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.