Richard Hoagland Theory -domes on the moon

[Splodgenessabounds]

We have delegates at the United Nations taking him seriously.....

The link doesn't actually say anything about him being taken seriously by UN delegates, just that he briefed them.

The delegates could have just laughed him out of the room. I have no proof that they did, but then you have no proof that they actually took him seriously.

Until either of us the buy the video, this piece can be disregarded .

Edited July 11, 2009 by Splodgenessabounds

[Splodgenessabounds]

In fact they might have taken him seriously but then asked for a second opinion from a scientist more qualified to testify on such maters. Once they listened to the second opinion, they could have decided that Hoagland shouldn't be listened to.

Here's the important question, after the briefing, how many delegates reported their findings at the next UN council? Have the UN had a debate about Hoagland's findings since the briefing?

Because if they took Hoagland seriously, news about the UN debating civilisations on Mars would have been big news.

After a quick look on google,

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&...-8&oe=utf-8

I can see that no debates have happened. Leading to the conclusion that Hoagland's breifing wasn't at all taken seriously .

Edited July 11, 2009 by Splodgenessabounds

[Czero 101]

We have delegates at the United Nations taking him seriously.....

The UN delegates that Hoagland addressed were attending an after-hours symposium presented by the "Parapsychology Society" which changed its name to "S.E.A.T. - Society for Enlightenment and Transformation" in 1993.

From http://www.ufomind.com/misc/1997/dec/d26-001.shtml

The "United Nations Parapsychology Society" changed its name in 1993 to the "Society for Enlightenment and Transformation - S.E.A.T."

According to a letter I received from Mr Mohammad A. Ramadan, the President of "S.E.A.T." in 1993, their objectives are "to research and stimulate interest in the processes of human transformation now taking place worldwide."

To this end, the Parapsychology Society/S.E.A.T. organized several after-hours get-togethers for U.N. employees and like-minded members of the public in U.N. conference rooms.

S.E.A.T. was overseen by the UNSRC, the United Nations Staff Recreation Council, as were all other staff-based activities of the U.N.

The topics and invited speakers were many and varied: "Developing Your Five Unknown Senses," (Nancy Anne Clark, M.T.C.),;"Children of

Star Women" (Parisha); "The New Image of Man: A Look at Paranormal Strategies (Dr James Hurtak), channelled "Kryon's Special Message to the United Nations" (Lee Carroll); "Second Symposium on Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Human Future," and so on.

While most of the people invited to speak at these functions were aware that the society was purely an after-hours pursuit of U.N. staffers, others took great advantage of being invited to speak "at the U.N." Crop circle promoter Colin Andrews issued a press release announcing his lecture "to the United Nations" about the "mysterious" circles, and even made headlines in the local paper back home with news that he had been tasked by the U.N. to investigate the crop circles on its behalf. I suspect this was news to the Secretary-General.

The UN Parapsychology Society/S.E.A.T., has as much of an impact on U.N. policy-making as the MicroSoft film society has on Bill Gates' choice of home decor.

So... certain UN employees may take him seriously, but that is NOT the same as saying the UN takes him seriously.

Cz

[Moon Demon]

You claim to be quoting Hoagland 'word for word' (did you take notes?) but you are

vague about where you heard him say those 'exact' words.

How is that vague? It was from the radio program. How much more clear does it have to be put for you?

That is exactly what he said.

You asked for it, I gave the place for you to hear it. Now that I provide it to you, you still insist on saying it is "vague".

IT WAS ON THE RADIO PROGRAM! HE SAID THEY CAN BE SEEN WITH TELESCOPES.

LOL plain enough for you?

Quit resorting to personal jabs.

Because if you want to go there. I can certainly play that game.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Moon Demon

[Moon Demon]

Isn't there a satellite from either Japan or India that just mapped the moon?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Moon Demon

[KRS-One]

I'm actually surprised that Hoagland is pulling this off so well.

