Artificial Moon, Iapetus And George Lucas' Star Wars ?

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:

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.

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/

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/

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

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/