Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

[Quaalude]

"OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
natural untouched moon ¡K."

"An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...

"An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
in the solar system"

"Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
construction"

"The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
moon¡¨ together!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm

[Hagar[_3_]]

"Quaalude" > wrote in message
...


I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.

[Sam]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:

> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
> ...

Snipped:

"OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
natural untouched moon ¡K."

"An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...

"An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
in the solar system"

"Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
construction"

"The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
moon¡¨ together!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm

> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.

Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
troll ;)

[Hagar[_3_]]

"Sam" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>
>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> Snipped:
>
> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>
> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>
> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
> in the solar system"
>
> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
> construction"
>
> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
> moon¡¨ together!
>
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>
>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>
> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
> troll ;)

You can do with it whatever you want ... Hoaxland is the same dude
who also still clings to the "Face on Mars" phenomena, complete
with all the mathematical coincidences and pyramids of Cydonia,
which has long since de-bunked by close-up satellite photos.

He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
to the true, albeit witless, believers.

[Sam]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:30:27 -0700, Hagar wrote:

> "Sam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>
>>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>> Snipped:
>>
>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>>
>> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>>
>> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
>> in the solar system"
>>
>> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
>> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
>> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
>> construction"
>>
>> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
>> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
>> moon¡¨ together!
>>
>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>>
>>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>>
>> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
>> troll ;)
>
> You can do with it whatever you want ...

Thank you!

> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
> satellite photos.

Cite, please.

> He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
> He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
> to the true, albeit witless, believers.

Let me proffer that witless is closely aligned with a lack of evidence
supplanted only with an author's opinion. ;0)

Mr. Hoagland otoh uses NASA and NASA related imagery, quotes dozens of
sources for corroboration and enjoys an academic and professional
background which has been on public display for over 20 years.

I find it best, when confronted with a question such as Quaalude's
"Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars??" to take time
to read the material, search for corroboration or dissent and weight
accordingly. Followed by carefully controlled release of the acquired
data.

Think fine dining instead of drive by fast food. ;)

[Tom[_17_]]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:57:42 -0400, Sam wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:30:27 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>
>> "Sam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Snipped:
>>>
>>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>>> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>>>
>>> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>>>
>>> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
>>> in the solar system"
>>>
>>> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
>>> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
>>> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
>>> construction"
>>>
>>> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
>>> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
>>> moon¡¨ together!
>>>
>>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>>>
>>>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>>>
>>> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
>>> troll ;)
>>
>> You can do with it whatever you want ...
>
> Thank you!
>
>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>> satellite photos.
>
> Cite, please.
>
>> He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
>> He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
>> to the true, albeit witless, believers.
>
> Let me proffer that witless is closely aligned with a lack of evidence
> supplanted only with an author's opinion. ;0)
>
> Mr. Hoagland otoh uses NASA and NASA related imagery, quotes dozens of
> sources for corroboration and enjoys an academic and professional
> background which has been on public display for over 20 years.
>
> I find it best, when confronted with a question such as Quaalude's
> "Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars??" to take time
> to read the material, search for corroboration or dissent and weight
> accordingly. Followed by carefully controlled release of the acquired
> data.
>
> Think fine dining instead of drive by fast food. ;)

Summary: Hagar has no ****ing beliefs at all; he's just a nasty little
twerp who likes mouthing off like one of those kids that throws a bag
of flaming dog**** on someone's door step, rings the doorbell and
runs away.
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

[Sam]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:05 -0400, Tom wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:57:42 -0400, Sam wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:30:27 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>
>>> "Sam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Snipped:
>>>>
>>>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>>>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>>>> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>>>>
>>>> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>>>>
>>>> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
>>>> in the solar system"
>>>>
>>>> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
>>>> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
>>>> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
>>>> construction"
>>>>
>>>> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
>>>> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
>>>> moon¡¨ together!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>>>>
>>>>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>>>>
>>>> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
>>>> troll ;)
>>>
>>> You can do with it whatever you want ...
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>>> satellite photos.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>>
>>> He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
>>> He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
>>> to the true, albeit witless, believers.
>>
>> Let me proffer that witless is closely aligned with a lack of evidence
>> supplanted only with an author's opinion. ;0)
>>
>> Mr. Hoagland otoh uses NASA and NASA related imagery, quotes dozens of
>> sources for corroboration and enjoys an academic and professional
>> background which has been on public display for over 20 years.
>>
>> I find it best, when confronted with a question such as Quaalude's
>> "Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars??" to take time
>> to read the material, search for corroboration or dissent and weight
>> accordingly. Followed by carefully controlled release of the acquired
>> data.
>>
>> Think fine dining instead of drive by fast food. ;)
>
> Summary: Hagar has no ****ing beliefs at all; he's just a nasty little
> twerp who likes mouthing off like one of those kids that throws a bag
> of flaming dog**** on someone's door step, rings the doorbell and
> runs away.

Cruel.

But true :0)

[Hagar[_3_]]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:05 -0400, Tom wrote:

> Summary: Hagar has no ****ing beliefs at all; he's just a nasty little
> twerp who likes mouthing off like one of those kids that throws a bag
> of flaming dog**** on someone's door step, rings the doorbell and
> runs away.

**** you, in the nose, on the horse you rode in with. I have read
everything Hoaxland has written, ok almost everything...ok I read
forums...one forum...and there a dude said what I said and he was
right.

