Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

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/

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?

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".

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.

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.

"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.