Richard Hoagland On Martian Revelation 2-5-05 - Page 4

Stu only first half was meant fot you. You seem like a very balanced person from here.

Greg said: His claims are so outlandish that all power of persuasion are lost. When someone makes that many claims that are downright stupid, they lose all credibility. It takes a person of limited intelligence to believe him.

I agree; I was probably being a bit too even-handed in my post.

And obviously Mr H is worried about his image - and his credibility - because yesterday someone posted a very blunt message on his Blog's Comments section, criticising him for referring to the London terrorist attacks, and today it appears - unless I scrolled past it too quickly, still very early here! - to have been removed, with no reference to it. Obviously he feels it necessary to censor his own criticism now, and only leave the gushing praise on his site.

So much for "freedom of speech", eh? Happy to blast NASA and accuse them of one conspiracy after another, of wasting money and lying to the whole world, but accept criticism himself? Oh no, can't do that. Why does the word "hypocrite" spring to mind?

As the quaint old English saying goes, "He can give it but he can't take it"!

I think hoagland is getting a bum rap.

Here are the statements from his blog.
Including the one he removed.

"I'm sorry you were offended by my characterization of the London victims as "clueless. But, that is what I believe we ALL are ...
One minute you're peacefully commuting into another day of work; the next, you're blown apart by a bomb planted by "persons unknown," for "purposes unknown," directed by more "persons unknown" ....
we are ALL actually "clueless" in this increasingly vicious situation ....
When I hear that certain folks -- like the former Israeli Prime Minister -- were warned to stay in their hotels five minutes BEFORE the first bomb went off in the London underground the other morning, but NOT the folks in the tubes themselves ... I get damn angry ... and suspicious! Like, when one of our mayors over here in San Francisco, Willie Brown, was warned the night before (!) NOT to fly to New York on September 11 ....
So, I would put myself at the top of that list: ultimately, I'm as "clueless" about "who" and "what" is REALLY driving all of this as everyone else. I only know it's NOT as we're being repeatedly told ....
So, unless all us "clueless" people rise up soon ... and DEMAND the truth on what is REALLY going on ... this insanity (and a lot more) will simply go on ... and on ... and on.
And a LOT more "clueless" folks like me will continue dying needlessly, horribly ... all over the world .... "

"Clueless is just a way of saying 'innocent' in polite American slang.
That would be, 'Virgins without rifles' in the King's English." ~cryptosemiotician

(the removed is below)
Anonymous said...
"and killing more truly clueless people"

I dont care what story you're pedaling, what bullshit you're spewing - THAT was uncalled for, THAT was sick, THAT was disgusting, THAT was TOTALLY vile.

You've spun some crap on your site in the past Hoagland, you really have - and frankly, I've not given a damn as no one in their right mind would visit your site for anything more than comedy purposes.

But to stoop to the point of painting your bullshit storys with the blood of the innocent people murdered in London - that is SICK and VILE.

I hope you rot in hell for it, you deserve to.

I totally agree with that penultimate phrase

He's trying to make his point using the people who died in London.

It's not persons unknown - we have 4 names

It's not reasons unknown - we know why.

But regardless of the facts - he uses the death of 50+ innocents as ammunition for his complete and utter crap.

And that is sick.

There is NO lengths one could go to in describing Hoagland, and it be considered a bum rap.

Doug

Can I just ask - is there anyone here who believes Hoaglands Iapetus theory - that it displays obviously artificial features and could possibly be an entirely artificial moon.

Doug

The only artificiality I see here is Hoagland himself.

I will only state that Iapetus is a "very odd" satellite, and am patiently awaiting the September 2007 close encounter.

For the time being, I am also awaiting the images of the Enceladus flyby yesterday.

Cassini approached wiithin 109 miles (107 to be exact). Those images should be spectacular.

Did you notest that my previous post was number 66?!?

Maybe I was sended here by Heyuh Count of Iapetus and Ruler of the Earth...

