Tuesday, July 31, 2012

This is what we're waiting for... and waiting, and waiting...

        Richard Hoagland's Accutron/MicroSet™ toys are extremely erratic, as this blog has noted more than once. First we were offered the Venus transit of June 8th 2004, observed from the Coral Castle in Florida. Two incompatible versions of this observation have been shown, and neither is in any way convincing. Esteban Navarro Galán asked Hoagland about this on FooBoo and was told to be patient, answers WERE COMING SOON.
        Next up was the trace captured on top of the pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan April 22nd 2009, for ScyFy. Hoagland said the trace proved that the torsion field increased at the moment of dawn—07:13 local time. Which was true for all we know. Pity the trace he showed didn't start until 07:19, wasn't it?

        Hoagland built up expectations for the two interesting astronomical events of this year: the annular eclipse of May 20th and the Venus transit of June 5th. He wrote about the eclipse on his horrible web site—a treatise that was 99.5% expectations and 0.5% results. He appeared on Coast to Coast AM June 25th and posted to their web site the only firm information we have so far been vouchsafed. This trace was captured from the terrace of a restaurant at Sandia Peak:

image credit: Richard C. Hoagland, 2012

        As if this presentation wasn't annoying enough, the axes are the reverse of the previous presentations. Time increases with -x, and vibration frequency increases with +y. Nevertheless, it's fairly plain that the major disturbance occurs a few minutes before first contact, and the major off-scale spikes are completely unexplained. HOW OLD is this Accutron watch, again?

        How does this compare with the preliminary version he posted to FB on May 22nd? Not well. Since the axes are reversed, I give it to you flipped in the horizontal and vertical axes:

 image credit: Richard C. Hoagland, 2012

        Hoagland has slipped up Big-Time here. One of them is upside down. The preliminary shows the steady part of the trace decreasing by about 0.3Hz. The "final" shows it increasing by the same amount. Look at the notations 'FAST' and 'SLOW' at the top and bottom edges. Ooops.

        His text accompanying the prelim capture was sooooooooo typical Hoagland-perbole it makes me giggle:

 "Here is a composite "quickie graphic" from our phenomenal Eclipse observations, made Sunday; it shows a preliminary representation of the ASTONISHINGLY CONFIRMATORY torsion field data Enterprise acquired before and at the beginning of the May 20th Annular Solar Eclipse ....

As you can see, even these "quick-look" results are MIND BENDING!"

         Appearing with Jay Weidner on Gaiam Inspirations TV, May 16th, Hoagland was confident about his experimental setup, remarking that he had controls in Chicago and Florida. We have heard nothing at all about those controls, unless I missed it. We have heard nothing at all about the results of a similar "experiment," also from the restaurant, during the Venus transit of June 5th. All we have heard is that the Accutron "went nuts for 12 hours straight" during the solstice, June 20th. Since he was in his own garden in  Placitas NM at that time, I'd say that very probably falsifies one of his main claims, namely that Sandia Peak—standing in for a pyramid in Hoagland's tiny mind—has an amplifying effect on the torsion wave.

image credit: wikipedia commons

So here's a checklist of what we're still waiting for:

  1. Reconciliation of the two versions of the 2004 Venus transit
  2. Extension of the Teotihuacan trace to the moment of dawn
  3. Anything at all from Stonehenge/Silbury Hill last summer
  4. Explanation of the off-scale spikes during the annular eclipse
  5. Revision of the labeling on that trace
  6. Explanation of the fact that the frequency returns to "normal" before the eclipse is even complete
  7. Information about the Chicago/Florida controls
  8. Anything at all from the 2012 Venus transit
  9. Any baselines

Friday, July 27, 2012

The zombie ziggy: Hoagland writes

        I'm glad to say (OK, write) that this week I did get some responses from Hoagland on the question of the ziggy. I  mean that "glad" sincerely—such an exchange is a lot better than asking Mike Bara why he writes what he writes and says what he says, and getting nothing but douchebags in return.

        Enjoy the contrast in our styles: Hoagland with his weird attempts to make the keyboard look and sound like him, me with my theatrical snootiness. Both of us sure of ourselves to the point of arrogance.

