Richard Hoagland

[Cartomancer]

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

It's just theories

Maybe you should re-read my original post?

Ah. Another one line reply. "All i'm going to say is that you continue to prove my point... "

[Debra]

Hi Raf,

Who would you say that you trust in the alternative media community? And in the research field?

I think your suggestion about mixing it all up to make research juicier and more of a commodity is not a long stretch. Although, I don´t think we can taint all researchers with this same brush.

I think Wilcock is fairly rigorous as a researcher, he comes from a research field and knows that juicing it up eventually dries up if evidence is swinging tenuously. Richard Dolan as well, is an intrepid investigator.

In the alternative media, someone like Randy Maugans, I think is an exemplar of deep thinking, careful analysis, dot connecting and evaluation.
Henrik Palmgren as well at Redice Creations. I actually trust the process of his research in questioning and presenting evidence, which he brings through in his interviews. He, like Maugans, I think gives us a place setting to make up our own minds.

What more do you think on this Raf?

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Yeah...Do you know when, in Hollywood, producers explore the same theme over and over again, when they find a theme that makes them a lot of money?

It´s the same thing with this predictions/conspiracies scenario. These guys have found the recipe for "success", which is, basically, the craziest the better.

So, they mix secret societies, solar/planetary cycles, rogue planets, extra-terrestrials of several kinds, insiders/whistleblowers, satanism, apocalyptic threats, super-soldiers and (you name it).

Mix all these things, put them in a very poorly written script, spread it all over the web, the get all "researchers" to support each other and booooom, you´ve got a successful conspiracy.

We must remember that the alternative media brainwashes people as well, so don´t trust something simply because it´s "alternative", because it might not be so alternative as you think. In fact, a big part of the alternative media and its main characters use the same strategies of the so called "mainstream media" to increase viewership.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Cilka]

I truly believe that people like Hoagland, Wilcock or Kavassilas, actually do receive information from the ET's which they, as the employees working for ET employers, are programmed to use to misinform the human species. They truly seriously believe what they are being told and the rest of us go along believing in their preaching of bullsh ..t. Ok, we are all guilty of being swayed by charming and intellectual and highly educated individuals, however, as long as we come to our senses soon enough then we are going to be doing just great no matter what situation we find outselves in. It's just another lesson that we, the human species, needed or need to learn, that's all. So, when another charming expert full of incredible vocabulary comes along and starts telling us of a different doomsday scenario, well guess what will happen, this time we will listen attentively and we will be prepared to respond objectively, and hopefully we wont waste any of our precious time.

[RMorgan]

Hi Zebra, how are you?

Well, to be honest I don´t really fully trust anyone that´s in any kind of media, alternative or not.

I try not to be too paranoid about it, but I don´t think we would even have the internet if TPTB didn´t want us to have it. They´re the ones who have money, who own every major internet/telecom companies and probably the whole internet infrastructure.

Trusting is a strong word for me. I trust people who I know personally, with whom I´m emotionally connected, who have experienced life by my side.

So, allow me to change your question to who I consider a legitimate source of information, right?

For me, for any source of information/researcher to be considered legitimate, I must have access to the research data as a whole, including all sources and bibliography.

It´s pretty easy to someone to come up with any fictional idea and invent a supposedly secret source to back it up. Anyone can do that. This kind of excuse doesn´t work in real life situations.

Imagine if an engineer came up with a project for a huge bridge and, when questioned about his calculations, he says that he can´t reveal them because they are secret!

Imagine if a judge asks a lawyer to show an important defense proof and the lawyer says he can´t show it, because it comes from a secret source, asking the judge to consider his word as a proof!

Imagine if a surgeon invents a new surgical technique and says it´s the most effective ever, but he can´t demonstrate it because it´s a secret.

Well...I think you´ve got it. If this strategy doesn´t work in any field, it shouldn´t work in the alternative research field as well.

Basically, I don´t consider a source of information to be reliable, in the alternative field, when people start claiming this or that, specially when they start to make predictions. People make bold claims these days, without zero realistic data to back it up.

