The thing is this. Richard Hoagland is a science writer and journalist. I don’t think I need defend him on these pages. He can do that. But what concerns me is the cult of personality that surrounds these kind of figures who are in the public eye. Hoagland is undeniably a celebrity figure in New Age and conspiracy theory circles. There is nothing wrong with that. For various reasons he has become the figurehead of a number of theories and scientific investigations. That is his role. He started off in the news agencies and knows how to present a story and make it interesting. But it would be a shame, for both sides surrounding the content of what he publicises, if “it all becomes about Richard C Hoagland”. Both sides seem to fall for this mistake. The “believers” often fail to do their own independent scientific research and observations that might corroborate Hoagland et al, and may even uncover other interesting discoveries. Those “sceptics” when they, rarely, actually provide constructive criticism, provide a valuable balance to what can be blind and unquestioned beliefs. However they also fall for the same mistake by looking at Hoagland the person rather than what he is saying. This is difficult for both sides for a number of reasons.
We live in times where there are truly things happening that are beyond many people’s wildest dreams. Now, some would say that this is how life is supposed to be. But we are coming out of times that have created a social atmosphere where people often don’t trust the value of their own perceptions and conclusions. A world was created where only “experts” and “eminent scientists” could provide the truth of reality to many people. This has led to the filtering of many, many different types of phenomena almost completely out of our reality – because they are deemed not to be “real” by so called “experts”. These phenomena are actually, as the scientist Rupert Sheldrake points out, experienced every day by most people but are not deemed “important” by eminent “experts”. This is changing. There have been an enormous number of groups and researchers who are not tied by these automatic classifications of “real” and “not real”. For example see this E Magazine, or look up Electric Universe cosmology and science. I could give give countless other examples that are gaining acceptance due, I think, to increased trust in people’s own perceptions and their ability to decide what is real and not real.
These are all good changes. But we have only recently come out of an autistic period of history where, at least our technologised “modern” societies, have defined themselves within very narrow boundaries. This has caused problems when evidence turns up (and believe me there is actual evidence out there because I have checked it over and over) of intelligently designed ruins on Mars, or structures visible in various Moon photos. These discoveries – whatever they turn about to be – have not always been fully investigated – but something is there ! They can seem to be “unreal” when looked at within the parameters of what I’ve started calling the “old world” way of doing things. There is a logical confusion set up where it is felt that the parameters that are there to determine if something is real determine if something actually exists or not. Of course there are many phenomena out there that continue to happily exist as a reality regardless of if we determine them to be real or not.
“Nothing unreal exists.” Kiri-kin-tha‘s first law of metaphysics. Star Trek.
What is clear is this. We are coming out of very strange times, very strange times indeed. I would like to see the research of the Enterprise Mission taken seriously. If there is evidence out there for intelligently designed ruins on Mars, the Moon or other planets then we should be seriously looking at them. We should be inspiring new generations with these kinds of discoveries. Those discoveries may confuse us or make us uncomfortable, but what about our children ? Don’t they deserve the chance to inherit their real, honest, history ? Otherwise what was the 20th century for ? All those wars. The struggles, The triumphs and failures ? Surely those people were fighting to get us to these times where these extraordinary possibilities have come into view ? Mr Hoagland has told the world, now lets do something with what he has told us, lets do something with those discoveries !