Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Tuesday Roundup 18-12-2007

A strange assortment to get you through the week…

Enjoy!

Editor
  1. Hoagland’s moon conspiracy
    [quote]Richard Hoagland, perhaps long ago sensing failure in his “Face on Mars” scheme, started downplaying it in favor of the ridiculous (and easily debunked) “City” on Mars, which then led to his totally over-the-top dumbosity of hyperdimensional physics. All of this, of course, fits (although “jammed-in-to-make-it-fit” would describe it better) into his over-blown conspiracy theory that NASA is Doing Nefarious Things.[/quote]

    Ok, I think we should get the facts straight. As I remember it, the first proponents of the artificial origin of te so-called “Face of Mars” was NOT Hoagland, but Mark J. Carlotto and another guy whose name I can’t remember at the moment.

    http://spsr.utsi.edu/members/markjcarlotto.html

    True, Hoagland seems to be the loudest voice around still defending these theories, but I remember an OMNI interview when he admitted that (at that time) his discovery had not been the “Face”, but what he called “the city”, wit a lot of geometrical alignements and correlations he found with this formations (correlations that may have been only in his mind).

    At that time I was a big defender of Hoagland, although nowadays it seems his discourse has lost a lot of validity, but this guy Plait at badastronomy.com failed on this one.

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

  2. Others before Hoagland & Carlotto
    Actually, NASA were the first to spot the Face on Mars themselves, and said it was of course a bizarre, totally natural thing. Before, Hurtak had spoken about pyramids on Mars, in a book by what I believe was an Australian gentleman, Brian something, if memory serves me right.

    Hoagland initially injected himself amidst these people and tried to “progress the case”. There was that press briefing, media appearance, and in the end, he seems to have been the only one who is still convinced, all others he tried to unite since split.

    Philip

    1. I remeber that
      Hoagland mentions that he was at the JPL offices with a bunch of journalist and someone came with the photo of the face saying “isn’t it funny how the lights and shadows can trick us into making images that aren’t there?” or something like that, and everybody giggled, including Hoagland. It was just after he read a paper by Carlotto that he began studying the possibility of artifIcial origin in some martian formations. The rest, as they say, is history (or fantasy, if you preferr).

      Well, Hoagland doesn’t need to worry about the toalitarian cover-up by the malevolent people at NASA. Space is now a multinational affair and if the probe of some other nation actually sees something interesting at the lunar surface, I don’t see why they would shut up about it. Unless they are ALL part of the cover-up, which… you know… C’MON!

      I think the essay Michael Prescott wrote for the Darklore vol. 1 explains the behavior of someone like Hoagland. Same thing happened to other persons that had a deep interest in the paranormal, like Conan Doyle who was desperate to believe a stupid hoax made with cut outs were authentic photographs of fairies.

      It should be a warning for ALL OF US, actually.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal