Richard C. Hoagland

[unipax]

Hey N,

I figure that you must be already aware of this crater chain. It is on the object Steins which Hoagland says is a 'lifeboat'.
In case you are not aware of it:
(approx 2/3 down page)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Rosetta/Rosetta-analysis-test.htm

[Norval]

Saturn's Iapetus: A Moon With a View; Part 1 of 6 (02/07/05 ) (http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm)

ahhh yes, Richard C. Hoagland, one would think he would have connected the dots by now, or why hasn't he? Or, has he and he can't talk about it? In any case, in those six pages about Iapetus, The Moon With A View, he mentions "war" only once as a possible cause of the cataclysm that may have destroyed Iapetus. He never mentions "crater chains" on Iapetus even though there are several much more pronounced than this one on comet Steins. Besides being given an image of Iapetus that has yet to be released to the public, he knows full well and has probably even seen them, that there are much better images available.

, , , and no, I wasn't aware of this latest effort of misdirection, , , thank you

[unipax]

I think you're right ie for some reason he cannot / will not point to war directly.
I've always thought he is leashed, or playing us with tidbits, but I'd like to think he stops short of publishing actual disinfo.
Whatever the case... from him it is too often: "Stay tuned"

Having said that, my first glimmer of war in our solar system did actually come from Hoagland.

Thats because I have heard him refer to war numerous times ..... always indirectly / sideways..... but obvious enough that I got the message. First time was him implying that the asteroid belt was an exploded planet, and Mars was a moon of that planet ...he hinted around why and what could possibly explode a planet. He was of course linking such power to his hyperDimensional energy, weaponized.

What do you think about that asteroid belt / blasted planet concept?

I would guess that Hoagland has connected the dots, and for some reason, he aint spillin all the beans.

[Norval]

Yes, Hoagland has "pussy footed" around the war issue that is for sure. As for the asteroid belt being an exploded moon or planet, or even a very big space construct, , , that is a high probability we think. Yet that idea was around before I was born, or about the same time.

Glad to hear that you got the idea of a Sol system war somewhere besides Gale and I. That Hoagland never returned our emails over the past seven years says something too. Hoagland also said, and we agree with, that when it comes to whistle blowers, "The lie is different at every level." (Interview with Bill and Kerry of Avalon / Camelot)

With the document stating that the Heavenly New Jerusalem (HNJ) being 1,500 miles big (almost 2,000 kilometers) we can accept the idea that some of these smaller "moons" were actually space constructs or ships, now destroyed. That HNJ is a third the size of our moon. I see no reason to have to bring in different "dimensions" in explaining any of what we know today. Plain old atomics will do the job just as well. There are a few odd "marks" around the Sol system that may indicate high energy discharge weapons, like lasers or plasma beam weapons.

As I said, Hogland seems to be a misdirection agent mostly, gives some truth and then twists it over to some other "possible" explanation. :)

[unipax]

yep

never can be reminded too often that


when it comes to whistle blowers, "The lie is different at every level."

some have claimed:
* Hoagland is in the stable of Stanford Research Institute
* SRI is in the stable of CIA

[unipax]

Hoag started his "the captains blog" in 05
http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm

it was interesting and got kinda big, covering various subjects, lots on hurricane manipulation.
Then one night the captain abandoned ship, and never returned.

[Zenbuoy]

Then one night the captain abandoned ship, and never returned.

Very nice.


Gosh, his hair is really perfect and he worked with Cronkite.:bananen_smilies018:...


I first noticed a little discrepency when I came across these comments with images HERE. (http://www.boomslanger.com/moon.htm)
It's Jack Arneson's fascinating stuff found on the incredible site, The Living Moon, (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/) by this fellow Zorgon.


Before going to the home page, you may be interested in a photo
depicted in the new book getting attention today, Dark Mission...

Captioned: Ancient city ruins

This formation is a volcanic caldera.
The source of this statement below. These are from the Apollo 15 & 17 missions.

I'm afraid this is another of the authors fanciful theories without merit to promote book sales.

[unipax]

Yes and RCH just disappeared... like 'poof' in mid conversation without any goodbye or thank you

Hey Zen,
Thanks for links.
What is the latest you know re the lunar orbiter tapes at McDonald's ?

One question that quickly pops up is about why those tapes are not confiscated whereas they might reveal some forbidden fruit on the moon.