From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: That ziggurat

As I understand it, you're interested in a feature on a 43-year old photo with motion smear, whose resolution is AT BEST 65 m/px. Am I right so far?

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, am I also right?

If that is the case, WHY WOULD YOU NOT go immediately to the NAC strip showing that exact area in the LRO image library and examine it? The resolution is about 0.8 m/px, Richard, that's EIGHTY TIMES BETTER, RICHARD.

If you do do that, Richard, guess what you'll find? That's right -- NOTHING OF INTEREST.

Now will you please apologize for misleading the C2C audience and calling the criticism of you "vitriol."


From: richard hoagland   

To: [expat]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat

And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... what?

Their WORD?

Really, if that's the case ... I have this "REALLY neat bridge ...."                       :)

The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."

Keep going; you're only building more public interest as well.

Eventually, with THEIR help, we'll truly get to the bottom of this decades-long "game" that NASA has been playing with ALL of us ....


From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 

Subject: That ziggurat

If you know of specific evidence that that NAC strip has been altered, let's hear it. Otherwise, Richard, your allegation is an attempt by you to create an unfalsifiable proposition and as such has no place in an organized discussion.

I, on the other hand CAN show you specific evidence that your ziggy-pic has been shopped. The evidence is here summarized by Dr Stuart Robbins, a trained and competent astronomer. Please read it.




From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012  

Subject: That ziggurat  

>>And, your faith that NASA has not "digitially eliminated" all trace of this object is based on ... 

 ...is based on the fact that LRO is a scientific enterprise managed by people who would have NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE, RICHARD, for concealing features of interest.

It really is time you let go of the fantasy that Brookings mandated secrecy. The report, Richard, DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER the question of suppressing information. It merely recommended that the question should be asked.

You call yourself a scientist, Richard, and yet your approach to anything that seems interesting is ANYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC, RICHARD. Stop it, please, and apologize to your audience.



From:richard hoagland  
To: [expat] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat 

The "motive" IS in "Brookings" -- as reported in its December, 1961 edition, by no less a world-class news agency than The New York Times--

"... prevention of the destruction of the world ...."

Not my "opinion," but their reporting of their professional assessment of the "message" o an official, government report on official "confirmation of intelligent extraterrrstrial life ... or artifacts."

NASA has had, therefore, and for more than fifty years -- half a century -- the THREE key elements required by ANY jury ... for conviction of ANY crime--

"Means ... MOTIVE ... opportunity."
By contrast, you are continuing to live in "delusion land" -- obviously not wanting to even consider such political (not "scientific") possibiities ....
Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :)

Fortunately, it's coming to an end ....


P.S.  And, please ... continue  making all this public fuss; "where's there's smoke ...."            :)

From: [expat]
To: richard hoagland
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Subject: That ziggurat

I would submit that a 50 year old article in NYT has as much relevance to a post-doc processing data at LROC in Arizona as the price of coconuts in the market in Jamaica. Possibly less. You make two classic errors here, errors that have permeated your work for as long as I've been giving myself the agony of reading and hearing it.

1. You persist in willfully misreading Brookings in order to make a totally spurious case. Never mind the newspaper reports, read the text. I don't need to quote it here because you probably know it by heart. Here's what you wrote about it:

"So here we had the proverbial smoking gun. Not only was NASA advised--almost from its inception--to withhold any data that supported the reality of Cydonia or any other discovery like it, they were told to do so for the good of human society as a whole." (Dark Mission, p.163 2nd edn)

That sentence is mendacious, Richard. It's Simply. Not. True. Not only did Brookings never "advise NASA to withhold data," nothing it did advise was ever taken seriously in any case. I very much doubt that those post-docs massaging data at LROC have even heard of it, or heard of you and your daft unscientific theories.

2. You also persist in regarding purely science-driven activities as under the control of some evil power intent on covering up information. In the case of the LRO cameras, I would remind you that data processing is carried out, not by a secret cabal of NASA masonic elders, but by skilled people from fourteen academic institutions including Brown, Cornell, Johns Hopkins.... bla bla bla. The notion that all of these people could be collaborating to keep data from appearing has NO CREDIBILITY WHATEVER. Over the last few days we have learned that the proximate source of the ziggy-pic was Mike Bara, and that Bara has no idea where it originally came from or who "enhanced" it. It would be hard to imagine anything carrying less weight of evidence of what you wish to allege.

You should be ashamed of misleading your readers with such lies. You should be ashamed of going on C2C and marking the anniversary of a heroic achievement with a piece of self-promotional flim-flam that was an attack on the very agency that was responsible for the heroism. You said

"[T]his is only a tip of the iceberg, George, as to what they've been hiding for 43 years, that we have got to take control of now."

A few days later you wrote

"it seemed appropriate to remind everyone -- on the 43rd Apollo 11 Anniversary -- how MUCH NASA has been hiding, all these years"

It was not appropriate, Richard, not appropriate at all. It was SHAMEFUL.

Now, in the present exchange of views, you write

"Enjoy it (if that's what you term your perpetual state of "NASA denial" ...) while you can.         :) Fortunately, it's coming to an end" ....
In 2010 you said disclosure was imminent. You declared 2011 "the year we make contact." Pardon me if I ignore your admonitions about what is about to happen to my "state."


         Caution: Just because I had the last word (for now) it would not be correct to score a win for me. A win would be if he actually did apologize. Preferably not just to me but to all his listeners and disciples.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Sorry about the captchas

        I first connected to the net in 1992—via a modem that screamed along at 400 baud. On 23rd March 1994 I saw a demonstration of a graphical web browser—Mosaic 1.0—and knew that the Earth had moved.

        I was one that got part of the future right. PART of it. I saw the potential of people forming social groups all across the world and sharing their lives, even if I didn't foresee that the whole community would one day be at the mercy of a nerd from Harvard. What I didn't see was that the web would lay waste to the following industries: Newspaper publishing, Bookselling, Travel agencies, Directory and Almanac publishing, General retailing, and I'm sure I forgot one or two. Neither did I see that people would find so many ways of being BLOODY ANNOYING on the net.

        Until Geo complained about the captchas that commenters to this blog have to wrestle with, I didn't even know there were any. I assumed it was an optional feature I could turn on if need be. Today I turned them off and within half an hour had spam from payday loans, rayban sunglasses, and rzb-b コーチ バッグ, whatever that is. A sex aid, probably.

Captchas are back on. Sorry about that.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The Zombie Ziggy, Day 3

        First and most important, everyone should see Stuart Robbins' update of the video destroying Richard Hoagland's claims. He's really taken pains over this and done a first-class job.

        Second, as noted in comments to yesterday's post, Hoagland is unapologetic about his lies (oh what a surprise) and comments "I find it fascinating the amount of vitriol my posting this simple image on "Coast" seems to have caused" That's not vitriol, Richard, it's scientific review and criticism. "Vitriol" would be, for example, telling a (male) critic that he would qualify as John Travolta's masseuse.  Or simply writing "You're a fucking moron." Like Mike Bara does.

        But the plum of the day (so far, Wednesday still has a long way to go in my time zone) is Mike Bara's own blog post.  It's absolutely hilarious.

"...this isn't even the most interesting thing on the image. Can you find the tank? Can you find the gun emplacement? Can you find the flying saucer in a hanger[sic] recessed inside a mountain?"

        Oh, read it for yourself and please comment to Mike, if you can get through the captchas that are reminiscent of junkyard dogs. This was my own comment, which I reproduce here in the certainty that it'll never appear there:

 "Mike, the people who have been "attacking" RCH over the ziggy fiasco are not haters or morons. The principal critics are a) A Ph.D. and trained astronomer who has published on lunar cratering in peer-reviewed journals, and b) Another Ph.D. who works as a design engineer.

I absolutely _knew_ you would claim that the online version had been altered. I predicted it in yesterday's 'Emoluments of Mars' blog. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY SUSTAIN that lame idea. The amount of noise on your faked up version is at least five times what it is on the original.

As to your further claim that "it's my Ziggurat" -- were you the source of the version that was posted on Holloworbs in (I believe) 2003?