That's two of us. He reads the forum too.

So there ****face, evidence and corroboration. <finger>

[Tom[_18_]]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:19:55 -0400, Hagar wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:05 -0400, Tom wrote:
>
>> Summary: Hagar has no ****ing beliefs at all; he's just a nasty little
>> twerp who likes mouthing off like one of those kids that throws a bag
>> of flaming dog**** on someone's door step, rings the doorbell and
>> runs away.
>
> **** you, in the nose, on the horse you rode in with. I have read
> everything Hoaxland has written, ok almost everything...ok I read
> forums...one forum...and there a dude said what I said and he was
> right.
>
> That's two of us. He reads the forum too.

Yeah yeah these Usenet newsgroups are full of assclowns whose entire
base of knowledge was handed to them instead of rationally,
intellectually acquired. So wtf else is new, it's a military thing
"Kill this, bomb that, don't think, do.." mentality.

> So there ****face, evidence and corroboration. <finger>

You pinned me man, with like, dude, pins n things.
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

[HVAC[_2_]]

On 10/15/2011 11:05 AM, Quaalude wrote:
> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
> natural untouched moon ¡K."

I'd have to take a Qualude to read this....





>
> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>
> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
> in the solar system"
>
> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
> construction"
>
> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
> moon¡¨ together!
>
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm


--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[HVAC[_2_]]

On 10/15/2011 2:10 PM, Tom wrote:
>
>
> Summary: Hagar has no ****ing beliefs at all; he's just a nasty little
> twerp who likes mouthing off like one of those kids that throws a bag
> of flaming dog**** on someone's door step, rings the doorbell and
> runs away.


I love doing that!


PS- It's done best when you hit the homeowner with eggs
as he's stomping the dog****.













--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Tom[_18_]]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:39:13 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 11:05 AM, Quaalude wrote:
>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>> natural untouched moon ¡K."


>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm

> I'd have to take a Qualude to read this....

I was more of a Soper fan more than a Rorer 714. yqmv.
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

[Hägar]

"Sam" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:30:27 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>
>> "Sam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Snipped:
>>>
>>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>>> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>>>
>>> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>>>
>>> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
>>> in the solar system"
>>>
>>> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
>>> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
>>> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
>>> construction"
>>>
>>> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
>>> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
>>> moon¡¨ together!
>>>
>>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>>>
>>>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>>>
>>> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
>>> troll ;)
>>
>> You can do with it whatever you want ...
>
> Thank you!

@@@ You're welcome Trekie ...

>
>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>> satellite photos.
>
> Cite, please.

@@@ Yep ... you're a Trekie, head firmly implanted up your ass.

>
>> He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
>> He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
>> to the true, albeit witless, believers.
>
> Let me proffer that witless is closely aligned with a lack of evidence
> supplanted only with an author's opinion. ;0)
>
> Mr. Hoagland otoh uses NASA and NASA related imagery, quotes dozens of
> sources for corroboration and enjoys an academic and professional
> background which has been on public display for over 20 years.
>
> I find it best, when confronted with a question such as Quaalude's
> "Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars??" to take time
> to read the material, search for corroboration or dissent and weight
> accordingly. Followed by carefully controlled release of the acquired
> data.
>
> Think fine dining instead of drive by fast food. ;)

Hoagland has made a living from distorting the truth and peddling the
results to hapless and brain-dead Trekies ... like you, for instance.

You might want to Google him ... but you won't ... it'd blow
your tenuous grasp on reality.

[Sam]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:23:38 -0700, Hägar wrote:

>>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>>> satellite photos.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>
> @@@ Yep ... you're a Trekie, head firmly implanted up your ass.

Have a nice life.

[Hägar]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:33:41 -0400, Sam wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:23:38 -0700, Hägar wrote:
>
>>>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>>>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>>>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>>>> satellite photos.
>>>
>>> Cite, please.
>>
>> @@@ Yep ... you're a Trekie, head firmly implanted up your ass.
>
> Have a nice life.

I do, Trekkie! Better than yours! When I stick my head up my ass, it
doesn't stink.

[LIBERATOR]

On Oct 15, 9:05*am, Quaalude > wrote:
> "OK, let’s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
> Actually, it’s easier to begin with what it’s not: apparently, a
> natural untouched moon …."
>
> "An entire spaceship world … trapped in orbit … around Saturn...
>
> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
> in the solar system"
>
> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
> construction"
>
> "The remains of a deep, massive “equatorial reinforcing ring” -- which
> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this “artificial
> moon” together!
>
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm

Lots of data there, I didn't have time to read it, but it's clear
Saturn is populated and by a highly evolved black civilization:
uhura.com - she profiles herself in front of Saturn because she is
from there and a queen of the planet.

I suspect your findings with the moon are correct.

[Tom[_19_]]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:40:44 -0400, Hägar wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:33:41 -0400, Sam wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:23:38 -0700, Hägar wrote:
>>
>>>>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>>>>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>>>>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>>>>> satellite photos.
>>>>
>>>> Cite, please.
>>>
>>> @@@ Yep ... you're a Trekie, head firmly implanted up your ass.
>>
>> Have a nice life.
>
> I do, Trekkie! Better than yours! When I stick my head up my ass, it
> doesn't stink.

