Monday, February 25, 2008

Richard Hoagland on the recent satellite shoot-down. To be fair, I haven't read this one yet; maybe he's actually talking sense this time. But after reading "Dark Mission" I'm inclined to doubt it.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

While I am inclined to dismiss anyone whom George Noorey interviews on a regular basis, I must admit that I've heard similar comments from other quarters. The repetition of certain patterns by NASA is kinda weird. Its certainly a chain of co-incidences that challenge probability.
Type 1 or Type 2 statistical error here? Which one I don't know. If neither, then the universe is an even weirder place than thought.

dad2059 said...

If you are a follower of tinfoil like I am, NASA, the U.S. and other world governments complicit in the New World Order practice symbolism all of the time while publically denouncing it.

And people miss it all of the time.

Hoagland and Bara are hucksters pushing their book while continuously dodging questions (unless paid), but there are more people credible than those guys who've studied occult symbolism for years.

dad2059 said...

...there are more people credible than those guys who've studied occult symbolism for years.


Michael Tsarion is one. But I will leave it at that. I don't know how Mac feels about this stuff.

Elan said...

You actually read Dark Mission?
Do the world coffee suppliers brew enough to help get someone through that book?

Anonymous said...

and of course anyone with a different opinion to your is obviously a lunatic..

mr. intense said...

To paraphrase:

There are just a few too many references to hyperdimensional "coincidences" to establish credibility for Hoagland's report. As usual.

Mac said...

Elan--

The book's a ponderous mess, mostly lifted from the "Enterprise" site. A couple interesting anecdotes and one or two curious photos held intact by a tissue of congealed BS. Enthusiastically not recommended.

Mac said...

I don't know how Mac feels about this stuff.

It's not a matter of weird claims offending my delicate Fortean sensibilities; it's a matter of stupidity and willful belief giving me no choice but to roll my eyes.

Elan said...

anonymous -
No, not a lunatic.
But to be a Fortean does not mean annihilating one's basic critical faculties.
The ocean of credulity can not be a bottomless reservoir.

dad2059 said...

I'll admit that I believed Hoagland credible at one time, but as I researched further into most of his claims, which could very well have merit, I discovered such a crass commercialism that would make P.T. Barnum shake his head. And I found myself chagrined and shaking my own head.

But I'll stand by the symbolism idea, it's just Hoagland and Bara definitely aren't the people qualified to make such assessments.

Mac said...

I'll admit that I believed Hoagland credible at one time

Early in his career as a "fringe" science writer, he *was* credible. The first edition of "The Monuments of Mars" is a fascinating and worthwhile book.

Enter late-night radio and the Web...