Mike, you have chosen to write on scientific topics without having the education or knowledge to do so accurately. The predictable result is that you have made absolutely unforgivable factual errors. It does no good whatsoever for you to then insult your critics and accuse them of being homosexual as though that were an insult. When you make gross errors in science, your errors are going to be pointed out. It's not a question of hate, and I assure you none of your critics is afraid of you, or "scared of the truth" as you often claim. Facts are what they are, and I for one intend to continue pointing that out. Any way I can."
Mike Bara just facebooked: "I found it on the web but I don't know who did the original enhancement." So now we know—Both Hoagland & Bara are claiming some other person's work as their own. Business as usual.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Ziggurat resources

        By far the most important addition to the Great Ziggy Zoo is this absolutely brilliant video by Stuart Robbins, a.k.a. Astroguy. I'd say Hoagland is definitively pwned, and in case you don't know, Stuart (that's DOCTOR Stuart to you) is a trained astronomer whose specialty is cratering. He knoweth whereof he speaketh and youtubeth, in other words.

        I predict that, if either Hoagland or Bara ever respond at all, they'll claim to have an earlier version of AS11-38-5564, and that NASA has since airbrushed out the ziggy. To which the swift answer would be Why then is there more noise on your version?

        Esteban Navarro Galán posted the link to Hoagland's FooBoo page (thanks, Esteban, we're blocked) with the comment "¿What´s up with this?" (love those spanish upside down ?s), getting, so far, not much reaction. I'll update as appropriate.

        On Sunday Mike Bara facebooked "Anybody have a recording of Coast to Coast AM from 7/20/2012 when Richard C Hoagland was on in the news segment talking about the Ziggurat on the Moon?" --explaining in a follow-up "just wanted to see if Richard mention "his" pyramid came from me lol." Somebody called Dil Smith posted the Astroguy video (thanks, Dil, whoever you are) with the comment "why would you want credit for an obviously photoshopped and fraudulent image? Dont you guys ever get tired of deceiving the public with your hoaxes?" Nothing yet in response. Stand by for the innuendo that Dil must be homosexual.

        CigaretteMan started a thread on Above Top Secret which  is at three pages as I write. Hoagland gets no support there.

        Lincoln started a thread on Keith Laney's Hidden Mission Forum  titled "Mike Bara: copyvio perp turned victim" (this refers to the probability that Mike will use some of Keith's copyrighted work in his next book.) That thread has not so far stretched beyond one page.

       Phil Plait tweeted "Heh. More from : a video tearing apart Hoagland's silliness."

        Wildcard (a reformed former Branch Hoaglandian) started a blog called The Tinfoil Hat Brigade and gave us some more exposure. I don't mind at all, Wildcard.

        Astroguy and I both had a bit of fun in the Coastgab forum, which exists to mock the hosts, guests and topics of Coast to Coast AM. 

        .....and speaking of which, here's the text of my protest to George Noory and Lisa Lyon (Exec. Prod.):
Hoagland's appearance July 20th was a disgraceful exercise in self-aggrandizing mendacity. That "ziggurat" has been around the anomalist web sites at least since February last year and probably since 2003. It was not his discovery, and it has now been shown to be  fraudulent.


He also said that his "studies" during the eclipse of May 20th proved that pyramids, and the core of the Moon, amplify torsion wave energy "enormously." The problem with that is that his so-called "studies" were actually done in a restaurant at Sandia Peak, NM, thousands of miles from the nearest pyramid and 240,000 miles from the core of the Moon. The expression "junk science" is hardly adequate as a description.

You see, he had begged his faithful fans on Facebook to send him cash to finance a trip to Egypt with Robin. Plenty did, but not enough, so he canceled the trip. So far he has not offered refunds.

No response so far. They really don't care. All readers are encouraged to send similar messages.

Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong

Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Eagle has landed, and Richard Hoagland offers absolute nonsense

        Here's an almost complete transcript of Richard Hoagland's news-time appearance on Coast to Coast AM last night.

GN: ..will we ever go back to the Moon, Mr Hoagland?

