• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

richard hogland

Free episodes:

Bob Watson

Paranormal Adept
Gene I would love for you guys to get him on to hold his feet to the fire and to have him answer the hard questions that other show will not. any hope of this happening?
 
That would be an incredibly good show but I just can not see Hoggy agreeing to a show that has a known history of asking the hard questions.

He has a history of ignoring those that question his ideas.

61a106c7fdf7.jpg
 
That picture is hilarious, nice one Stoney. Apparently, Don Ecker sent him a note on his Facebook page asking him about coming on DMR to explain the article I posted, so keep an eye on the thread here : Tonight on DMR ... Mars ... | The Paracast Community Forums for a possible response from Hoagland. I've read both of his books and was less than impressed with a lot of his evidence. Also, he was one of the people out there talking about how Elenin was a spacecraft with a message for us from a prior Earth civilization sent 13,000 years ago, until it exploded and then he denied the whole thing. He also posited that YU55 was a spacecraft because it's rotational period was 19.5 hours, until that was proven incorrect. He does have some interesting things to say about the history of NASA but as far as his "hyperdimensional physics" stuff goes it's pretty much pseudoscience crap.
 
I think Hoagland is too cagey and too much of a showman to allow himself to be put in a position where he would be embarrassed on air. He is a fantasist who puts a pseudo-scientific overlay on current events using them for his next startling revelation du jour. I don't think he actually believes the things he goes on about half the time. I think they are just used to weave an interesting story.

You have to ask yourself, "Who is Richard Hoagland?" Does reading his bio give you any clue as to what the foundation for his work could be? Normally, people who talk about science for a living tell you where they went to school, what their fields of study were and so forth. Hoagland does none of that. He name drops instead. That tells you how seriously Richard Hoagland should be taken.
 
Back
Top