Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

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.

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?

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

"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.

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?

"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...01/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.

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.

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...01/ast24may_1/

Start there.

Specific evidence not supplied. Noted. Thanks.

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.

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