Who knows?...

what's so special about 66?

(this post was sent from venus)

Ohhh...The 69th Venusian Sender asking with false ignorance the meaning of the Scarpenian Sacred number...

Doug Ellison writes (reply 65) "is there anyone here who believes Hoaglands Iapetus theory - that it displays obviously artificial features and could possibly be an entirely artificial moon"?

First, I don't consider that to be "Hoagland's theory". My understanding is that Arthur C Clarke has precedence. Hoagland is only the person who has been making most of the running with the theory in recent times, not the originator.

When Clarke first wrote about Iapetus he didn't have the close-up images we have now. As far as I know the only evidence he had was the fact that Iapetus has one shiny side and one matt side. That is anomalous enough, but hardly conclusive evidence, so we could describe Clarke's notion as a hunch. But subsequent observations do seem to support that hunch, in my opinion. Especially the arrow-straight and precisely equatorial ridge which extends along a litle over one third of the equator and which precisely bisects the elliptical matt patch which which covers most of one hemisphere.

My hypothesis, which I have mentioned on this site more than once, is that Iapetus has been extensively mined and that the ridge is a ramp which was used to transport mined raw materials off the moon at minimal cost in propellant. A linear electrical motor running along the top of the ramp accelerated the payloads until they went beyond the highest end of the ramp, at which point they would (hopefully) have attained orbital velocity. Thereafter the acceleration would be continued using chemical rockets, causing the payloads to spiral outwards until they achieved escape velocity. The sooty residue from the chemical rocket jets painted the ridge side of Iapetus matt black. The rockets were only ever fired on the ridge side of Iapetus, to minimise contamination of the mining operations on the non-ridge side. The careful modulation of the rocket jets resulted in the sooty patch being a neat oval.

I would be interested in any wholly natural explanation which accounts for the observed features to a similar degree.

Just to pop in and point out: Clarke's theory of artificiality was not a theory at all, but part of a novel. It was a fictional device.

just to pop in:

jules verne also wrote some fiction about 20,000 leagues under the sea, and rockets to the moon.

better wake up rockhead, for the "times they are a'changing"

btw "they're rocks", how do you feel about the "icy snowball" theory of comets?

fool.

you couldn't lick AC's shoes.

First, in 2001 Clarke did not say that Iapetus was artificial. He only described its odd light and dark sides and predicted the dark patch on the white side before it was seen. The dark patch was a monolith that was a portal to somewhere else. Somewhere else was never really clearly defined. It was a great book.
I don't know if Iapetus is artificial. So far as I can tell, it seems to be the strangest most mysterious body in the solar system. I wish they would alter Cassini's agenda, and put more energy into Iapetus. The mission is mostly about Titan, with numerous flybys. I too am so looking forward to the close encounter with Iapetus. I wish it were sooner.

Stan

You're a pathetic ass, moxyone.

Clarke had no "theory" that Iapetus was artificial. It was a novel.

Invoking other novels that speculated about rocket travel or other scientific projects is beside the point, but you're too dense to know why. Or even, I imagine, what the point is.

I agree with you Stan.

2 years for Iapetus....they should alter the trajectories...we may never see her up close.

and that would be a the ultmate travesty.

you are the pathetic narrow-minded ass, rockhead.

you missed the point.

AGAIN.

I truly feel sorry for you rockhead.

truly.

what a finite existence you must live. (or try to anyway)

Suddenly my whole argument about intuition seems prophetic.

(exerpt from post # 3 In example gregp1962 and Doug Ellison perhaps believe that logic alone is responsible for mankinds great acheivements, I would posit for their inspection the fact that art has often mimiced the forms of technological advancement somtimes several decades before such logical leaps take place (consider the art called impressionism which is created using colored dots to impress the image of an object on the back of the human eye juxtaposed with the pixels recieved by the same organ this time sent from mars to earth and then reordered for viewing and comment by people who are disscusing even now their "impressions" of these images.)

Do you guys see my point now?