It's good to know you're ass doesn't stink <making notes>

*LMAO*
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

[Sam]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:48:06 -0400, Tom wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:40:44 -0400, Hägar wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:33:41 -0400, Sam wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:23:38 -0700, Hägar wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>>>>>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>>>>>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>>>>>> satellite photos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite, please.
>>>>
>>>> @@@ Yep ... you're a Trekie, head firmly implanted up your ass.
>>>
>>> Have a nice life.
>>
>> I do, Trekkie! Better than yours! When I stick my head up my ass, it
>> doesn't stink.
>
> It's good to know you're ass doesn't stink <making notes>
>
> *LMAO*

Whether Hagar's ass stinks or not is inconsequential. Once the debate
is colored by personal attacks drifting hurriedly away from the
issues, the individual who has perpetrated this offense is done.

Hagar eliminated himself.

[Painius]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:57:42 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:30:27 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>
>> "Sam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:55:51 -0700, Hagar wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Quaalude" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Snipped:
>>>
>>> "OK, let¡¦s begin with the big one: what the hell is Iapetus!?
>>> Actually, it¡¦s easier to begin with what it¡¦s not: apparently, a
>>> natural untouched moon ¡K."
>>>
>>> "An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>>>
>>> "An irregularly shaped, Iapetus-sized body is something quite unusual
>>> in the solar system"
>>>
>>> "Now that we have identified several striking areas on Iapetus -- each
>>> exhibiting large-scale, unquestionably geometric surface features,
>>> which, together, present a highly provocative case for intelligent
>>> construction"
>>>
>>> "The remains of a deep, massive ¡§equatorial reinforcing ring¡¨ -- which
>>> was used to literally join the two hemispheres of this ¡§artificial
>>> moon¡¨ together!
>>>
>>> http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon3.htm
>>>
>>>> I should have known ... this is vintage Hoaxland.
>>>
>>> Care to elaborate or shall we simply accept that this was a hit 'n run
>>> troll ;)
>>
>> You can do with it whatever you want ...
>
>Thank you!
>
>> Hoaxland is the same dude who also still clings to the "Face on
>> Mars" phenomena, complete with all the mathematical coincidences
>> and pyramids of Cydonia, which has long since de-bunked by close-up
>> satellite photos.
>
>Cite, please.
>
>> He was wrong then, which pretty much assures that he's wrong now.
>> He does know how to spin a grand tale and sell subject related books
>> to the true, albeit witless, believers.
>
>Let me proffer that witless is closely aligned with a lack of evidence
>supplanted only with an author's opinion. ;0)
>
>Mr. Hoagland otoh uses NASA and NASA related imagery, quotes dozens of
>sources for corroboration and enjoys an academic and professional
>background which has been on public display for over 20 years.
>
>I find it best, when confronted with a question such as Quaalude's
>"Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars??" to take time
>to read the material, search for corroboration or dissent and weight
>accordingly. Followed by carefully controlled release of the acquired
>data.
>
>Think fine dining instead of drive by fast food. ;)

Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
bought some of those nifty postage stamps...

http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm

that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...

An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
> Paine Ellsworth

Hubris can be a powerful thing; humanity sees faces and manmade-like
images in clouds (on two occasions I looked up toward sunset and saw
cloud formations that strikingly resembled huge wagonwheels complete
with spokes and hub), we see rocks that appear to form faces and large
arrowheads, and we sometimes even see religious forms in the warpings
of windows on large buildings...

http://www.realpix.com/vmsite.html

If one is well-traveled, one may have seen all sorts of unusual things
such as buildings built out of solid rock during eras when humanity
had not the tools to do such things, and witch doctors in Africa that
could do things that would make your eyes pop!

Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
that surrounds Saturn's North pole...


http://news.discovery.com/space/saturns-north-pole-hexagon-mystery-solved.html
Rather than to fight about such things, it seems much better to keep
our imaginations at work searching for ways to unveil the secrets of
Nature, which to me is always the job of science.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[HVAC[_2_]]

On 10/16/2011 3:16 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> Hubris can be a powerful thing; humanity sees faces and manmade-like
> images in clouds (on two occasions I looked up toward sunset and saw
> cloud formations that strikingly resembled huge wagonwheels complete
> with spokes and hub), we see rocks that appear to form faces and large
> arrowheads, and we sometimes even see religious forms in the warpings
> of windows on large buildings...
>
>
> If one is well-traveled, one may have seen all sorts of unusual things
> such as buildings built out of solid rock during eras when humanity
> had not the tools to do such things, and witch doctors in Africa that
> could do things that would make your eyes pop!


And a couple of hits of purple microdot doesn't hurt either!










--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Painius]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 07:16:07 -0400, HVAC > wrote:

>On 10/16/2011 3:16 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Hubris can be a powerful thing; humanity sees faces and manmade-like
>> images in clouds (on two occasions I looked up toward sunset and saw
>> cloud formations that strikingly resembled huge wagonwheels complete
>> with spokes and hub), we see rocks that appear to form faces and large
>> arrowheads, and we sometimes even see religious forms in the warpings
>> of windows on large buildings...
>>
>> If one is well-traveled, one may have seen all sorts of unusual things
>> such as buildings built out of solid rock during eras when humanity
>> had not the tools to do such things, and witch doctors in Africa that
>> could do things that would make your eyes pop!
>
>And a couple of hits of purple microdot doesn't hurt either!

