11.20.7
Why are some people believable and not others? Does it really have
to do with what they say or is it how they present it?
Y'all will remember Richard C. Hoagland's big press conference that
he went on c2c to promote a couple weeks ago. You may be asking
yourself,"whatever happened with that?" "Not much of anything" is the
answer. There was an article in Pravda, but I found nothing else and I search
the news daily.
Then last week, there was James Fox's press conference asking the
government to further investigate UFO sightings. That was all over
the news, US, UK, Russia and others covered that. So what was the
difference?
I suppose first off James Fox had credible military witnesses, but
I don't really think that is the entire reason. For some reason, I
am guessing it is Hoagland's unstoppable mouth (among other things),
that makes the difference. Richard C. Hoagland automatically comes off
as a phony, someone only looking for fame and fortune. This may or
may not be true in reality, but he reminds many people of that used car
salesman who doesn't let anyone else get a word in edgewise, for fear that they
might ask something he can't answer. When they do ask a question, he
goes into super hyper dimensional mode, making anyone who doesn't
understand the answer feel dumb. Whatever facts he may have produced
at that press conference were probably overwhelmed by his personality.
Mind you, I don't know what he produced since there has been no real
coverage of the press conference.
UFOs or an ancient civilization on Mars are probably equally as
unbelievable to most Americans, especially to CNN and other news
networks. So something made the difference in those two press
conferences and I am guessing it had to do with personality.
Yeah, I know there are those out there thinking to themselves the
difference is that Hoagland is full of crap. Then there are others
thinking it was a conspiracy, that Hoagland had the goods and was
sabotaged by the evil "them." Whatever I may think about Hoagland
personally, I do not believe it was either of those things. I believe
Hoagland is Hoagland's own worst enemy.
Is it just the run-on mouth? No. It is mostly the fact that he
expects those of us non-scientists (including news reporters) to
either understand or just believe in his hyper dimensional physics.
It is that he somehow thinks that it should make sense to everyone.
My advice to RCH is to find someone who has absolutely no knowledge
of science, run your little speech past them, no explaining allowed.
If they don't get it, you need to start over again. Your only hope is to
win over the public at large because the scientists are not on your
side. You are never going to win over the vast majority of the public
with this 19.5 and other crap that nobody but you understands.
I have been listening to c2c since back when it first started and was
the Art Bell Show. I still understand only a tiny bit of what
Hoagland is saying. Maybe I am dumb, but I have yet to meet more than
a couple people who feel any differently about it than I do. Many of
them may love Hoagland, but they don't have a clue of what he is
trying to say when it comes to hyper dimensional physics. So as far
as I am concerned it is obvious that Hoagland is not getting his point
across to most of us. That point, along with his "never shut up" syle and
penchant for overselling himself, makes him seem like a complete fraud to many people. Yeah, I
know his fans like to think that certain people think he is a fraud
because they don't understand or are debunkers, but honestly Hoagland
often sounds like a side show barker and that doesn't help his
creditability.
I know those in the Hoagland camp are already thinking of all the
support they have, but remember that it never hurts to have more.
Because even though Hoagland thinks he has millions of fans, however
many he actually has is only a fraction of the total c2c and even
wider esoteric audience.
Some of this is c2c fault. They put him on way too often and it
makes people think he is some huckster that will go on anytime to
discuss anything because he may sell a few books or videos. The fact
that he is called "science adviser" when he is not a scientist also
irritates certain people.
So I guess what I am saying is that Hoagland has a whole lot of shit
stacked up against him (much of it his own doing) that led to his
press conference being pretty much totally ignored while the UFO press
conference was heavily covered.
Impressions do really matter.
That is not to say that James Fox is somehow better than Hoagland
as a person (how would I know?), but he is more media savvy. He comes
off as the laid back dude, who is so confident that he can let the
skeptics say whatever they wish without his feathers being the least
bit ruffled. On Larry King he knew that the skeptic, James McGaha,
sounded totally ridiculous and he just let him go. He knew that the
fool McGaha wasn't really worth commenting on. He didn't talk over
people or have to get a word in about this or that. It is that air of
confidence that will continue to provide him with media coverage. I
assure you that we haven't heard the last from him.
Meanwhile, Hoagland and his sidekick Bara scramble to post documents
to support their claims because they are not believed by everyone.
This is a stupid waste of time, the skeptics of their book won't have
their minds changed by those documents or probably even read them and
their fans also don't care because they would believe anything they
say. Sorry Hoagland and Bara, you will never be believed by everyone
and especially not the skeptics, so get over it and move on.
|