Top critical review
7 people found this helpful
Possibly worth looking into? .... Or not ...
on 5 June 2010
Hoagland's opus It may all be just so much hokum. Or not -and if not .....
I have read with attention Hoagland's two books. Previously unaware of his contentions I found the ideas both intriguing and, for obvious reasons, hard to believe. If they are true he has done a great service to public understanding ; if untrue, well a lot of time and energy has been misapplied. Unfortunately, rather like the authors of The Hiram Key whom he cites, he has a tendency to adduce just about everything weird and wonderful as grist to the mill. Much of his and their material is sheer speculation and unwarranted inference. It would have made for shorter books and been simpler, and more sensible to restrict his observations and claims to the more than sufficient material open to possible verification (or otherwise).
For as far as I can see, IF his account is a true reflection of what he and others observed and heard in relation to NASA and all its works, the more concrete elements of his arguments are more than sufficient to raise reasonable doubts in rational people about the meaning and veracity of much of what that organisation has put into the public sphere.
' The number of Mars and Moon images which (IF authentic) are fascinating and appear, on the face of it, to merit investigation and explanation. Notably the towers, dome-like appearances, those corrugated tubes, possible pyramids and of course the famous Face.
' The "robot's head" on the moon is particularly intriguing, but it is SO unlikely that one has to wonder if a particularly skilful photo re-toucher has carefully inserted a picture of C3-PO?
' The many instances regarding NASA data and behaviour, which he usually presents in a seemingly measured way, as if with a pained expression of polite disbelief.
[Hoagland seems to be one of the few immune to the anticipated syndrome ATTRIBUTED to the Brookings report. (Which DOES consider the possible merit of concealing any discoveries...)]
' Notably :
' The interference with image colours
' Interference with images themselves ; their degradation or suspicious retouching (i.e. if present in the publicly shown versions and not in the originals).
' The seemingly large number of "missing" photographs and other data.
' Not to mention the occasions when, ALLEGEDLY, whole spacecraft so conveniently went missing.
' However if one or more probes did go "black" who would have the opportunity to do this as well as the trained personnel and the rather complex and expensive communication equipment and software necessary? And how could a black probe be operated via parallel channels without the official system noticing? Hoagland does not speculate here (I wonder why) but an all too obvious candidate would presumably be the Pentagon?
' The actual destruction (disappearance?) of rafts of data and images.
' Obfuscating stories that don't hold up.
' The destruction of a supposed Mars fossil - seen in a lander image.
' The curious comportment reported of some of the astronauts on public occasions.
' In particular the famously Delphic remarks by Armstrong
' HOWEVER : Perhaps there were (many) other occasions when their comportment was normal and as to be expected?
' The seeming indifference of official NASA to any interest in some rather interesting pictures or interest in resolving these speculations one way or the other.
' The discomfited responses of officials on some occasions ; not to mention the very strange contract of Dr Malin ; and his very strange behaviour.
One has to ask a lot of questions :
' Many of the pictures available in his books or on web sites are vague and fuzzy and thus very difficult for the man in the street to interpret in the way Hoagland does. The lack of clarity of detail is tantalising and therefore not always convincing. However there is a definite residue of images where the detail is sufficiently distinct as to provide grounds for there being a case to be answered. (Regarding the Face, the right side seems to me to be partly collapsed or otherwise damaged rather than representing a feline aspect?).
' If the moon does have large areas covered with "glass domes", whole or incomplete with just the supports remaining, how come the Apollo landers got down safely?
' Why are the domes so gigantic? Enormous volumes to have to fill with air ; all at risk if punctured by a meteorite (unless the technology included a rapid and automatic self-repair capability!).
' Such large structures require a large amount of material. Have any putative quarries been located?
' Not clear at all how the "domes" are constructed. The references to hard to discern "rebar", "flying buttresses", "spars", are not themselves much of a guide. The only attempt at an architectural reconstruction (fig 4.43 - the moon book) is not very convincing as a useful structure. A cluttered cube of piled up material, serving what purpose?. If the whole gigantic interior was filled with such a configuration what on earth was the space for? The cube is hardly a "dome" as such and it's hard to see it as part of the classic idea of a soaring geodesic type structure with a clear covering.
' And anyway, why so darned big? Generally beings build on a scale to suit their own dimensions and practical needs. Sometimes of course as big as technology allows - either for the habitable space afforded on a limited site (a skyscraper) or for pure prestige (the Egyptian monuments), or for defence (China's Great Wall).
The purported buildings on Mars and the Moon are truly huge; and if real, presumably so because the capability existed ; but it would be nice to know the why as well as the how.
(Possibly to provide enough volume to permit some degree of weather?).
' If NASA is being truly so very "economical with the truth" and only a small number of officials are actually implicated in the obfuscation; then why is there apparently no important reaction from among the much greater number of good guys who are presumably in a position to detect something like this going on? They presumably read and listen to Hoagland and others and Americans are not usually shy in coming forward to spill the beans on official shenanigans. Something is hinted at by Hoagland but this is not developed.
