My view on the Richard C Hoagland personality cult

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 !

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “My view on the Richard C Hoagland personality cult

  1. I´ve been following RH for over a year. Yes, he´s very entertaining and he makes claims which sadly never come true. You have your die hard fans, your skeptics and people like me who are just curious about all the inconsistencies shown on NASA pictures.

    Take a look one to this one for example (after zoom in and some enhancing):

    There´s a large group who does this for a hobby and all of us coming from different backgrounds who shown all their findings at Facebook pages such as ALIEN LIFE – SPACE-MOON-EARTH ANOMALIES.

    How can you argue with agencies like NASA or ESA if they have an agenda to not acknowledge anything and just say: it´s just a rock and that odd form most likely caused by erosion. You don´t have to have a PhD to open your mind and realize that there´s way more than we´ve been told.

    There multiple pieces of truths here and there… same as lies. But once you dig on your own then you could get a better picture on this topic.

    Peace!

    SS

    • Keep on being curious, that’s healthy !

      Claims that “never come true” ? In fact Dark Mission catalogues multiple “claims” that all came true vis’a’vis The Face. These “claims” have in fact been scientific predictions. The same is also documented in work independent of Enterprise Mission like the book The Case for the Face as well as books by Carlotto. It’s the same “nothing to see here, move along” mentality. This has a name; Disonfirmation Bias. The effect in the history of science is also well documented in books like Farewell to Reason by Paul Feyerabend. Of course Hoagland can appear to be utterly outrageous. For example with the Exploded Planet hypothesis. But so many commentators fail to ask that question … What if not just him BUT THE EVIDENCE is simply correct? Actually we see the same sociological phenomenons in other scientific areas … archaeology (Forbidden Archaeology, Michael Cremo et. al.), cosmology (Electric Universe http://thunderbolts.info ), medicine (Natural vs.artificial chemical medicine), SETI (radio dishes, vs Cydonia and UFO’s), psychology (neuroscience vs parapsychology – Dean Radin et. al). Areas that supposedly “threaten” some kind of established “truth in science” … I’m sorry, I thought this was SCIENCE where any theory can potentially be completely shot down if some kind of new piece of evidence comes up? Otherwise how does any of it CHANGE ? The rest is just pure concretisation.

      The Space Agencies have to live in this kind of sociology just like anyone else. Actually overall I think they are on the most part relatively free and open. Another thing that so called “Hoagland followers” appear to completely miss. The evidence has never shown that NASA is “completely corrupt”, only that a faction within NASA has an odd agenda of some kind. The rest of it is made up of honest folks.

      Yes, dig in on your own. This is always what I feel Enterprise Mission is trying to achieve – just that.

      • I don’t see how you can say that “Dark Mission” catalogues multiple “claims” that all came true vis’a’vis The Face.

        On p. 76 we find this: “NASA seemed to have an aversion to investigating what seemed to be an ideal subject for the agency’s agenda. In fact, they vociferously refused to even consider making the imaging of Cydonia a priority for any new Mars missions.”

        On p. 591: “After 30 years, and probably a hundred (yes, a hundred) repeated imagings of ‘The Face’….” Perhaps when he was writing the epilogue, Richard Hoagland didn’t cross-check his own book.

        In general the history of photography of Owen Mesa (as I prefer to call it, honoring Tobias Owen) is of steadily improving resolution and steadily disappearing face-like features. What at one time were claimed as an eyeball, a tear duct, a nostril are now clearly seen as imaginary.

        If this mesa was in fact a deliberately carved mega-sculpture, better photography should have supported that interpretation. In fact, the reverse has happened.

  2. I agree that there are, of course, some problems with Enterprise Mission (TEM) approaches on some points. However I think overall they have documented interesting information. Yes, the Face was imaged multiple times. However if you look closely at the history there are multiple examples of extreme evasiveness on the part of Planetary Scientists. However this may have more to do with Disconfirmation Bias in science than any kind of officially organised conspiracy.

    You mention elements of the Face “disappearing” in close ups. Now TEM could be accused of assuming first that this mesa “is” a Face and then trying to match the evidence with that. However I see it much more as a bonafide scientific hypothesis which they then test by examining the evidence as it comes up. With close up images TEM makes the comparison to a painting. If the Face is a piece of artwork, then, like a painting, the recognisable features that the artist has “painted” would disappear the closer you get until you can only see “brush strokes”. An eye ball was predicted using image analysis on early images. There is a feature below an “eye brow” ridge in later high resolution images (HiRise for example). The same with the “nose”. There is a flattened feature/area at this location. the “teeth” did not materialise but there is a valley like depression where you would expect the “mouth” to be. Also don’t forget that Carlotto made a 3D model of the face that showed a “face like” appearance under different lighting angles.

    I happen to think that there is strong evidence that there are what appear to be ruins from some civilisation at Cydonia. However I am also prepared to be proved plain flat wrong. I think what is very valuable here is a case study of approaches to SETI scientific analysis. Even if Cydonia proves to be a non-show it is invaluable in generating experience for if we DO run across alien ruins or other encounters. For example that might happen in investigations of the Exoplanets we are discovering now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s