View Full Version : Brian O'Leary's take on Hoagland
02-10-2009, 10:37 PM
I really enjoyed this interview. He is a very brave individual to be on the path he has chosen. I do have one issue with his testimonial. He ambiguously said that the geometry that Richard Hoagland discovered in Cydonia on Mars was false information. That is a very bold claim that in my opinion has no foundation to stand on.
This is the information that he was speaking of.
He said that this information was not correct. There it is in black in white, what exactly is not correct about it?
02-16-2009, 11:37 PM
He sounded unambiguous to me. I was surprised at the statement too. In my memory, what O'leary said was that Hoagland "fudged some of the data" related to Cydonia. I enjoyed "Dark Mission"' and in it, Hoagland made a sound case, imo, using photos and NASA's own inconsistencies to hang them. I would be interested to learn what "fudged" meant. Both men come off as credible to me, which is not true of all the witnesses on Camelot .
02-17-2009, 07:34 PM
Interesting tone3jaguar.... however you lost me somewhere at the biggining.....
I need more information to really grasp what the subject is all about.
Here's the transcript...
First the 'fudging' thing....he was refering to Sagan...
It was very, very disappointing to me, because not only was Carl wrong, he also fudged data. He published a picture of the “Face” in Parade Magazine, a popular article, saying that the “Face” was just a natural formation, but he doctored the picture to make it not look like a face.
This is what he said about 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.
Now...I am an admirer of Richard Hoagland. I think he is highly intelligent and isn't afraid to go into deep, deep areas like the Hyperdimensional Model.
That man has taught me such a lot.....and I haven't even read the books!!
Just the Camelot and Coast 2 Coast stuff. ( + YouTube + Google vids)
So I sat up and took notice when O'Leary said that about him.
I am always suspiscious when people diss Hoagland...
No wonder they had a falling out. I don't know what grounds O'Leary has for claiming that Hoagland's claims....'were certainly not correct' I wonder how he can be so certain.??
Perhaps he's hung up on the 'peer review' scientific method. Even though he has taken a somewhat 'hippy' route in many other ways?
Of course, O'Leary came across as a likeable and sincere man...maybe there
was an element of 'professional jealousy'....? Don't know...
I trust Richard Hoagland's judgement...:original:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.