Years ago I used to listen to Coast to Coast as comedy relief right around the time that Art Bell retired and Hoagland took over. Of the two of them Hoagland always seemed really distant and sarcastic when dealing with guests and callers. I guess he still knows how to make money off it though.

I miss those old shows around 1999-2001. You could absolutely tell that neither of them believed a damn thing, but sure were glad to be making $ off it.

[thefinalfrontier]

Isn't there a satellite from either Japan or India that just mapped the moon?

Yes there is , Its called JAXA, (japenese auronuatic space exploration,

[TALM]

MR hoagland is not a crack pot. It is just that he has very limited resources to work with. He is right about dome shaped things on the surface, but he is just misjudging the size of the domes. To explain it will just be weirder so I encourage you to pop some popcorn and come back and read the rest

OK here we go...............

In his discovery called "the castle" he found an object in the sky above the surface of the Moon. He also points out to what he calls a "cable" in front of it. His mistake is that he recons the "castle" is an object of intelligent design. What he fails to realize is that his example is just a small fraction of the big picture. Above the surface extending in the sky for several miles is a network of life that is immense. I know it is at least in some areas on the far side but I am uncertain of the extent of it. A by-product of this network of life is a creature that grows on the vines (hoagland calls them cables) upon maturity the creatures leave the vine and migrate. Some fall to the surface and die. Some head to Earth like moths to a flame and can be seen in many NASA shuttle videos. The ones that fall to the surface eventually decompose. This is where the "Dome theory" comes into play.

Someone at one time seen an example of one of these downed critters in an unaltered NASA photo and mistook it to be a dome. They misjudged the size of course, but this brought Mr Hoagland onto this band wagon. IF that were not enough, someone else also seen a irregularity in the surface in one photo they believed was a dome. Ive seen this example on the internet, but being how I had the next following photo taken from the Apollo Ten, that showed the exact same area, I knew it to be only a surface dome and not nothing more than geological illusion. MR. Hoagland did not have other examples like I did to analyze if the perceived dome was real but he chose to run with the theory anyway.

So he had actual pictures of the "domes" (which were nothing more than downed critters) and he had haphazard evidence that was false but this gave him the fuel to proclaim that the domes were HUGE. This is where his research stops and it is really quite sad.

I could post my examples here to show what a "dome" looks like, but I believe you can find examples on the internet.

Mr Hoagland is not a crack pot. It is just that he has limited resources of data to draw from and unfortunately, some of his observations are wrong.

The Moon is a wild and crazy place probably none of you have an awareness to, but at least Mr Hoagland has a clue something is amiss.

For those of you that think NASA has told the truth, you have yet to see the truth.

[Lilly]

...A by-product of this network of life is a creature that grows on the vines (hoagland calls them cables) upon maturity the creatures leave the vine and migrate. Some fall to the surface and die. Some head to Earth like moths to a flame and can be seen in many NASA shuttle videos. The ones that fall to the surface eventually decompose....

Are you actually serious? You think there are life forms on the moon?

[DONTEATUS]

It does boggle the Mind sometimes! The Things people think? Its Like we gotta exercise the Grey matter,but sometimes it needs feeding and rest!

[TALM]

Are you actually serious? You think there are life forms on the moon?

I can respect your opinion due to your signature explaining where you are coming from.

You only know what you have been taught. Unfortunately it is not the truth.

And ya, I know I am the first to extend the facts concerning life at the moon.

Put yourself in my shoes. Telling what is true while looking crazy doing it.

[DONTEATUS]

I need to get away from here , TALM Lets Look into the facts on the moon? No Air.No Life.

[TALM]

I need to get away from here , TALM Lets Look into the facts on the moon? No Air.No Life.

That would be describing life as you know it. Im not here to try and educate the masses or such nonsense. I posted to explain why Hoagland came up with his (Dome) theory. Unfortunately, in doing so, I had to cover some areas of intelligence that no one here is accustomed to.

