Richard Hoagland - Not Credible

I've been reading and listening to Richard Hoagland's material for years. He presents us with very convincing images, equasions, charts, stats, and information. Let me tell you he's quite a talker, and can make you belive anything... even though it's complete tripe!

Okay, when you have a person that is refered as a pseudoscientist, dosen't that give you a hint about this guys credibilty? Not only that, he's a pseudomathmatician, this guy creates his own math, and always seems to get the answer he wants (I wish I could do that and get away with it). Pseudoastronomer, all of his calculations are done in Imperial Units not SI units which tend to cause problems (remember that space probe that crashed on mars?).

He comes out with very bizzare mathematical numbers of distances that must mean aliens. But do you think aliens use the same method of counting or measument we use now?



(ABOVE) Richard Hoagland in his hightech labrotory.

HOAGLAND DEBUNKING SITES:

Here is a link about Richie: www.ufowatchdog.com...


Trust this real astronomer's veiws on Hoagland: www.badastronomy.com...


Can't say this guy is a complete write-off, he did come out with the idea of warm oceans under Europa's (moon of Jupiter, if you've been living under a rock for that last few years) ice layer which may actually be true (I belive it).

Now he came out this outragious new theory about Itepetus (Saturn's Moon) that it was built by aliens. Is that his answer to everything? Pyramids on mars? Aliens. Pyramids on Earth? Aliens (is he imposing that humans were to stupid back then?). Tsunami? Hyperdimensional occurance! Wow! This is the go-to guy for all of our problems! This universe is full of beautiful, odd, and mysterious wonders that are to occur naturaly. The saddest thing of it all, we will never prove his theories wrong, we are never going to land a probe on Itepetus in the near future. He covered up his tracks about the Face on Mars saying NASA nuked it when those high-res photos came in.

This man has been on Coast to Coast AM many times, propogating his tripe further. He turned down many fight-club like debates with real mathmaticians and astronomers on that radio show to discuss his information's credibilty.

It just seems to me this guy manipulates information to make you belive what he want's you to belive. I belived him at first, you may have too. I found my self ingnorant to have done so without researching it for myself! His information about aliens, cities on mars, and orbiting space stations refreshing in these times, that's why I and so many others belived him. I'll never make the same mistake again.

Richard's website (apparently a Star Trek fan): Richie's Little Site



I hope this opened your eyes a bit about this mans credibility. I'm not turning him down as a person, just his credentials.


Read, Reasearch, come up with your own conclusions, because I did.
Here on ATS we Deny Ignorance!



____


[edit on 5/14/2005 by GoldEagle]

[edit on 5/14/2005 by GoldEagle]

[edit on 5/14/2005 by GoldEagle]

I've been reading and listening to Richard Hoagland's material for years. He presents us with very convincing images, equasions, charts, stats, and information. Let me tell you he's quite a talker, and can make you belive anything... even though it's complete tripe!

You had me wondering for a second until you called it utter tripe I agree 100 %, but get your flame-retardant bio-hazard suit on, you're gonna need it

sardion2000 your totally right, I'm going to need a HAZMAT suit, probably have one in the closet somewhere. I'm just speaking the truths after months of research on him and his findings (actually 3 weeks worth spread over a few months), my personal life is quite shot yet. I spent lots of time anylizing his findings on Itepitus [spelling] and how it's completely false.

[edit on 5/14/2005 by GoldEagle]

To tell you the truth, I believe that Hoaglund himself doesn't believe half the stuff he spews, as I have heard him talk with Art Bell from time to time, and he sounded sane(at times)! I think this whole thing is just a persona in order to sell his books(like Howard Stern et al). It's a pitty really, as he has some real charisma and debating skills that are being wasted by concoting these fantasies. Is he still going on 'bout that "face" on Mars? I've tuned him out looong ago.

Though Coast to Coast's George believes in this man and I respect the work George does, I really cannot believe in Hoagland's stuff eg the face on Mars.. just things without any witnesses or other real proof or continuity amongst Ufologists which supports some of his theories.