[unipax]

Mike Bara (of Hoagland & Bara ) connecting some dots around Obama swearing in ceremony:

I have always found the ritual numbers, redshift, horizons, skyshots etc to be rather interesting as "fingerprints"



The first thing I noticed was that the new ceremony took place at 7:30 PM local time (actually now, 7:35 according to some sources). 7:30 of course is actually 19:30 hours, or more precisely, 19.5 hours. Even though it was officially 7:35 and not exactly 7:30, it was, as the saying goes, “close enough for government work.” Readers of Dark Mission of course know all about the ritual significance of the number 19.5, and 19.5 degrees as it relates to NASA\Masonic ritual.

http://darkmission.blogspot.com/2009/02/meet-new-boss-same-as-old-boss.html

[Zenbuoy]

Yes and RCH just disappeared... like 'poof' in mid conversation without any goodbye or thank you

Hey Zen,
Thanks for links.
What is the latest you know re the lunar orbiter tapes at McDonald's ?

just what I see posted for the 11/08 update (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Lunar_Orbiter_Tapes_Press_Release.html)

One question that quickly pops up is about why those tapes are not confiscated whereas they might reveal some forbidden fruit on the moon.


Isn't that just absolutely amazing? I wondered that immediately, too. The update (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Lunar_Orbiter_Tapes_Press_Release.html) probably answers that to some degree. It would be iteresting to have the The OWNER of
The Living Moon (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/) answer that directly but I understand from the NSA website (http://www.nsa.gov/) he is off raising money for its new design with IRENE. (http://www.earthsbanner.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2571&postcount=30):whistling:

[Norval]

If I remember my reading there, the McDonolds tapes were copies to begin with, thus probably have no big oddities about them. Besides they still lay in the hands of a few of the PTB people.

[zorgon]

[CENTER] It would be interesting to have the The OWNER of
The Living Moon (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/) answer that directly

Well I will drop him a line and see if he will come over and answer a few questions for you.

Anything in particular you want to know?

And no they are not copies, but a second original from the Spanish tracking station

[Zenbuoy]

One question that quickly pops up is about why those tapes are not confiscated whereas they might reveal some forbidden fruit on the moon.

Webmaster:
Howz about this one?


:thanks::willy::hail::arg:

[Norval]

And no they are not copies, but a second original from the Spanish tracking station

ahhh k, thanks for that Zorgon. I read up on a bunch of it, but not all of it.

About Hoagland, I find that he can sure say alot about nothing, while ignoring the details that say alot. Yes, funny about him just ending his bridge posts.

[unipax]

Anybody know whether there is anything in the old lunar orbiter tapes to actually get excited about ?

Or, what image or handful of images from any mission(s) are the most exciting re revealing forbidden fruit ?

thank you

[unipax]

Hey

Were any of you guys in the 'crew' posting at RCH's The Captain's Blog ?

Or reading it / not posting ?

Just wondering, cuz I was there from early on.

[unipax]

I thought "Moon with a view" was good piece. I mean that triple edged ridge around Iapetus is difficult to pass off as a 'natural' feature.

Its not that I need any convincing mind youse. Its just that I wish we had some image(s) that was so thoroughly irrefutable that the world could be awakened.

Actually the triple ridge seemed like that to me but when I showed it to the heavy sleepers, they were not impressed. I guess that is understandable because the 3 ridge feature isnt really hard evidence to them.

[Zenbuoy]

Funny how you read about something and then a related bit JUMPS out at you...This is a newly posted Project Camelot transcript (http://www.projectcamelot.org/brian_o_leary_interview_transcript.html)with Brian Todd O'Lear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O'Leary)y, an American scientist and a former NASA astronaut.

Dr Brian O'Leary : The Energy Solution Revolution
Vilcabamba, Ecuador, January 2009


KC: So, at what point were you… Where did Hoagland come into this mix? Because once you were talking about the “Face” on Mars, I have to assume that you had some interaction with Hoagland.

BO’L: Yes. He… Actually, he’s a great catalyst. He’s very articulate. He’s very bright. He had some very good ideas. He came to me in about… I think it was around 1980. It was a few years after the Viking mission, and I was still involved with the mainstream then.

So Dick Hoagland wanted me -- still being a somewhat mainstream planetary scientist -- to listen to him, listen to his presentation about the Cydonia “Face,” and he made a presentation which I thought was very good.