Oh my.............I cant leave it like that. When I say "intelligence" I am referring to collected data and nothing more.

Edited July 13, 2009 by TALM

[Lilly]

And ya, I know I am the first to extend the facts concerning life at the moon.

How do you know this? What evidence are you citing that supports the concept of life on the moon? The idea of 'life on the moon' can scarcily be called factual. Something just doesn't become a 'fact' simply because you believe it's true.

[bmk1245]

How do you know this?[...]

Wild guess - channneling

[Feanor]

I am afraid that Mr. Hoagland suffers of pareidolia. This guy see things everywhere. Iapetus (one of the Saturn’s moons), Mars, Moon, etc.

All he has are theories based on pictures, nothing concrete. I don’t buy his stories, thought, they could make good Sci-Fi movies.

[DONTEATUS]

I think Mr. Hoagland uses these to speculate about Lifeon other worlds?

Edited July 13, 2009 by DONTEATUS

[badeskov]

For those of you that think NASA has told the truth, you have yet to see the truth.

Somehow we hear that a lot around here and it is such a convenient umbrella to hide all sorts of alien life and conspiracies under - unless you know how NASA actually works. When one starts asking some of the more pointy and pertinent questions then the proponents of said "ideas" tend to come up empty handed and being very reluctant to answer.

1) You do know, of course, that NASA doesn't really do it's own image analysis, correct? That is typically done on universities and independent research institutions.

2) Independent scientists have no incentive to hide anything like that - think of the fame and fortune they could get by being the first to release such information. You are of course aware of that fact, correct?

3) That 5 or 6 independent space agencies have now been imaging the moon without finding a single hint of any structure or other artificiality.

Maybe you can do better than others in explaining to me how the above correlates with major structures being present on the moon and said structures are typically only visible to people of conspiracy forums. And maybe you could explain to me exactly what NASA is hiding. That would be most helpful and I am all ears....

Cheers,

Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

Big waste of time there" bad" WE know that there are no Glass Domes,or other structures on the Moon. I can prove it!

If there were it would be on the Gov`s foreclosure list!

Or some Casino would be useing it Now !

Edited July 13, 2009 by DONTEATUS

[MID]

Oh my.............I cant leave it like that. When I say "intelligence" I am referring to collected data and nothing more.

Oh my, you can't leave anything save with cryptic remarks about what you cannot reveal.

You're wasting time here.

Anyone smell someone playing head games?

[glyndowers heir]

That would be describing life as you know it. Im not here to try and educate the masses or such nonsense. I posted to explain why Hoagland came up with his (Dome) theory. Unfortunately, in doing so, I had to cover some areas of intelligence that no one here is accustomed to.

Oh my.............I cant leave it like that. When I say "intelligence" I am referring to collected data and nothing more.

Hi TALM,

Perhaps you would care to expand on your theories regarding the possibility of lunar lifeforms, that way we might come to at least understand, if not share, your belief in such 'critters'.

I am afraid that as for Mr Hoagland, he is in my opinion at least being mistaken or confused regarding artificial lunar structures - at worst promoting a massive hoax for his own self publicity.

I believe wholeheartedly that, until there is concrete proof to the contrary, the only artificial structures on the moon are those left behind by apollo and other such man made exploration programmes

[glyndowers heir]

Oh my, you can't leave anything save with cryptic remarks about what you cannot reveal.

You're wasting time here.

Anyone smell someone playing head games?

Yes there is - now that I am well enough to post again

[crystal sage]

I was listening to Coast to Coast and the guest was Richard Hoagland. He believes there are huge man made domes already in place on the moon. These domes are so large, they can be seen with telescopes. These domes are being used to colonize the moon.

Now the host brought up a good point. Here on Earth, when you erect a sports stadium, it takes thousands of men, hundreds of machines, and years of hard labor. How in the world, would they get those necessary materials to the moon? And how did they send all the men it would require to build it?

Mr. Hoagland doesn't answer these logical questions with coherent answers.