For me, the good researchers usually are terrific detectives, who can examine several clues and possibilities, from an unbiased point of view. These guys don´t claim anything, they usually say that this or that might be possible, which are totally different things.

For the above reasons, I don´t appreciate Wilcock´s work. He researches a lot, but researching a lot doesn´t make him right. His sources are always obscure and mysterious...

I tend to appreciate Randy Maugans and Henrik Palmgren a little bit more indeed, but I think they´re still biased in their analyzes.

Biased persons can´t ever have a clear view over any situation.

Cheers,

Raf.

Posted by Zebra (here)
Hi Raf,

Who would you say that you trust in the alternative media community? And in the research field?

I think your suggestion about mixing it all up to make research juicier and more of a commodity is not a long stretch. Although, I don´t think we can taint all researchers with this same brush.

I think Wilcock is fairly rigorous as a researcher, he comes from a research field and knows that juicing it up eventually dries up if evidence is swinging tenuously. Richard Dolan as well, is an intrepid investigator.

In the alternative media, someone like Randy Maugans, I think is an exemplar of deep thinking, careful analysis, dot connecting and evaluation.
Henrik Palmgren as well at Redice Creations. I actually trust the process of his research in questioning and presenting evidence, which he brings through in his interviews. He, like Maugans, I think gives us a place setting to make up our own minds.

What more do you think on this Raf?

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Yeah...Do you know when, in Hollywood, producers explore the same theme over and over again, when they find a theme that makes them a lot of money?

It´s the same thing with this predictions/conspiracies scenario. These guys have found the recipe for "success", which is, basically, the craziest the better.

So, they mix secret societies, solar/planetary cycles, rogue planets, extra-terrestrials of several kinds, insiders/whistleblowers, satanism, apocalyptic threats, super-soldiers and (you name it).

Mix all these things, put them in a very poorly written script, spread it all over the web, the get all "researchers" to support each other and booooom, you´ve got a successful conspiracy.

We must remember that the alternative media brainwashes people as well, so don´t trust something simply because it´s "alternative", because it might not be so alternative as you think. In fact, a big part of the alternative media and its main characters use the same strategies of the so called "mainstream media" to increase viewership.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Maia Gabrial]

Hoagland is a freemason.

[DreamsInDigital]

Hoagland is a clone, has been one for around two years now and was prior to that subjected to increased amounts of mind control tactics.

[13th Warrior]

Posted by DreamsInDigital (here)
Hoagland is a clone, has been one for around two years now and was prior to that subjected to increased amounts of mind control tactics.

How does this work?

Was he a mind controlled human that was some how turned into a clone?

Or, was a clone created and a body snatching occurred to replace the human with the clone?

I wonder if his wife Robin has noticed?

[DreamsInDigital]

The real Hoagland was subjected for a long time to increasing amounts of mind control tactics and then when that didn't work to shut him up / stop him. They snatched him and cloned him, the one that has been in the public for about the past two years has been an 'organic robitoid'. The terms are frequently interchangeable. If you want more info on clones, robitoids and synthetics I highly recommend checking out www.bibliotecapleyades.net , there is a whole section with tons of info and articles on this, including photos and video of clones, how to tell the differences etc.

[13th Warrior]

Posted by DreamsInDigital (here)
The real Hoagland was subjected for a long time to increasing amounts of mind control tactics and then when that didn't work to shut him up / stop him. They snatched him and cloned him, the one that has been in the public for about the past two years has been an 'organic robitoid'. The terms are frequently interchangeable. If you want more info on clones, robitoids and synthetics I highly recommend checking out www.bibliotecapleyades.net , there is a whole section with tons of info and articles on this, including photos and video of clones, how to tell the differences etc.

Thanks, i'll take a look at the website.

[Debra]

Hi Raf, I am fine thanks. Wondering what easter will bring me .. chocolate I hope

I understand what you´re saying, especially when researchers begin making predictions .. then again in research, when one comes to evaluation, there is always some statement made about ´where this all seems to be leading´

I do think though, Richard Dolan is a fine example of a researcher who makes it clear that this is just his evaluation .. he uses words such as: if you were to ask me what I think? Well ... blah blah. And I think this is fine myself. If someone has gone down the rabbit hole of researching a particular topic, covering and comparing as much available data as is possible, then I like to hear what they have to say, as a result of their enquiry. In academia, particularly in postgraduate research, we have a committee of people to question us on our findings before a research is handed down (or rather published), and it is there that one is asked to elaborate further.