' TIME DISCREPANCIES :: Hoagland is not always consistent in his speculations about the age attributed to the various things he says he sees. If the Mars/Moon mysteries date back half a million years (to their presumed demise) how come he imagines their active influence on Sumer and Egypt as recently as 5,000 years ago, or even the 10,500 or 15,000 he mentions at one point. It's very hard to believe in a meaningful oral transmission over such a long period as is implied.
There has indeed been much speculation about the true age of the Sphinx and other Egyptian monuments ; 10,000 years would seem possible but surely not 500,000?
I seem to recall in one section, about the moon, hundreds of millions being bandied about .... Surely all this just doesn't compute. Over the last century or so excavations and study of ancient documents has shown some remarkable correspondences between the Bible or Homer and what has been found in the ground. But to extend this to references to contact between Egypt and Mars (or other alien contacts) is without demonstrable foundation.
If there is anything at all to be discovered up there it is better to avoid such profitless speculation until closer examination shows what, if anything, there actually is to argue about. Earthbound archaeology has problems enough to define dates for things we are familiar with here. It seems daft to go out on a limb for things hundreds of thousands or millions of miles away and at the moment beyond proper investigation. At least until better photographs are published or one of the rovers is actually programmed to do a close up investigation. (Perhaps a rover can soon reach the "South Peak Sphinx". That Mars photo is really tantalising ; as was that of the "mermaid" rock - until it was said the small scale showed it to be hardly more than a pebble ....).
' In discussing the Cydonia pictures (Mars) Hoagland seems to offer considerable confusion :
The infra-red images would appear to show rectilinear divisions, such as on Earth might indicate the possible outlines of the foundations of a city. If the supposed traces are not an artefact of the imaging process and IF they are at a depth capable of I-R detection : fine ; the evidence does seem on the face of it to be rather suggestive. Especially when taken together with other images cited.
BUT at one point, developing another argument, Hoagland appears to claim that Cydonia has a dust layer over ice which in places is extremely deep ("thousands of feet in places") and seemingly supposing that the I-R penetrates all this to reach the "ruins" below.
Well, I know nothing about I-R imaging but how deep is it supposed to be where the "ruins" are? AND if very deep, how is it that enough sunshine can penetrate so far as to allow a thermal image to be observed? NOT to mention the unlikely probability that the ice is crystal clear all the way down, being more likely to be muddy, fractured or otherwise occluded?
I am inclined to agree with the publisher that Hoagland's case would be more "respectable" if he had avoided bringing into his assertions so many extraneous subjects unnecessary to his basic thesis.
' I already mentioned reference to "The Hiram Key". An interesting series of conjectures (I was given my copy by a Mason) but the Masonic Order is highly unlikely to publish anything in support of all the speculation and tenuous linkage of "evidence" contained in the book. Its value to Hoagland's thesis is thus rather minuscule.
' Similarly, drawing attention to the supposed secret society associations of groups within NASA is not susceptible of substantiating anything in particular.
' The chapter on Torsion Fields is superfluous at best, tendentious at worst. From what little I can glean this stuff is not well understood anywhere and supposed experiments and theories are mostly unconfirmed or without peer verification.
Hoagland presents himself as having made big contributions to hyper-dimensional physics but offers no references which might show his work on the subject. There is indeed a lot going on in this field but it is all very abstruse and involves extreme mathematics. (see some rather obscure references on the net to, e.g., Heim's physics).
' And all that tetrahedral geometry seems like so much Kabbalistic numerology. In any case it is unnecessary to adduce any of this as it adds nothing to the arguments :
As the TV man said to the NASA official : why don't you just go and get better pictures and prove these guys wrong? If wrong, there's no discussion. If right then there's probably enough to study and work on for ages to come.
' The Kennedy assassination! Oh dear, guaranteed to distract from anyone's bona fides. If there was a conspiracy we'll likely never have believable proof until maybe someone makes a deathbed confession.
It's just speculation to the fourth power to relate this incident to Hoagland's main theme.
ALL IN ALL and despite these unfortunate distractions it would seem there may be a case to answer. One strange discrepancy might be just that; two a coincidence, but so many strangenesses together do seem sufficiently suspicious to warrant a modicum of serious attention to try and resolve the matter one way or the other. If Hoagland's analysis of official behaviour is correct, in the absence of sufficient public pressure they may stall for many years yet but I hope not. The human race is sufficiently attuned now to this subject in a way it wasn't fifty years ago. Somehow Hoagland wisely kept off the general theme of UFOs and Roswell - nearly as dubious as ghosts and Adamski. However if this Mars/Moon thing turns out to have any substance at all then the next legitimate question is : what happened to the beings involved - and where are they now?
Oddly enough the notion of a relationship between Mars and ancient Egypt is not an original idea. In the fifties BBC Radio broadcast a series of space fiction dramas by the writer Charles Chiltern. In one of these, "Space Force" (rebroadcast in September 2008), the heroes' ship involved in the first ever expeditions to the Red Planet is infiltrated by stowaway Egyptian priests intent on returning to their brotherhood on Mars ; housed in a giant .....pyramid, of course. Maybe Hoagland heard the series (on PBS?)and "saw the light"?
(See also Dunn's thought-provoking book about his technical assessment of the Great Pyramid).