He also believes there are android parts lying in craters and ancient structures on the dark side of the moon.

He believes NASA actually launched the "moon landing hoax" theory in order to cover up the bigger story. And that is there are buildings on the moon that we cannot explain.

Now, I would like to believe the theory about the ancient structures and all the wonderful mysteries of the moon.

I am afraid Mr. Hoagland just does not convince me.

Instant domes... in about a day with limited manpower and able to utilize local materials? Well how about this...

http://www.binisystems.com/

Extreme Architectural Engineering:

Construction Automation by Dante N Bini

This web site deals with research and development in the use of automation in constructing building structures for a variety of purposes. The applications range from affordable housing, schools and shopping centers, etc., built in different countries of the world, to conceptual cities' infrastructures to be built from the sea floor or in deserts. Extra terrestrial projects where construction automation using applied physics and robotics are also envisioned and described herein.

This site contains:

1. An introduction to BiniSystems technology

In 1964 Dante N Bini built the first hemispherical thin shell structure by pneumatically and automatically lifting all the necessary construction materials, which were distributed horizontally over a pneumatic form anchored to a circular ring beam, from ground level into an hemispherical dome. After the initial ground preparation was finished, that concrete thin shell structure was built in 60 minutes.

1. Construction Automation. This paper details the concepts behind the Binisystems construction methodology.

2. A sequence of 70 slides as presented by Dante Bini at Stanford University in his course on Construction Automation. The sequence starts by illustrating the pioneering work done by Felix Candela, Hans Isler, Buckminster Fuller and Frei Otto. Those four Masters inspired the work done by Dante Bini who applied construction automation in the field of thin shell and tension structures, and geodesic domes.

3. "La Reversabilità del Costruire" (in Italian) Talk delivered to the Round Table "The Reversability of Construction", 26 January 2001, in Firenze, Italy.

2. Constructed Projects

1. BINISHELL SYSTEM

This patented method of construction, in approx. 60-120 minutes, produces circular-based, monolithic, reinforced concrete shell structures, with elliptical section, ranging in size from 12 to 40 meters in diameter. Over 1,500 buildings are in use in 23 Countries.

http://www.binisystems.com/lunit.html

Lunit's 1 & 2 and Lunhab's Series

Method for self-shaping, self-sinking, pressurized mobile units for life-supporting lunar vehicles and fixed, self-shaping structures for life supporting habitats and/or warehouses for Lunar and Martian colonies.

[TALM]

I came to this site to not play games, but rather to learn what the fringes of society thought to be real and not real concerning the Moon and all of theories concerning it. In continuation please understand that I understand what I am about to say seems like a teaser or me being cryptic for what ever reasons. MID set me correct on the issue of the need to present evidence in another thread that I spoke freely of my beliefs based on what I considered fact. Well, against his wisdom here I am again dug in a hole. Even to say that I have the evidence but choose to withhold it comes across as me being a game player or worse yet a hoax. All I replied to this thread for was to give the reasoning why Hoagland thinks there are Domes on the Moon. Again, I will restate that in doing so, I dipped into my own research for reference with no plans to back it up in this format. Of course with not presenting evidence, I surly came across as just another crack pot. So therefor I will try to adhere to the acceptable way of speaking and only present my research and findings as "theory" and stay away from speaking of them as facts until I am prepared to show evidence. Again I know I am sounding cryptic, but it is hard to sound otherwise when you are in my shoes. I look forward to open communication with you people when i find the proper category to address the seemingly mountains of issues that are involved in my research and all the implications that go with it.

So far I want to say thanks to everyone for giving me your viewpoints on how you think I come across. Its a learning process I am going through.

[bmk1245]

No offence, TALM, but your "theory" (critters on the vine) sounds more ridiculous than Hoagland's domes, bridges, etc. And if you have only "hyper/super enhanced images" (with some magic filters "Skull finder", "Critter enhancer", "Vine sharpener" and similar) to support "theory", then you're wasting your time.