This process can open up a new direction, that can be included in a final paper, but it also keeps knowledge infinite. Hoagland, I think would have benefited from such a process, especially prior to presenting his research last year at the Awake and Aware conference. That epic presentation became self indulgent. He just lost his boundaries, I thought. I don´t know if he consulted with others in his field to get their opinion on what he was presenting - but even if had, they were either not competent enough to critique his research and help him fine tune it, or they were overwhelmed by his personality and his sheer drive to deliver what he thought was groundbreaking. However, you can´t fault the man for that.

The sciences are not my discipline, so I cannot comment further on intricacies of Hoagland´s evidence to match his hypothesis. Actually, that´s where I thought he was moving off the rails, trying to bring ideas together to satisfy his hypothesis.

But anyway, back to Wilcock, I do not have the grounding to discuss his discourse in detail - regarding the sourcefield investigation - but I do respect how he has presented his research as a journey of enquiry, and that is important, that for me is transparent. He has taken the time - to seriously understand a discerning field of theories relevant to his research and deep mined every aspect of evidence as well. And I believe that he moves into theoretical paradigms that mainstream science is .. well, frankly not up to speed with. Maybe in the so called black projects, but not mainstream science. From my reading, his research moves into territory that is still forming and he know this, and I think he acknowledges this fact.

Where I think Wilcock comes onto wobbly ground is when he embarks on bringing evidence together to expose and bring down the status quo. And this all being done at lightening speed, which is pretty amazing but also very uncertain as well, because this enquiry is not about understanding and expanding on scientific theories, it is trying to peel an onion to find the truth and perhaps frying it prematurely, at times.

But I detect a reason for this. On the surface, it looks like research on the run, rushed, stressful, releasing bulletins all of the time to keep people interested in the effort he is undertaking. But within this particular enquiry, I think he is exercising as much transparency as possible in his process. If some sources cannot be named at this time, perhaps it is for their safety that this confidence is maintained. Is it disinformation? This is still to be known, but at least this is an investigation that we are able to follow along with him - around corners, up stairs and sometimes into dead ends. But Wilcock has chosen to expose the process, and I think one of the reasons might be, that he understands that information - however it looks - needs to be available so we can all benefit and help to make sense of. That is the nature or methodology, as I see it, of this enquiry. He is not bottling it all up to be released only after he has spent months or years to understand. No, he is sharing, which I think is also generous. And besides, let us not forget, he is the one doing the hard work here. Not you, not me.

So I think we need to cut some slack here because I think one of the core reasons that Wilcock and others like him are working like bats out of hell right now, is because time is so important. That it is critical to bring a solid case together and forward as quickly as possible, to help realise the changes that we all want to see.

Here´s hoping that they will come soon.

Raf, I hope you have a nice easter mate!
Cheers, Zebra

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hi Zebra, how are you?

Well, to be honest I don´t really fully trust anyone that´s in any kind of media, alternative or not.

I try not to be too paranoid about it, but I don´t think we would even have the internet if TPTB didn´t want us to have it. They´re the ones who have money, who own every major internet/telecom companies and probably the whole internet infrastructure.

Trusting is a strong word for me. I trust people who I know personally, with whom I´m emotionally connected, who have experienced life by my side.

So, allow me to change your question to who I consider a legitimate source of information, right?

For me, for any source of information/researcher to be considered legitimate, I must have access to the research data as a whole, including all sources and bibliography.

...

Raf.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Cartomancer (here)
Last night I listened to Richard Hoagland try and defend his views on Comet Elenin. I have never heard someone backpedal from their views in such a way. My interpretation of what he said about Elenin was that it was a constructed craft of some kind and that it was going to hit the earth. When a caller confronted him with these facts he tried to minimize and deny what he had said. What is all of your interpretation of what he was saying during the "Elenin hysteria?" If you listen to the show you will hear him do everything he can to change the subject and he did not answer any of his critics directly. Is Richard Hoagland simply a P.R. mouthpiece or is he a legitimate researcher? What do you think?