That would certainly explain many of YOUR posts, HallucinationVAC!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Sam]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:

> Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
> from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
> bought some of those nifty postage stamps...
>
> http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm
>
> that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
> about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
> mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...
>
> An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
> > Paine Ellsworth

A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam ;)

> Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
> the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
> that surrounds Saturn's North pole...

I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"

Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)

Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.

> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
> of science.

That is, when science can be of assistance.

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 16, 12:28*pm, Sam > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:


> Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
> time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
> begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
> is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)
>
> Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows

Occam's Razor.

> at least Hoagland is
> willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
> retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.

Sure thing, but he gets to pay for the trip, right? I mean he isn't
the project manager or anything, but he can certainly fund the
mission, if that is his wish.

> > it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
> > ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
> > of science.
>
> That is, when science can be of assistance.

Beats using a Magic Book of Spells though, doesn't it?

[Sam]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

> On Oct 16, 12:28*pm, Sam > wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
>> time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
>> begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
>> is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)
>>
>> Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows
>
> Occam's Razor...

...is a flawed perceptual principle. Reality is much more complex than
humans perceive it to be so there is no merit in the idea that simple
explanations have more validity than complex ones. Simple explanations
are more likely to be generalistic and run a greater chance of
ommitting relevant information.

A better name for Occam's Razor would be Occam's Perceptual
Limitation. Be assured you are incorrect.

>> at least Hoagland is
>> willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
>> retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>
> Sure thing, but he gets to pay for the trip, right? I mean he isn't
> the project manager or anything, but he can certainly fund the
> mission, if that is his wish.

I don't know what to say...??

>>> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
>>> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
>>> of science.
>>
>> That is, when science can be of assistance.
>
> Beats using a Magic Book of Spells though, doesn't it?

<When science> is our only friend.
This is The End. ~Jim Morrison

[Greg \(Strider\) Moore]

> "Sam" wrote in message ...
>
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:
>> Occam's Razor...
>
>..is a flawed perceptual principle. Reality is much more complex than
>humans perceive it to be so there is no merit in the idea that simple
>explanations have more validity than complex ones. Simple explanations
>are more likely to be generalistic and run a greater chance of
>ommitting relevant information.

if you're omitting relevant information, you're not employing Occam's Razor.

>
>A better name for Occam's Razor would be Occam's Perceptual
>Limitation. Be assured you are incorrect.
>
>>> at least Hoagland is
>>> willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
>>> retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>>
>> Sure thing, but he gets to pay for the trip, right? I mean he isn't
>> the project manager or anything, but he can certainly fund the
>> mission, if that is his wish.
>
>I don't know what to say...??

Hoagland is a crackpot. He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
he's wrong here.

--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> Hoagland is a crackpot.

Opinion. Specific evidence?

> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
> he's wrong here.

Specific evidence?

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 16, 9:25*pm, Sam > wrote:

> >> Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows
>
> > Occam's Razor...
>
> ..is a flawed perceptual principle. Reality is much more complex than
> humans perceive it to be so there is no merit in the idea that simple
> explanations have more validity than complex ones. Simple explanations
> are more likely to be generalistic and run a greater chance of
> ommitting relevant information.
>
> A better name for Occam's Razor would be Occam's Perceptual
> Limitation. Be assured you are incorrect.

Or not - you are just guessing. Until we find some Bothans to give us
the plans to this alleged "Death Star", the chances I am right are at
least as great as you being right, and given common sense (and the
fact we haven't found any other derelict space stations, but we HAVE
found a significant number of ice-ball moons), I am going to take it
for granted your 'flawed perception' in this case, exceeds my 'flawed
perception'.

Ok, the alternatives here are "ball of ice" or "Death Star". We don't
understand everything about that little moon, but can we agree its
MORE likely to be a ball of ice, or a derelict spaceship of *massive*
size? In the absence of obvious tool marks, or, say, a thermal
exhaust port jutting out of the thing, you can believe its a space
ship, and I think I will continue to believe its a ball of ice.

> >> at least Hoagland is
> >> willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
> >> retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>
> > Sure thing, but he gets to pay for the trip, right? *I mean he isn't
> > the project manager or anything, but he can certainly fund the
> > mission, if that is his wish.
>
> I don't know what to say...??

Just say, "Fair enough"

If I say that Iapetus is Cheddar and insist that the only way to prove
me wrong is for the Gov'mint to re-direct a lander to the spot I say,
I would expect them to make me pay for this flight of fancy. Why
shouldn't Hoagland..?

> >>> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
> >>> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
> >>> of science.
>
> >> That is, when science can be of assistance.
>
> > Beats using a Magic Book of Spells though, doesn't it?
>
> <When science> is our only friend.
> This is The End. ~Jim Morrison

Choose your book then - "Science" or "Return of the Jedi".

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

>>> Sure thing, but he gets to pay for the trip, right? *I mean he isn't
>>> the project manager or anything, but he can certainly fund the
>>> mission, if that is his wish.
>>
>> I don't know what to say...??
>
> Just say, "Fair enough"
>
> If I say that Iapetus is Cheddar and insist that the only way to prove
> me wrong is for the Gov'mint to re-direct a lander to the spot I say,
> I would expect them to make me pay for this flight of fancy. Why
> shouldn't Hoagland..?

