Posted on 10/27/2007 8:13:41 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Good points.
Still . . . one has to wonder, I think . . . why would a person from such a position go so far out on such a limb to assert such things?
I don’t know what to make of Hoagland. Or John Lear, for that matter.
I don’t believe 100% of all they say is 100% false.
Nor do I believe it to be 100% true by any means.
Are THEY disinformation agents, too?
so what truth is mixed with all the disinformation?
Are THEY disinformation agents, too?
Hoaxland is just nuts.
He and Lear both are intriguing to this psychologist.
Certainly folks of various biases would be inclined to call them nuts based on the postulations they assert as fact.
When one’s construction on reality is divergeant SUFFICIENTLY from the constructions on reality most of one’s peers have . . . the label “nuts” tends to surface readily.
However, they dont’ show any other psychodynamic evidence of being nuts. Therefore, as a shrink, I’m reluctant to label them nuts.
One is then tasked with explaining their affinity for such divergeant constructions on reality. That’s plenty fodder for considerable curiosity.
ONE POSSIBLE explanation is that their EXPERIENCES, CONTACTS, CONTACT WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE are all more or less as they assert.
ANOTHER possible explanation is that they have been brain-washed, mind controlled to run around spouting such for whatever reasons. But, some of Hoagland’s photos ARE very curious. He seems to make overmuch of some of them but some of them are very curious.
Not sure what the other possibilities are.
I don’t really know about all that.
ONE POSSIBLE explanation is that their EXPERIENCES, CONTACTS, CONTACT WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE are all more or less as they assert.Since Hoagland sees conspiracies, Isis-worship, freemasonic meddling, and some kind of non-natural pattern to NASA's launches, and furthermore claims that the late-1990s photos of the so-called Face still reveal artificiality, and for that matter, claims that the Viking orbiter photos show both symmetry (therefore artificiality) as well as a lack of symmetry, it is quite obvious that he has no evidence, and is delusional and paranoid.
I’d have to examine the factors and evidence much more clsely and objectively with a panel of experts and all the evidence clearly available—but you could have a point.
RH claimed that the 32-pixel “face” images from the Viking orbiter showed “bilateral symmetry” and was therefore artificial. Then he cut the image down the middle and mirrored each half against itself to show that one half looked “humanoid” and the other half looked “feline” — which shows once again that the image isn’t symmetrical, nullifying his first claim, which he never withdrew — and he did this in the same presentation. He claimed that the later images taken by later probes which had cameras with much higher resolution had been doctored by NASA to hide the artificiality. Call any panel of experts you want, it isn’t remotely reasonable to think that Hoagland is anything but a nut about this.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060925.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/cydonia/threefaces.gif
You are increasingly convincing.
Thanks for your bother and the links.
Blessings,
My pleasure, make it a great day.
When was Alan Colmes born?...Never. He was hatched in his den.
THANKS.
YOU TOO.
BTW, I still think that even crazy people and crack pots can occasionally offer up an interesting and useful puzzle piece.
Blessings,
Hoagland’s “face” idea is supported by Tom Van Flandern, who IMHO makes himself look ridiculous by insisting that it’s true; Hoagland peddles a few ideas he, uh, adapted from TVF regarding catastrophic events in the Solar System, and IMHO a small amount of what he says regarding it is interesting. TVF’s is more interesting though. :’) Have fun.
Interesting.
Thx.
Maybe their brief is to cause derision. But they don’t sound like it.
They sound like true believers in what they are saying—which would support your contentions about their psychology.
Curious.
Oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, Hoagland added the idea that Mars was tidally locked (showing the same face to) a now-exploded planet around which it used to orbit.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm
TVF uses the newer Mars images, but overlays the processed low-res Viking images, as if that proves his/Hoagland’s point:
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