He asked me to check his work. I thought a great deal of the work was extremely well done and which I vindicated enough to say that, Yes. I, too, would like to get into this research, and then the research started to snowball. So that was the good news.

The not-so-good news is that he also made a lot of claims that were certainly not correct. They were scientifically not well grounded. He was arbitrary in picking some of the points in the region as control points for various geometric alignments, which were simply not true. So I also had somewhat of a falling-out with him because…

You see, most scientists, people trained in science, as a scientist… In a way I still defend mainstream science in terms of methodology, that you have to have your work subject to peer review in order to get it published. And I think that’s very good. You know, it’s really good to preserve the scientific method.

So I found myself in this odd middle ground between people that were outside the system making claims, such as Dick Hoagland did, some of which are very, very substantial and good, on the one hand; and on the other hand, using strict scientific methods to approach these questions.

Eventually some colleagues joined me and a number of us now have worked together, such as Dr. Mark Carlotto, an imaging scientist; Professor Stan McDaniel, Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Sonoma State; Doctor Horace Crater, Professor of Physics, University of Tennessee; the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern.

These are all mainstream scientists, trained in the mainstream just like I was, and also open to the questions, such as the “Face” on Mars.

So, in a way, it was kind of a roundabout way, because now that I was out of the main stream… Because all I have to do is stick my neck out a little to be totally ostracized by the mainstream scientific community and that happened around 1980.

Hoagland's fascinating assessment from The Enterprise Mission (http://www.enterprisemission.com/NPC-Russia.htm)



As such, these images are a stunning official confirmation of our entire Lunar dome hypothesis. You can go and find these images -- the frame numbers listed above -- on the official NASA websites, or the image DVDs they have been selling all over the world, and perform the work yourself.


Below taken from this (http://www.earthsbanner.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2811&postcount=28) post


Scientific Evidence of WIRES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related)


MUST SEE: From the absolutely brilliant site, The Living Moon (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html)


This crane was PURPOSELY built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both astronauts, and the LM itself. It enabled movement of the astronauts and LM in all directions, i.e., up down, left right, forward and reverse.

The image in the video, "Scientific Evidence of Wires (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related)" of the costumed astronauts where one is lifted in a manner belying physics seems to be the coinciding moment supporting a pully system. :bananen_smilies077:

[Norval]

You will find no irrefutable images anywhere.
The problem is;
1. those that refute them can not and will not own up to the truth.
2. they are struck with "blindness".
3. you are dealing with bad ETs that don't want you to know the truth.
4. you are dealing with IAC agents whose jobs are to keep you from finding the truth.
5. any government involvement will only have been with the bad ETs.

As for comet Steins, at about 3 miles across, being a "lifeboat" or an "escape pod" of some kind, knowing the size of crash landed craft here on earth, causes me to doubt that it was a lifeboat at all. I would lean towards it being a destroyed war craft of some kind, or as mentioned a "space platform of some kind".

The exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) is possible if one ignores many of the basic
principals of trajectory, size, and distance between objects.


P.S. ahhh yes, we did discuss this before a bit, , ,
http://earthsbanner.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1473&postcount=9

[unipax]

thanks Zen & Norv,

I'm thinking that catching bogus imagery of Apollo landings and of astronauts on moon doesnt necessarily 'prove' that we did not got to the moon.

Rather, proving the imagery is bogus only proves that the imagery we have been shown is bogus.

[Bobbi]

I always have had doubts about the moon landing and the pictures - live or otherwise, that have been put out for the public's viewing. In fact, I've believed they were a hoax from the beginning. Needless to say, I was just a youngin' back in them days, but very big into science fiction. It all just came about way too fast and too much of the construction of the crafts were down right hokey.

Now, after talking at length with my husband and his actually picking up the radio transmissions from the moon's direction, and reading all about the crane, thanks to Zenbuoy, I wonder if somehow, something was sent to the moon and quickly discovered it was not meant for the eyes of earth, so they had no choice but to rig up the phony scenario. There's so much speculation and, like the Kennedy assassinations, when (AND IF) any real documentation is released to the public (yah right) will we ever truly know - that is, of course, until we get our 'library cards' after disclosure.

[unipax]

Thanks Bobbi, thats what I was getting at.

Maybe as you say 'something' (unmanned) was sent there, or maybe astronauts did actually go there, but it is the imagery that we have been shown that is bogus.