Shared publicly  - 
5
D govoni's profile photoErik Warner's profile photoRYAN LAWRENCE AUSTIN's profile photoDerek Eunson's profile photo
23 comments
 
What dont you know, what do you WANT to know? 
 
I'm pretty sure Richard is an expert in photoshop. Since this is where most of his "discoveries" have been made.
 
Gerrit,

Hoagland has been outed as a fabulist, a sciolist and indeed an utter liar. Can I prove it........?  You betcha

http://dorkmission.blogspot.co.uk/

I have pointed out many, many, many errors by Hoagland. He refuses to recant even when faced with irrefutable evidence. Like when I caught him allowing a division by zero into his hugely error ridden "probability" calculations where he claimed comet elenin was a hyperdimensionally shielded spacecraft. The man is as brainy as a bag of spanners.
 
That Man could talk you under the table , I love it when an arm chair mathematician calls one of the most renowned experts on the solar system wrong
 
Oh and he hasn't responded because you are pulling shit out of your ass
 
Mathematics do not lie. Hoagland made the mistake of trying to use them. Having no flair for real science he got caught.
 
so what you are saying is the science advisor for Walter Cronkite has no background in science , oh man
 
Hoagland's horrible mathematics have been shown to be ridiculously wrong. Case closed. He can't even apply the ideal rocket equation correctly. Do some homework man and stop the hero worship.
 
Mathematics can only be accurate when you have all the information. Besides why do you spend so much time bad mouthing? Prove your info and the source. If you are correct as you claim then why aren't you promoting that instead of yackty yack. I can prove you wrong as far as artifacts on other planets. That's easy, not even a challenge for me. Let's see  your best shot. I'm calling you out Derek.
 
 
Hoagland applied the rocket equation to all stages of Explorer I, missed a negative sign and completely failed to evaluate a natural logarithm in his equation. First that is sloppy, not science. Second the equation must be used for each individual stage then summed. Not as Hoagland did, applied it to all stages at once. I challenge you to Google "Emoluments of Mars Explorer I ."  - All the numbers are there.  I could also go on about his laughable Elenin probabilities. Allowing the possibility of a division by zero in his pathetic attempt at applying probability theory. Now I've proved you wrong, time to prove me wrong.
 
Does it mean that other civilizations do not exist or is a small math problem? Stay focused
 
Erik,
I don't know if there are other civilizations. I would hope there were. This would make me a happy puppy.
However, how can we discern real from fake evidence absolutely. By using mathematics. This is what I and others have done.
If you understand mathematics, you must surely agree that what Hoagland attempted to pass as valid maths, is utter JUNK, and certainly not a small problem. He is simply a fucking liar. I can and have proved this on many occasions.
 
I have evidence of many other types of bi-pedals and destroyed civilizations. I have artifacts that tie ancient people of mars with ancient people of earth. I have writing on rocks on mars and the moon. My list is a mile long, none of it has been or even needs to be tampered with to recognize what's there and all of it tells a chilling story of what happened in this solar system long ago. Most bi-pedals are rather scary looking and the machinery is incredible. It's funny how so many people look but don't see. The biggest problem is having expectations or trying to relate things to ourselves. Sorry for my strong words earlier I'm a man of science and have a gift for finding things. I'm also a mechanical savant.  
 
Forget about the math and look for structures by examining light, shadow, form, texture and translucency. What looks like natural debris on crater edges in apollo photos is anything but, and there are some incredibly disturbing pictures on both moon and mars. I'll post a sample of it.
 
I uploaded pics to photos but I don't see them
 
If there is a way to load these photos let me know and I'll send them. You won't be disappointed. 
 
Can always upload to them to Google+ and make sure that they are shared publicly
 
I AM NOT A DEBUNKER PLEASE HELP ME. i need help understanding why 19.5 and 120 degrees if a circle is 360 degrees, why is it not symetric? is it symetric because there are two oppossite terahedron that make it balanced? please help me understand the calculations to get this data. i believe there is something to this.
 
Ryan,

Please GOOGLE, "the emoluments of mars."  There you will find all the data you require. Unfortunately you will find that both Bara and Hoagland are completely clueless about mathematics, physics and indeed the scientific method.
Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but Hoagland and Bara are proven liars, charlatans and at least in the case of Bara thugs.
Add a comment...