RCH: "Yes, we will. What's really astonishing, and the reason I wanted to do a little update tonight is... I've sent over to Lex, to be posted on the Coast website, an astonishing image taken from orbit ... on the lunar far side, on the opposite side of the Moon from the Earth -- almost as far away from the Earth as you can get, almost 180° -- almost on the equator, just south of the equator, a mile-size -- each side is a mile -- ziggurat. It looks like an Egyp....a Sumerian pyramid. It's extraordinary. It's enormous. It... you gotta go look because this is just absolutely astonishing -- and I've spent now several days trying to make sure this is real, and to the best of our analytical abilities it's real, there's a whole bunch of little "tells" around it that tell us. For one thing, hoaxes are never subtle. This is subtle. This is the kind of thing that an expert would instantly recognize -- and unless you have trained eyes it's going to take you a minute or two maybe to see it, but once you see it, you're never going to not see it. And the most amazing thing, George, is where it's located. It's almost exactly opposite the Earth, on the far side of the Moon, where you would put a massive pyramid --  because we now know from the Enterprise studies, including what I did with the eclipse here in May -- that pyramids amplify torsion field energy enormously. That's why there are pyramids all over the world, you were asking your guest last night "Why are there pyramids all over the world? Do they talk to each other?" Yes, they do. They're linked by hyperdimensional physics -- and whatever the reason for this thing being built on the far side of the Moon was -- part of it had to be, to look with this energy through the core of the Moon  -- which we now know from our eclipse studies amplifies torsion energy ENORMOUSLY -- and to look through the core at the Earth and to monitor the torsion field changes in the Earth. If some hoaxer had put this thing on the [..?..] they figured out all the right things to do to put it in the one place in the whole solar system where it would make sense from a hyperdimensional perspective, which is one of the reasons I think it's real. And you all ought to go and look at what Lex has posted ... and I've got Steve Troy working on the footprints, on which orbit.. which astronaut took the picture. It may have been Collins, all by himself in the CM orbiting around the Moon while Neil & Buzz were down on the surface. But this is only a tip of the iceberg, George, as to what they've been hiding for 43 years, that we have got to take control of now."

GN: "You've got that right..."

        Does any of that make any sense at all? Yes, his first three words, "Yes we will." After that it's unmitigated, unrelenting, total poppycock. Here are just the main reasons for its rubbishness:

1) How can anyone possibly "spend several days" making sure this is real? There's simply no way. Yes, it's "real" in the sense that it exists on a photograph. [Update: Perhaps not even that.] That does not make it a ziggurat -- at best it makes it something that looks vaguely pyramidal. You'll see in a minute that spacecraft motion introduced a smear effect over the whole frame.

2) "Hoaxes are never subtle." Oh yeah? Tell that to the people who were fooled by the Piltdown Man or the FeeJee mermaid.

3) He says "we now know from the Enterprise studies including what I did with the eclipse here in May -- that pyramids amplify torsion field energy." Only one problem with that -- his eclipse "study" in May WAS NOWHERE NEAR A FUCKING PYRAMID.

4) Also "...the core of the Moon  -- which we now know from our eclipse studies amplifies torsion energy..." WHAAAAAATT? Was his "eclipse study" any closer to the core of the Moon than 240,000 miles? No. Is anybody going to be fooled by this bollocks? Probably -- the disciples think he's brilliant.

5) So "they" have been hiding this for 43 years, eh? Funny that the image, AS11-38-5564, has been available from the JSC photo library, and from the LPI library, all that time.

        I'm sure you're dying to see this ziggurat, right? Well, to save you some clicky-clicky, here it is:

image credit: public domain ?shopped by Mike Bara?

        Now you need some clicky-clicky to confirm that the image is online, in the LPI lunar atlas. Now you see that motion smearing I mentioned. What's more, this "anomaly" has been known to the conspiracy community for a very long time. More clicky-clicky required to confirm that it was posted by Disclose.tv back in February 2011, and by Holloworbs even earlier (ATS claims 2003.) So once again Hoagland has been caught red-handed stealing other people's work.

        Why? Could it be that we are witnessing the opening stages of a war between Hoagland & Bara over which of them can now lay claim to the title "King of the Lunar Anomalies"?