I have no idea what you are blithering which is why I repeat "I don't
know what to say (respond)."

I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
this Elenin stuff.

If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.

But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.

Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
people usually want to believe them.

But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
interview are their only source of income.

The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.

This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
basically lead you round in circles.

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 7:02*am, Sam > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> > Hoagland is a crackpot.
>
> Opinion. Specific evidence?

His posts.

> > He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
> > he's wrong here.
>
> Specific evidence?

uhh, well, we can start with the lack of 'cities' and 'monuments' and
go from there. His fantasies about "Explorer I" are particularly
amusing.

[Greg \(Strider\) Moore]

"Sam" wrote in message ...
>
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
>> Hoagland is a crackpot.
>
>Opinion. Specific evidence?

Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down his
bibliography.

>
>> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
>> he's wrong here.
>
>Specific evidence?
>

You are joking right? Have you seen ANY of the photographs taken of the
"face" in the last decade.

i.e. the ones that show positively there is NO FACE there and never has
been.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/

Start there.



>

--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> "Sam" wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Hoagland is a crackpot.
>>
>>Opinion. Specific evidence?
>
> Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down his
> bibliography.
>
>>
>>> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
>>> he's wrong here.
>>
>>Specific evidence?
>>
>
> You are joking right?

No, I'm Sam.

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> "Sam" wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Hoagland is a crackpot.
>>
>>Opinion. Specific evidence?
>
> Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down his
> bibliography.
>
>>
>>> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
>>> he's wrong here.
>>
>>Specific evidence?
>>
>
> You are joking right? Have you seen ANY of the photographs taken of the
> "face" in the last decade.
>
> i.e. the ones that show positively there is NO FACE there and never has
> been.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/
>
> Start there.

Specific evidence not supplied. Noted. Thanks.

[Greg \(Strider\) Moore]

"Sam" wrote in message ...
>
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:40 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
>> "Sam" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoagland is a crackpot.
>>>
>>>Opinion. Specific evidence?
>>
>> Basically anything he's written. I don't have enough time to write down
>> his
>> bibliography.
>>
>>>
>>>> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
>>>> he's wrong here.
>>>
>>>Specific evidence?
>>>
>>
>> You are joking right? Have you seen ANY of the photographs taken of the
>> "face" in the last decade.
>>
>> i.e. the ones that show positively there is NO FACE there and never has
>> been.
>>
>> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/
>>
>> Start there.
>
>Specific evidence not supplied. Noted. Thanks.

Umm, it doesn't get much more specific than that.

But congratulations, you have succeeded in convincing everyone that you're
an idiot.

>
>

--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

[Painius]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:47:49 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

> . . .

>I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
>this Elenin stuff.
>
>If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
>(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
>history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.
>
>But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
>'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
>the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
>point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
>theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
>dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
>most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
>in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
>some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
>just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.
>
>Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
>the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
>stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
>enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
>plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
>people usually want to believe them.
>
>But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
>that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
>out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
>material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
>After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
>interview are their only source of income.
>
>The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
>all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
>convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
>'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
>your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
>way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
>speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
>mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.
>
>This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
>'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
>pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
>encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
>basically lead you round in circles.

Congratulations. You seem to be following a similar road as I. There
may come a time when you realize that Hoagland's "yelling and
screaming" has never been valid, i.e., he never really had any "solid
material" to run out of.

Just as with most things like this, there is always the positive side.
As you point out, ". . . it pulls you in with all kinds of fascinating
concepts, and then takes you off on a convoluted trip round the
galaxy, so that your attention is always 'out there' . . ." And this
is its only saving grace. It helps maintains the public awareness so
that valid projects are more likely to receive support.

Did you know that astronomy and astrology used to be considered one
and the same thing? Did you know that many of the people who avidly
support astronomy projects read their daily astrology newspaper quips?
Fascinating people, humanity, eh?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
>> from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
>> bought some of those nifty postage stamps...
>>
>> http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm
>>
>> that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
>> about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
>> mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...
>>
>> An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
>> > Paine Ellsworth
>
>A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam ;)
>
>> Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
>> the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
>> that surrounds Saturn's North pole...
>
>I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
>Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"
>
>Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
>time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
>begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
>is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)
>
>Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
>willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
>retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>
>> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
>> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
>> of science.
>
>That is, when science can be of assistance.

When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.

Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
Mars.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[HVAC[_2_]]

On 10/17/2011 10:02 AM, Sam wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:30 -0400, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
>> Hoagland is a crackpot.
>
> Opinion. Specific evidence?

Face on Mars.

>> He was completely wrong about Mars and I'd wager
>> he's wrong here.
>
> Specific evidence?

Face on Mars.















--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >, (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

> In article >,
> Quaalude > wrote:
> >
> >"An entire spaceship world ¡K trapped in orbit ¡K around Saturn...
>
> The woo is strong with this one.

Is that what they're calling the good designer drugs now?

[Tom[_18_]]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:03:09 -0400, HVAC wrote:

>> Specific evidence?
>
> Face on Mars.

Assclowns, gather around and listen. If someone demands evidence to
back up your assclowny assertions, then responding something
equivalent to "er, over there" is no evidence at all.

Strike that.

It *is* evidence that assclowns have retarded mental capabilities so I
apologize fro my error. lol
--
"NO GUM !!" she screamed violently.