Dallas

There is some evidence that George Noory himself is questioning Hoagland's credibilty on this web page, it's a transcript from C2C when Hoagland explained how he was "under attack" by people that have actual carrers in the fields of science, math, and astronomy. This is Phil Plait that is getting attacked in this converstaion, he is a legitimate astronomer. -

Hoagland on Coast to Coast

Richard Hoagland seems to be very hostile, and may I say insane. He seems to be a very unprofessional person and snaps at every given moment to the point of yelling. George Noory defends Phil Plait throughout the conversation.

It's also seems that Richard Hoagland is a die-hard Star Trek fan. He bases alot of his theories on concepts from that show. This explains alot dosen't it?


I should have put this thread in the Aliens/UFO board, it would have recived much more attention there.

[edit on 5/14/2005 by GoldEagle]

Originally posted by GoldEagle
Can't say this guy is a complete write-off, he did come out with the idea of warm oceans under Europa's (moon of Jupiter

And neither that was his discovery.

He says, from his own mouth, that he published the first scientific paper that there might be an ocean, and life in it.
So, was he really the first? No, he wasn't. Hoagland's claims in this case are at best misleading.

First, while Star and Sky was a fine magazine, it was not a scientific journal. It was a popular magazine for amateur astronomers and astronomy enthusiasts. I have written for several magazines such as that myself, and writing for them is an entirely different matter than writing a scientific journal article. So right away, Hoagland claiming this is a "scientific paper" is a pretty big stretch of the truth.

Second, the idea of oceans on or in the moons of Jupiter had been around for many years before Hoagland published his article. John Lewis, a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona published an article in 1971 about this in volume 15 of Icarus, a (scientific!) journal of planetary sciences. The article was entitled "Satellites of the Outer Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature". At the time, his arguments were based on somewhat incomplete data, but later he published a paper (with Guy Consolmagno) which appeared in 1976 in the book "JUPITER: Studies of the interior, atmosphere, magnetosphere, and satellites" (edited by T. Gehrels) which gives better details of the moons' interiors. This clearly establishes that Lewis thought of this ocean idea before Hoagland did.
www.badastronomy.com...

Originally posted by sardion2000
It's a pitty really...

When aim of life of someone is lying only pity is that he's still allowed to deteriorate alreary bad enough human gene pool with average iq already lower than room temperature (in Celcius scale).



PS. And there's error in name, it's Hoaxland.

Richard C. Hoagland is a nut case. Not only does he think all this stuff is connected to aliens living on Mars a billion years ago, hes living on Mars! Art Bell and George Noory have him on for entertainment value, and thats it.

I remember a few years ago when I started to listen to Coast to Coast, it was when Art Bell was out and George was filling in for him. Hoagland insisted about some new images and proof of something or other on Mars. Thing is, he never has any more information than what he has already spewed. He just rehashes, twists and contorts things to make himself sound credible.

I couldn't agree more WissNX01, Richard Hoagland is strictly on Coast to Coast AM for entertainment value. I don't belive that the producers and cast of that show belive half the stuff that guy spews. He gives the public what they want, that's all they care about.

Here's another thing to think about, it's just a coincedence that that Itepetus "death star" thing has been revealed by him, right before the new installment of star wars comes out. This man desperatly wants to prove to us that aliens were in our solar system before we were on earth.

This title suits him best...
[Richard C. Hoagland - Editor at the Weekly World News]



[edit on 5/15/2005 by GoldEagle]

The thing about Hoagland is that hes satirized on the Phil Hendrie show as General Johnsen Jameson. This guy is a joke, and it even spills over onto other shows on the same broadcast group as Coast to Coast.

Hoaglands only contribution to any science, if you can count it as that, is his coverage of the Apollo landings with Walter Cronkite. Cronkite has even spoken out about how nuts this guy is, and avoids him, should they be at the same event.

In fact, I cant remember the last time Richard has been on Coast for longer than a few segments. George Noory has him on usually the first hour of the show before the main guest. I cant even remember the last time he was on with Art Bell. Hoaglands idiocy has reduced him to a B-list guest on Coast to Coast.