         Astroguy has found the ziggy, or the place where it ought to be, in the original Apollo image, and provides this analysis:

[T]hey darkened the image so there are more shadows, then increased the contrast. Then selectively increased the contrast of the "ziggurat" and then literally drew in lines to make it seem like an actual structure. My original analysis of "fraud/hoax" stands, though now that we can actually see that they at least used the photo they claimed they did to start from.  

Here's astroguy's comparison:

Thanks, astroguy!!

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Summertime, and the blogging is easy....

        ...at least so it seems this summer, as Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara supply ready-made entertainment in their replies to scientific inquiry. Bara's specialty is, of course, ridiculous insults that make him look more like a bigoted lunatic than any kind of bona fide researcher. Hoagland's attempts to seem like a scientist are almost as good as a Saturday Night Live sketch. Here's his reply to Derek Eunson's recent message, and Derek's follow-up:


From: RCH [mailto:enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com]
Sent: 15 July 2012 01:11
To: Derek Eunson
Subject: Re: Torsion in the Baltic [Scanned]

For someone who claims a PhD., you appear to know precious little about "shielding"; as even high school physics students are taught, what you detect from any given radiation source is a function of the energy of the emitted radiation ... and the efficiency of the shielding blocking it.

I never said that "torsion shielding" was 100%;  in every specific case, there are obviously "thresholds" in a) detectability, and b) in the effectiveness of what torsion field changes accomplish ... below a certain minimum.

Obviously, if the Baltic object does contain an active "torsion source," to be interfering with even "standard electronics" through that much seawater as we discovered serendipitously in England in measuring some of the ancient monuments), it must (still?) be VERY powerful ....

That is why it would be in interesting to be able to actually measure such a possibility directly, instead of simply inferring "possibilities."

Or, are you also against empirical measurements?    :)

Look forward to your specific responses re the fascinating results of our recent eclipse and Venus Transit torsion measurements -- to be published on Enterprise shortly.


From: Derek Eunson
Sent: 17 July 2012
To: RCH [mailto:enterprisemission2001@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: Torsion in the Baltic [Scanned]

Mr Hoagland,

I do indeed have knowledge of shielding. Certainly more than your co author Mike Bara, (who thinks that Faraday cages are made of lead) does. You may also want to have a little chat with Mike and explain what centrifugal force is. He clearly doesn't understand and thinks it makes us heavier.

Regarding shielding. You stated on Coast to Coast; "The torsion field effect influences not only the Sun ... but it also interacts with living systems on this planet and imprints a unique torsion field pattern in each living organism when they are born. Why when they're born? Because  water turns out to be a very good screen of torsion fields. So you only are exposed to the field after you leave the womb."

Seems pretty clear to me, "So you are only exposed to the field after you leave the womb."  Not "exposure increases after you leave the womb." No mention of shielding from you here Richard. In fact, implicit in the above is that water is a perfect shield against torsion. So water in the womb blocks torsion, but 80m depth of Baltic sea water may not.

I'm not against empirical measurement at all, but if you declare that you're measuring something, you need to do more than merely sense it, or claim to sense it. That being said, would you be so kind as to indicate what units you measure torsion in ?

        No sign yet of those Venus transit measurements on enterprisemishmash (the stuff that Hoagland was working on "literally around the clock for weeks"). Or any answer to Derek's legitimate questions. Or any response to Neville Parchemin's attempt to enlighten Mike Bara on the question of shielding electromagnetic vs. ionizing radiation. But then, Mike is trying to finish his new collection of utter bollocks book, and his excited announcements on FooBoo indicate that he's found not only a flying saucer in a hangar on the Moon, but a crane, too. Look...

photo credit: public domain, discovered by M. Bara (aged 33-3/4)

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Mike Bara once again uses the gay innuendo as an insult

        I'm no psychiatrist—as I think I've mentioned before—but I can't help wondering if there's something pathological about the way Mike Bara spews out suggestions that his critics are homosexual as though it's an insult. It's juvenile, no question about that, but is it a symptom of some kind of insecurity? And is it better or worse than Mike's other favorite insult, "douchebag"? What's so bad about a douchebag, anyway? As one recipient of this insult wrote:

Hi Mike... I'm lucky enough to have had a French gf at one time, and I can tell you that a douchebag isn't that bad. It's just a bag of water, often with some antiseptic added. Maybe you could find a more appropriate insult to use when logical argument fails you.

