiverse theory?

a reply to: Spiro

Thanks Spiro. Would like to PM you for a bit of conference, if that's not imposing.

originally posted by: Bellor
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.

If they're right about quantum particles and multiverses, then maybe their gods are real after all. The question is, what are they?

a reply to: Asertus

"Why does this boring, ignorant man get so much air time on national radio? "

You seem to be captivated by the chap!

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: Spiro

Thanks Spiro. Would like to PM you for a bit of conference, if that's not imposing.

Not imposing at all my friend

Cheers

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Asertus


Why does this boring, ignorant man get so much air time on national radio?

According to what I know, Ignorant is someone who's lacking knowledge or information. Hoagland is none of that. Actually he's a very knowledgeable man with a lot of information. What he does with that is totally different topic. Maybe you should have started your thread in the Rant forum.

Hoagland is not ignorant, he is relentlessly full of crap. He is profoundly dishonest.

How do you know Hoagland is lying? His lips are moving.

a reply to: Asertus

I'm using Firefox, everything loads just fine. Saw nothing out of the ordinary. Thanks for being civil.

a reply to: Auricom
The background tiling problem seems to have been fixed. The markup is still illegal, however. Thanks.

originally posted by: Asertus
a reply to: Auricom
The background tiling problem seems to have been fixed. The markup is still illegal, however. Thanks.

Greetings, would you mind explaining the mark up which you believe is illegal, please? I don't understand what you mean.

Serious question

Cheers

a reply to: Spiro

The most serious error is the lack of a TITLE element. This is absolutely required by the rules of HTML and always has been -- it's nothing new. The text of the declared TITLE appears in the page tab of modern browsers. In its absence, the URL appears, and there isn't enough horizontal space for it so it's useless.

The next most serious error is the lack of a DOCTYPE declaration. Strictly speaking, in the absence of a DOCTYPE a browser has no way of knowing how to render the page -- however, since the www is full of amateurs like Hoagland, modern browsers use a "fallback" DOCTYPE. This is REALLY SLOPPY.

There is no ALT text specified for any of the images. This is no biggie for most users, but plenty of users with disabilities or very slow connections depend on the ALT text.

There are about 12 cases in which an ampersand has been included in an image URL. It's illegal and I'm frankly surprised that it doesn't cause more trouble.

There are still 136 errors and 23 warnings, reported by the W3C validation service.

ON THE UPSIDE, the CSS validates with no errors. He got something right.

a reply to: Asertus

Thank you for that

Based on that, would you be able, with your good knowledge of website building etc, to find out if Hoagland is responsible for hosting and creating the website?

Did he build it?
Did he build it knowingly of these " mistakes "?

or...

Is it being hosted on a site unbeknown to him?
Is it being hosted and built by a third party, and Hoagland just uploads.

How do we now prove that Hoagland is responsible for the claims of the OP?

Cheers and thanks again

a reply to: Spiro

A Whois lookup on enterprisemission.com shows that the site is registered to Robin Falkov, of "Health Freedom Rights, Inc."

She is Hoagland's partner, and is also a "practising homeopath": www.healthfreedomrights.com...

(In other words, somebody who prescribes water and sugar pills to sick people; i.e. a charlatan and a quack.)

But yes, it appears the website is hosted with Hoagland's knowledge, even if not personally by him.

I enjoy Hoagland as well and find some of his theories interesting if not fascinating. He is very knowledgeable but sometimes doesn't get his point across as clearly as he could and of course he is not a web designer but how many of us are? Not me.

We know that our government lies to us. We know that NASA simply ignores some really interesting anomalies or interesting objects. We know that there are many unexplained phenomena in our solar system and in many of our manned and robotic missions.

Why not explore some different theories to find explanations for these? Good on Hoagland.

a reply to: amazing

Couldn't disagree more. He clearly doesn't understand the first thing about digital images, or he would know that he is not looking at real objects.

Not to mention he sometimes appears to fabricate his "anomalies" out of whole cloth (or at the very least, if he is not the fabricator, he fails to do due diligence on the images he uses)...



Edit to add credit for above image.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Spiro
But yes, it appears the website is hosted with Hoagland's knowledge, even if not personally by him.

It's hosted by GoDaddy. Hoagland definitely composes the pages himself, I presume with the help of the GoDaddy templates.

originally posted by: Asertus

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Spiro
But yes, it appears the website is hosted with Hoagland's knowledge, even if not personally by him.

It's hosted by GoDaddy. Hoagland definitely composes the pages himself, I presume with the help of the GoDaddy templates.

Thanks.

OK, how do we go about finding Hoagland knowing fine well that he is performing illegal activity on his website?

a reply to: Spiro

It's hardly "illegal activity", just some bad coding. Given that the entire content of the website is spurious, I hardly think he will give two hoots if he's got some hokey HTML tags

originally posted by: Spiro
OK, how do we go about finding Hoagland knowing fine well that he is performing illegal activity on his website?

Rob48 is right. It's not illegal as in criminal, just broken code. I haven't checked every single browser but I'm willing to bet some of them give up on the page.