Originally posted by WissNX01
In fact, I cant remember the last time Richard has been on Coast for longer than a few segments. George Noory has him on usually the first hour of the show before the main guest. I cant even remember the last time he was on with Art Bell. Hoaglands idiocy has reduced him to a B-list guest on Coast to Coast.

He's usually on longer with Snoorey, but then again, he believes everything. But you're right, I personally don't think Art can stand him anymore. Art has limit to how crazy his guests can be.

I still like to hear from him every once in a while because he amuses me. It's funny how he calls everyone important his "good friend" from Carl Sagan to Walter Kronkite. They wouldn't want anything to do with him, if they even know who the hell he is...

I agree that he is not credible.

He probably does it for publicity and money, which drives most people to do anything. I have a hard time believing that he believes himself.

I agree that he is not credible.

He probably does it for publicity and money, which drives most people to do anything. I have a hard time believing that he believes himself.

I actually like George Noory better than Art Bell. George connects with callers and guests better. On an average night when Art is on the air, he will cut off callers and dismiss them and make his own conclusion, if they were done making thier point or not. George has a better radio voice and is much better to listen to. George is a great person, much more likeable than Art Bell.

That being said, I think George likes to give his guest the benifit of the doubt. Also it is radio, an entertainment medium, and he is to entertain his listeners. Who better than Richard C. I actually have a MP3 from the other week when Richard was on C2C for his 60th birthday. Its pretty funny, and shows how people really view Hoagland. If anyone is interested, I can email a copy, its really good stuff.

Something about R Hoagland doesnt compute. He's passionate allright, and i think he beleives most of the stuff he says but take it from me, he's INSANE!

I like his high tech office. I wonder if its a single or double trailer

I don't see any difference among Hoagland, Jim McCanney, or Zechariah Sitchen. All three of those dudes refer to themselves as "professors" or "researchers" when they're not.

For example, McCanney, a self-described "professor" was, at one time, a math instructor at a college (not a professor, and he had an MS instead of a Ph.D.).

Sitchen, one of the "greatests experts on Ancient Sumerian and Akkadian Languages" (if you believe his book jackets) has an undergraduate degree in economic history!

Of course, degrees or lack of them don't make anyone smart or even educated. And who am I to sneer at McCanneys master's degree when I'm still working on mine at age 60??

But it's that those people actually make more of themselves than what they really are that sets off alarm bells in me and should in anyone else.

I don't claim to be a "researcher" or a "scientist", just an old engineering bureaucrat. These guys actually try to hide or embroider their background to make themselves into something they're not. That, plus the fact that they have never published in any scientific journals (which if they were what they claimed to be, you'd expect them to); they postulate beliefs and assertions that no other researcher buys into; and, instead of defending their ideas, they end up attacking the "scientific establishment".

Richard Hoagland was adviser to Walter Cronkite? Whatever that means...
He's always introduced like that.
He's either right on the money or a lunatic, but who can prove it?

I am seriously suprised that no one is defending him. There are a few people that might, probably the people in this forum have all done there own reaserch and don't just listen to what ever someone says.

This man should use his carismatic skills for other, constructive things and stop with this dribble about aliens that is obviously not true.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Richard Hoagland was adviser to Walter Cronkite? Whatever that means...
He's always introduced like that.
He's either right on the money or a lunatic, but who can prove it?

He was just an advisor during the Apollo program. I dont think he was on the air with Cronkite much.

Why wouldn't he and Carl Sagan both be good friends?

Neither of them believes everything they say.

Hoagland does it under the context that he is just theorizing.

Sagan does it by saying science NEVER says it is sure, only that it usually knows BEST.

Sagan also says there is not a shread of evidence nor any reason to believe the mind and body are not one and the same, substance and purpose.

Hmmm... I guess thats why people need to beware when you hear someone say, you only live once, might as well make the most of it.

Isn't this what has lead to most misery in the world, the belief that someone else can suffer, because YOU are making the most of it. Hey, they were going to be a slave any way. I just gave them direction.