Part Six of Richard Hoagland's Iapetus proposal is online. (Come on, Hoagland -- if you're going to use my South African spheroid idea at least drop me a link.)
Richard's also started a blog. The first entry appears to be a characteristically lavish symbolic deconstruction of "The War of the Worlds" and all things Spielbergian.
More later.
Everything in the pop-culture is a clue or coded revelation... hints that our underlying reality is much less mundane than we perceive it to be, and the power-elite really are plotting against us, but not for the sake of simple greed, no. It's because of ancient civilizations and extraterrestrial beings.
ReplyDeleteAnd people wonder why I dropped out of the whole armchair planetary SETI scene.
That's why a lot of people read his articles. He's founded a new genre.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but notice he has comments turned off. :D
ReplyDeleteAs always, he's fun to read. But to say I "disagree" with his conspiratorial take on Spielberg is putting it lightly. The irony is that, for a guy who utilizes pop-culture so adroitly, Hoagland never fails to overlook it before latching onto to some unlikely, weird-ass hidden agenda...
ReplyDeleteHe's got loads of potentially testable ideas. I thought Part Six was the weakest of his Iapetus pieces, but still interesting.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit disappointed that he went with a "religious signifance" angle to the "why" of an artificial Iapetus.
ReplyDeleteIt's just the standard dodge: any archeological site that can't be otherwise explained on Earth is written off as "religious". It's a safe explanation because it automatically explains all apparent contradictions or oddities without the need for proof (or real explanations), and the only way to really disprove it is to prove an alternate explanation is more likely.
It's just the standard dodge: any archeological site that can't be otherwise explained on Earth is written off as "religious".
ReplyDeleteI wonder is RCH, iconoclast that he is, is aware of the irony.
Personally, I see only a superficial similarity between Iapetus and the particular spherical object which Hoagland singles out. The "ring" around Iapetus protrudes - it looks like a wall; the "ring" around the spherical object is an etched groove. The crater-like hole in the spherical object is also not in the same place as the apparent crater on Iapetus's surface. If you ask me, the spherical object strikingly resembles the Death Star -- but neither of these strikingly resemble Iapetus (the similarities are probably only coincidental).
ReplyDeleteLike his Iapetus arguments, this article started out ... engaging but as soon as he started talking about today's WoTW, everything turned to shit.
ReplyDelete1) We're waaaay too media-saturated and cynical in the present for that sort of thing (Wellesian scare) to work anymore
and
2)See 1)
Hoagland's claims fall short...as always.
ReplyDeleteEven his "recipient of the Angstrom medal" cheeseball is demonstrably false.
Any new "theory" that seems discounted by mainstream science, inevitably gets rolled into Hoagland's "cosmic spliff".
Happy toking!!
Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com
someday, orion33, you will know... and you'll be wishing you didn't
ReplyDelete"When I hit the phrase "miles-high glass ruins on the Moon" I tracked down a decade-old description of one of Hoagland's early lectures on the subject of artificial structures on the Moon."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hoagland that there are probably artifacts on Mars - but I don't buy the idea that there is anything artificial on the moon (our moon, not Iapetus, which is another story). I've looked at the photos of these supposed anomalies and they don't look very convincing to me. Grainy black and white photos can leave a lot of room for the imagination.
Orion33 -
ReplyDeleteNotice the only post on this thread with the word hate in it...several times.
"...Methinks thou dost protest too much."
Thinking Hoagland is full of hot air doesn't mean I hate him. It just means I think he's full of hot air, and a few untruths mixed in to boost his "credibility".
And believe it or not, I don't agree with everything Mac says, either.
Color me curmudgeon if you must. :)
Kyle
UFOreflections.blogspot.com
Hey, *I* don't even agree with all my theories! But at least I have the ability to sift through them and present the possibilities. You should try it sometime; it beats lurking.
ReplyDeleteI find it quite hilarious that one can't offer honest criticisms of Hoagland's work without being demonized. I've run into this again and again and suspect one of the only people who *isn't* bitter is Hoagland himself, with whom I've swapped plenty of friendly emails. If Hoagland can take it in stride, why not his fans?
ReplyDeleteYou forgot "Open Hailing Frequencies."
ReplyDeleteIt cannot truly have success, I believe so.
ReplyDelete