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:10:41 -0400, Painius wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:47:49 -0400, Sam
> > wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>>I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
>>this Elenin stuff.
>>
>>If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
>>(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
>>history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.
>>
>>But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
>>'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
>>the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
>>point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
>>theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
>>dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
>>most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
>>in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
>>some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
>>just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.
>>
>>Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
>>the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
>>stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
>>enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
>>plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
>>people usually want to believe them.
>>
>>But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
>>that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
>>out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
>>material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
>>After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
>>interview are their only source of income.
>>
>>The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
>>all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
>>convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
>>'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
>>your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
>>way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
>>speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
>>mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.
>>
>>This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
>>'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
>>pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
>>encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
>>basically lead you round in circles.
>
> Congratulations. You seem to be following a similar road as I. There
> may come a time when you realize that Hoagland's "yelling and
> screaming" has never been valid, i.e., he never really had any "solid
> material" to run out of.

No, Hoagland has tons of relevant, worthwhile to investigate material.

> Just as with most things like this, there is always the positive side.
> As you point out, ". . . it pulls you in with all kinds of fascinating
> concepts, and then takes you off on a convoluted trip round the
> galaxy, so that your attention is always 'out there' . . ." And this
> is its only saving grace. It helps maintains the public awareness so
> that valid projects are more likely to receive support.

Hoagland has valid projects.

> Did you know that astronomy and astrology used to be considered one
> and the same thing? Did you know that many of the people who avidly
> support astronomy projects read their daily astrology newspaper quips?
> Fascinating people, humanity, eh?

Yes.

[Sam]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:43:43 -0400, Painius wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
>>> from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
>>> bought some of those nifty postage stamps...
>>>
>>> http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm
>>>
>>> that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
>>> about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
>>> mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...
>>>
>>> An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
>>> > Paine Ellsworth
>>
>>A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam ;)
>>
>>> Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
>>> the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
>>> that surrounds Saturn's North pole...
>>
>>I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
>>Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"
>>
>>Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
>>time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
>>begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
>>is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)
>>
>>Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
>>willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
>>retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>>
>>> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
>>> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
>>> of science.
>>
>>That is, when science can be of assistance.
>
> When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
> imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.
>
> Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
> confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
> Mars.

I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
puff out their chests and claim so.

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 11:26*pm, Sam > wrote:

> > Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
> > confirmations. *Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
> > Mars.
>
> I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
> puff out their chests and claim so.

Well, try to be more aware then :)

Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
face. If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
on using the oldest images, you can select [IMAGES] and our mutual
friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
(not a face). BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.

Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
anthro into vaguely human faces. A single, distorted batch-processed
images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
geological formation for what it really is. Rocks that, if you
squint, vaguely look like a face.

If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
really proof of a race of sky indians. Its a natural human tendency
to see faces in natural objects.


I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. Or
Iapetus for that matter. The face on Mars ain't it. I am willing to
wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Oct 18, 9:46*am, Gordon > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:26*pm, Sam > wrote:
>[i]
> > > Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
> > > confirmations. *Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
> > > Mars.
>
> > I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
> > puff out their chests and claim so.
>
> Well, try to be more aware then :)
>
> Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
> NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
> face. *If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
> on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
> on using the oldest images, you can select and our mutual
> friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
> fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
> (not a face). *BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
> telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
> It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
> the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
> guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.
>
> Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
> anthro into vaguely human faces. *A single, distorted batch-processed
> images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
> can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
> resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
> sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
> geological formation for what it really is. *Rocks that, if you
> squint, vaguely look like a face.
>
> If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
> really proof of a race of sky indians. *Its a natural human tendency
> to see faces in natural objects.
>
> I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. *Or
> Iapetus for that matter. *The face on Mars ain't it. *I am willing to
> wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.

Oh fine, just interject reality into a perfectly kook-moment.

This is better than reality TV! Fruitbats, wingnuts, fjucktards on
teh Interwebs! Next you'll be telling us that Close Encounters
*wasn't* a documentary!

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 18, 9:55*am, Richard > wrote:

> Oh fine, just interject reality into a perfectly kook-moment.
>
> This is better than reality TV! *Fruitbats, wingnuts, fjucktards on
> teh Interwebs! *Next you'll be telling us that Close Encounters
> *wasn't* a documentary!- Hide quoted text -

I kept waiting for LIB to chime in, since we ARE talking about his
home world...

[george152]

On 19/10/2011 3:46 a.m., Gordon wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:26 pm, > wrote:
>[i]
>>> Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
>>> confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
>>> Mars.
>>
>> I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
>> puff out their chests and claim so.
>
> Well, try to be more aware then :)
>
> Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
> NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
> face. If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
> on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
> on using the oldest images, you can select and our mutual
> friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
> fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
> (not a face). BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
> telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
> It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
> the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
> guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.
>
> Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
> anthro into vaguely human faces. A single, distorted batch-processed
> images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
> can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
> resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
> sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
> geological formation for what it really is. Rocks that, if you
> squint, vaguely look like a face.
>
> If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
> really proof of a race of sky indians. Its a natural human tendency
> to see faces in natural objects.
>
>
> I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. Or
> Iapetus for that matter. The face on Mars ain't it. I am willing to
> wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.