         Get to the point, expat. OK, OK, here we go. The most recent recipient of the douchy epithet, Neville Parchemin, forwarded this e-mail exchange to me. It's a beaut, showing the multi-faceted ignorance of Mike Bara in stark, screaming horror:


From: enceladus28@live.com
Subject: Faraday cages aren't made of lead, Mike‏
To: mikebara33@gmail.com
Date: 7/17/12

comparitive resistivity:
Pb  208 nΩ-m
Cu 17 nΩ-m
Al  28 nΩ-m

Faraday cages are made of copper, or aluminum if the lab is short of cash.

Please don't respond with your usual personal insult, or "I never said that." It's in print. p. 139, The Choice.

You wrote "It's rich that I should be accused of not understanding basic physics by an idiot who thinks..."..etc

As it happens I'm not a great fan of Dark Matter myself. You misunderstand as usual. However, I do know for a fact that you're completely wrong about:

annular eclipses
centrifugal force
the date of sputnik 1
the orbit of Explorer 1
the Brookings Report
the eccentricity of Mars' orbit
....and more

Neville Parchemin


From: mikebara33@gmail.com
Subject: Faraday cages aren't made of lead, Mike‏
To: enceladus28@live.com
Date: 7/17/12

They are used all the time, especially in hospitals, etc., you fucking idiot.



Oh and a PS - The Faraday cages used in the experiments I discussed in my book were lead-lined, which is why I brought it up, you abject moron.

Say hello to Expat for me. Perhaps you guys can tag team on Barney Frank while you watch me on TV.

Regards... oh fuck you...
Mike Bara

From: enceladus28@live.com
Subject: Faraday cages aren't made of lead, Mike‏
To: mikebara33@gmail.com
Date: 7/18/12

›› They are used all the time, especially in hospitals, etc., you fucking idiot.

Thanks for the reply. You're confusing shielding from electromagnetic radiation, which requires a good conductor of electricity, with shielding from ionizing radiation, which requires a very dense element. It's possible that Project Stargate used both types, but that would still not make what you wrote correct.

Note: Your e-mail sig includes the out of date URL www.mikebara.com.

Neville Parchemin


        Neville promises to update us if Mike gets away from preening himself in front of re-runs of Ancient Aliens and replies further.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Three more critics banished

        I was kicked off the Faceboo-boo pages of both Hoagland & Bara a long, long time ago (obviously). Hoagland is going through a period of not cultivating that particular garden, and the predictable result is that it's now overgrown with the weeds of free-energy loonies, solar-flare Chicken Littles, and flagrantly psychotic flood-posters.

        Bara, however, is being vigilant in his daily patrolling, and I've been amused as hell to see a few more cases of people being abruptly cashiered for the crime of questioning the accuracy of the Bara oeuvre.

        Yesterday Bara began a thread by congratulating himself on his L33T word-smithery:

44,207 words done. One chapter plus an epilogue to go, and we have a draft!

        Neville Parchemin, bless him, posted this:

Any chance of getting this one fact-checked by someone who actually understands basic physcis, Mike? Be a shame to spoil it with stuff like this, from p.214 of 'The Choice': "An annular eclipse means that the Moon and Sun are in perfect alignment, but the Sun is not totally blotted out because the Moon is a little too close to the Earth..."

        Neville very swiftly had his text deleted and his access to the page removed; Bara posted:

Be a shame to go through life as complete douchebag, Neville Parchemin.

My it's pretty ripe being told I don't know "basic physics" by idiots who think 80% of the matter in the universe is out there, it's just invisible. Riiiiiiiight....

        Neville, you may remember, was similarly booted by Hoagland last October because  he correctly pointed out that Hoagland's pseudo-statistical routines "proving" that Elenin was unique could be applied, with equivalent results, to any comet you might wish.