I was'nt even going to click on this 'Thread' because I no longer listen to anything 'Hoagland' has to say..!

Thanks Cartomancer, you've said everything that I would have said anyway...

[ghostrider]

everybody makes mistakes, it proves your human, the key is , take your medicine and move on and try and learn something from your mistake. I think Mr. Hoagland is a dis-info agent hung up on his own self worth issues, he has to be the center of attention. thats my two cents. he puts to much faith in what nasa says, he should know they only tell what they want to tell. The lie is different at every level, well it's still a lie no matter the level. He knows nasa doctors photo's, and still puts stock in the reports and such they put out.

[watchZEITGEISTnow]

Sad when you realize some of these 'insiders' are really just playing a part for their bosses (agencies).

Hoagland NEVER talks about others findings other than his own...that should raise a red flag right there.

[Cartomancer]

I like what you guys are saying about Palmgren et. al. I may include Mel Fabregas in that group as well. He seems somewhat unbiased even though he believes a lot of things his guests are saying as well. Good point about Richard Dolan being kind of even handed. In the realm of hidden history check out Steven Sora, Scott Wolter, Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock and Dr. Schock. One of the best sources for the truth is my Art History two Volume textbook: Gardiner's Art Through the Ages. Its all in there.

[DreamsInDigital]

Cart,

Another great source though unfortunately now with limited sources of his work, hidden history wise is Joseph Robert Jochman, I used to love his site "Forgotten Ages Research" but it for what ever reason disappeared about a year or two ago. Some of his articles though are available around the net on various sites.

[Debra]

Hi DreamsInDigital,

Can you help me? My interest was piqued when you raised the info that Hoagland might be cloned. I went to that website www.bibliotecapleyades.net that you referred on this thread, and put in a number variations into the search engine. But not have found the references to Hoagland as a victim of cloning. I would really like to view more of this material, can you help me drill down to the sources that you speak of?

Much thanks,
Zebra

Posted by DreamsInDigital (here)
Cart,

Another great source though unfortunately now with limited sources of his work, hidden history wise is Joseph Robert Jochman, I used to love his site "Forgotten Ages Research" but it for what ever reason disappeared about a year or two ago. Some of his articles though are available around the net on various sites.

[Raven]

Personally I do really like Richard Dolan or rather feel comfortable listening to him - I don't know Randy Maugans yet but have always appreciated listening to Henrik Palmgren on Red Ice Creations and agree that he seems to invite our own thoughtfullness

[DreamsInDigital]

Posted by Zebra (here)
Hi DreamsInDigital,

Can you help me? My interest was piqued when you raised the info that Hoagland might be cloned. I went to that website www.bibliotecapleyades.net that you referred on this thread, and put in a number variations into the search engine. But not have found the references to Hoagland as a victim of cloning. I would really like to view more of this material, can you help me drill down to the sources that you speak of?

Much thanks,
Zebra

I simply referenced that site as a general source for those wanting more info on clones, synthetic and robitoids. Will work on getting you more info in regards to Hoagland.

[Debra]

Thank You
But I also am grateful for you pointing me to this site. It is huge, and I will certainly go back there in future.
Best wishes,
zebra

Posted by DreamsInDigital (here)

Posted by Zebra (here)
Hi DreamsInDigital,

Can you help me? My interest was piqued when you raised the info that Hoagland might be cloned. I went to that website www.bibliotecapleyades.net that you referred on this thread, and put in a number variations into the search engine. But not have found the references to Hoagland as a victim of cloning. I would really like to view more of this material, can you help me drill down to the sources that you speak of?

Much thanks,
Zebra

I simply referenced that site as a general source for those wanting more info on clones, synthetic and robitoids. Will work on getting you more info in regards to Hoagland.

[DreamsInDigital]

It's one of my very favorites.