Hoaxland also claimed that he could see remains of structures around the
'face'..
He could see them at a higher resolution than the camera was capable of ;)
The man is a crank

[Sam]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

> On Oct 17, 11:26*pm, Sam > wrote:
> [i]
>>> Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
>>> confirmations. *Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
>>> Mars.
>>
>> I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
>> puff out their chests and claim so.
>
> Well, try to be more aware then :)
>
> Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
> NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
> face. If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
> on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
> on using the oldest images, you can select and our mutual
> friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
> fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
> (not a face). BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
> telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
> It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
> the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
> guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.
>
> Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
> anthro into vaguely human faces. A single, distorted batch-processed
> images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
> can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
> resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
> sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
> geological formation for what it really is. Rocks that, if you
> squint, vaguely look like a face.
>
> If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
> really proof of a race of sky indians. Its a natural human tendency
> to see faces in natural objects.
>
> I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. Or
> Iapetus for that matter. The face on Mars ain't it. I am willing to
> wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.

No debunking here, only an opinion. Thanks anyway.

[Sam]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:

>> Hoaxland also yada yada yada
>
> Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
> and have absolutely no certified expertise in.

Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
"g". ahem.

[Hägar]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:37:55 -0500, Dan wrote:

> This is the same guth who "proved" the moon landings were faked
> because the lunar surface doesn't reflect sunlight and that 9-11 was an
> inside job because you can't see the ground from 36,000 feet.
>
> At best he's good for comic relief. I emailed him hoping I could
> **** his children.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired but ever-horny

That's gross you retard.

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 18, 4:36*pm, Sam > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
> >> Hoaxland also yada yada yada
>
> > Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
> > and have absolutely no certified expertise in.
>
> Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
> "g". ahem.

Build that into a conspiracy why don't you?

[Sam]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:17:31 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:

> On Oct 18, 4:36*pm, Sam > wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
>>>> Hoaxland also yada yada yada
>>
>>> Deductive image interpreting is a science which you know nothing about
>>> and have absolutely no certified expertise in.
>>
>> Seems to be a lot of experts whose posting handles start with "G" or
>> "g". ahem.
>
> Build that into a conspiracy why don't you?

Pass. Feel free to proceed "G".

[Painius]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:26:11 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:43:43 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:28:35 -0400, Sam
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:16:07 -0400, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that Hägar and I are often in agreement, however you can take it
>>>> from someone who thought so much of Hoagland at one time to have
>>>> bought some of those nifty postage stamps...
>>>>
>>>> http://ebooksgolden.com/stamps.htm
>>>>
>>>> that the more skeptical among us take the stand that Hoagland is on
>>>> about the same level as Velikovsky. Sure, it's okay to have an open
>>>> mind about it all, however it's also well to remember that...
>>>>
>>>> An open mind is quite frequently closed to opposing ideas.
>>>> > Paine Ellsworth
>>>
>>>A closed mind is always closed to any ideas except his own ~ Sam ;)
>>>
>>>> Still it seems the best thing to remain skeptical about things like
>>>> the face on Mars and NASA images of Iapetus, as well as the hexagram
>>>> that surrounds Saturn's North pole...
>>>
>>>I would agree. The issue here is a question. Note: "Artificial Moon,
>>>Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?"
>>>
>>>Hoagland, imo, like anyone who predicts and prognosticates with
>>>time/date certainty (e.g. "Disclosure by Obama in 2010 of aliens")
>>>begs to be criticized. It is wholly presumptuous to suggest that one
>>>is capable of time/date certainty, crystal ball notwithstanding ;)
>>>
>>>Is Iapetus artificial? At this time, no one knows at least Hoagland is
>>>willing to call for a direct investigation of his own claims by
>>>retrieving Iapetus evidence via a landing. Fair enough.
>>>
>>>> it seems much better to keep our imaginations at work searching for
>>>> ways to unveil the secrets of Nature, which to me is always the job
>>>> of science.
>>>
>>>That is, when science can be of assistance.
>>
>> When it comes to astronomy, the scientific method "assists" our
>> imaginations and keeps our feet on the ground, mostly.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
>> confirmations. Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
>> Mars.
>
>I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
>puff out their chests and claim so.

Then you are incurably blind. I used to defend Hoagland as firmly as
do you. Then the new images came in. You're right though. The FoM
was not debunked. Hoagland, however, was most certainly debunked.

And now, he tries to feed his dwindling following. He needs something
spectacular to get us old followers back.

Iapetus, Iapetus, Iapetus.

Not likely.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:35:35 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:
>
>> On Oct 17, 11:26*pm, Sam > wrote:
>> [i]
>>>> Unfortunately, it takes a long time to seek and to attain
>>>> confirmations. *Look how long it took to completely debunk the face on
>>>> Mars.
>>>
>>> I was unaware that the FoM was debunked except by those who wish to
>>> puff out their chests and claim so.
>>
>> Well, try to be more aware then :)
>>
>> Twenty five years after the original, fuzzy long distance overflight,
>> NASA provided crystal clear images of the area that show it is not a
>> face. If your computer has a search engine (cof), you can put "Face
>> on Mars" into your browser and instead of reading articles that insist
>> on using the oldest images, you can select and our mutual
>> friend Google will provide you will hundreds of photos - some the
>> fuzzy, low-res 1976 "face", while others show the actual rock features
>> (not a face). BTW, this isn't puffing out my chest, this is me
>> telling you how to find out if the "face" even needs to be debunked.
>> It doesn't, unless you are one of those people who prefer to believe
>> the doctor took a photo of an actual plesiasaur in Loch Ness, or the
>> guy in the suit was actually a bigfoot.
>>
>> Look, there are plenty of rock formations right here on earth that
>> anthro into vaguely human faces. A single, distorted batch-processed
>> images (43m resolution on each pixel) from a distant fly-by in 1976
>> can be toyed with, manipulated, whatever, but the high-res 2001 (1.5m
>> resolution on each pixel) shots are not only generations newer and
>> sharper, they complement the 1998 image, allowing us to see this
>> geological formation for what it really is. Rocks that, if you
>> squint, vaguely look like a face.
>>
>> If my kids look up at the clouds and see an Indian Chief, it isn't
>> really proof of a race of sky indians. Its a natural human tendency
>> to see faces in natural objects.
>>
>> I would love to find traces of a lost civilization on Mars. Or
>> Iapetus for that matter. The face on Mars ain't it. I am willing to
>> wait for actual evidence and pass on this particular bandwagon.
>
>No debunking here, only an opinion. Thanks anyway.

Yes debunking there, Sam, if only you would make the checks that
Gordon suggests. But from the sounds of you, you've already made up
your mind. And just as in all making up of one's mind, you don't
wanna think about it anymore, just defend your untenable position.

Just like Hoagland.

Aren't you proud?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:20:18 -0400, Sam
> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:10:41 -0400, Painius wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:47:49 -0400, Sam
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>>I have to admit, my opinion of Hoagland has been lowered after all of
>>>this Elenin stuff.
>>>
>>>If he simply stuck to the evidence, and what he used to focus on
>>>(photos of structures on the moon/mars etc) and documenting the shady
>>>history of NASA - he would have a lot more respect.
>>>
>>>But, like many others - he has made a career out of this stuff. The
>>>'conspiracy circuit' is now big business, but only if you can keep
>>>the material fresh and new. Sadly for him, he has now reached the
>>>point where he is promoting wildly speculative and unsubstantiated
>>>theories in order to keep his audience interested. He's connecting
>>>dots between all sorts of totally unrelated things and drawing the
>>>most stretched and tenuous conclusions, in order to maintain interest
>>>in his work. Sometimes I have to wonder whether he actually believes
>>>some of the stuff he's been coming out with recently, or whether he's
>>>just constructing theories that he thinks his audience might buy.
>>>
>>>Once the attention on one subject dies off, they seamlessly move onto
>>>the next and start coming up with theories and possibilities to
>>>stampede the audience down the next rabbit hole. There's always just
>>>enough 'evidence' available to make the latest theory seem somewhat
>>>plausible, and because they're always so sensational and exciting,
>>>people usually want to believe them.
>>>
>>>But this is the pattern you get with many of these guys. I don't think
>>>that Hoagland is an intentional disinformant, but I think that he ran
>>>out of solid material a while ago, and is now scraping around for
>>>material that can be woven into some kind of cosmic 2012 narrative.
>>>After all, for most of these people, lectures, books and the odd
>>>interview are their only source of income.
>>>
>>>The bottom line with a lot of this stuff, is that it pulls you in with
>>>all kinds of fascinating concepts, and then takes you off on a
>>>convoluted trip round the galaxy, so that your attention is always
>>>'out there', on things that cannot be accessed, proven, or applied to
>>>your daily life, and which do not threaten the power structure in any
>>>way. This is why the 'truth movement' is so full of authors and
>>>speakers that go into ancient mythology and aliens and esoteric
>>>mysticism - it doesn't threaten the power structure.
>>>
>>>This is why you'll find books like 'Dark Mission' and Wilcock's
>>>'Source Fields' on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are
>>>pre-authorized and highly promoted by the establishment, because they
>>>encourage people to follow conspiracies that can never be proven, and
>>>basically lead you round in circles.
>>
>> Congratulations. You seem to be following a similar road as I. There
>> may come a time when you realize that Hoagland's "yelling and
>> screaming" has never been valid, i.e., he never really had any "solid
>> material" to run out of.
>
>No, Hoagland has tons of relevant, worthwhile to investigate material.

Richard Hoagland has tons of conjecture and speculation. Follow him
if you want, but you are too forgiving for his antics regarding the
FoM. A zebra does NOT change its SPOTs. (OSLT)

>> Just as with most things like this, there is always the positive side.
>> As you point out, ". . . it pulls you in with all kinds of fascinating
>> concepts, and then takes you off on a convoluted trip round the
>> galaxy, so that your attention is always 'out there' . . ." And this
>> is its only saving grace. It helps maintains the public awareness so
>> that valid projects are more likely to receive support.
>
>Hoagland has valid projects.

Hoagland has nothing, as indicated by his handling of the FoM and the
other "artifacts" of Mars.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[HVAC[_2_]]

On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> I used to defend Hoagland as firmly as do you.


And now you defend other kooky ****.

Can't you see a pattern?




















--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Painius]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:15:39 -0400, HVAC > wrote:

>On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> I used to defend Hoagland as firmly as do you.
>
>
>And now you defend other kooky ****.
>
>Can't you see a pattern?

Yes, I see a pattern in all your posts, PoseurVAC.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/