        Next up for the chopper was Conal MacNachtan, responding to a post about the tentative detection of dark matter. Mike's typically unschooled opinion was:

These idiots did not detect "Dark Matter," since there is no such thing in 3 dimensional space. What they detected is the influence of the unacknowledged "5th force" in the Universe, Einstein and Cartan's Metric Tensor Torsion field.

        I never actually saw what MacNachtan posted, he was gone so fast, but he protested on Twitter:

@ConalsCorner Dude, no need to remove my post and block me. Yeah, I disagreed with you, but you called my colleagues idiots!

@mikebara33 Nobody comes on to my Facebook page and attacks me. Maybe if you had suggested my language was too harsh I'd listen 

@ConalsCorner May I then start this over by saying I think that calling them "Idiots" was a bit over the top; I work with some of these guys. 

         Add to this saga that @Binaryspellbook was also dismissed from FB and twitter for questioning Mike's understanding of centrifugal force,  and the message is plain: ZERO TOLERANCE FOR DISAGREEMENT WITH MIKEY. It's not even as if he's getting rid of strident or insulting posters—as we know well, the stridence and the insults are flowing very much in the other direction.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Briefing for Mike (blue flares in the lunar sky)

 I sent this e-mail today.

To: mikebara33@gmail.com
From: (expat)
Subject: Blue flares in Apollo 14 Hasselblad Mag #66

It occurs to me that, for the purposes of your book Ancient Aliens on the Moon, you may be tempted to revive an old canard -- the one about the blue flares seen on many frames of Apollo 14 Mag#66.  I thought you might appreciate having the full story as a helpful reference.

The frame you'll be most familiar with (and no doubt most tempted to include as an illustration) is this one, AS14-66-9301. As I'm sure you know, this is one frame from the third of three 360° pans shot by CDR Alan Shepard. This pan encompassed frames 9294 thru 9316. Frames either side of 9301, AS14-66-9300 and AS14-66-9302, do not show the flare although they both include the same portion of the sky as does AS14-66-9301. It follows that this is not a real object having persistence over the time it takes to swing a camera through a small angle and release the shutter -- say, about one second.

Flares in the sky are, however, seen in these three frames, which show completely different parts of the sky:

It follows that, if this were a real object, it does have persistence and therefore should have been in 9300 and 9302.

No similar flares are seen on any film magazine other than #66. A catalog is available in the NASA Image Library for that magazine.

Are you beginning to suspect that what we have here is damage to that film roll? Suspicion turns to certainty when we notice the following additional flares:

AS14-66-9236. This is the very first frame of the first panorama, and here the flare is not in the sky but superimposed on the lunar surface.
AS14-66-9276. In this shot, the blue flare is splattered over the LM.

AS14-66-9345. This shot was part of a series taken after return to lunar orbit. The blue flare is clearly visible, removing all possible doubt that it does not represent anything real, suspended in the sky over the landing site.
AS14-66-9346. Ditto. The flare is reduced here, now appearing like a small scratch.
AS14-66-9348. Ditto. Only just visible in this frame.

I hope you will take account of these facts as you write your book.


Saturday, July 7, 2012

Mike Bara has fans

        Today Mike Bara, famous historian, famous archaeologist, internationally-recognized expert on the history of spaceflight, posted on FB/twitter:

"Just got recognized because of Ancient Aliens. Mission accomplished."

        Good for you, Mike. Did you offer to sign a copy of the 'Table of Coincidence' published on enterprisemishmash in support of the so-called Ritual Alignment Model? Perhaps not, since this is what it shows:

image credit: www.enterprisemission.com

        Oh look Mike, that's not what you said on Ancient Aliens Season 4 Ep 5: "The NASA Connection." I distinctly heard you say the Orion belt stars were on the horizon, 33 minutes after the Apollo 11 landing.

        There were a few other problems with that performance, too. I know the fans don't care, but internationally-recognized experts on the history of spaceflight should really get at least some of their facts straight.
Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong Mike Bara is wrong 

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Open letter to Richard Hoagland, from a design engineer

This letter is from Derek Eunson, who comments here using the pseudonym binaryspellbook. Reproduced by permission.

Mr Hoagland,
You indicated that you would like someone to pay for you and your partner to go to the Baltic to make Torsion Field measurements emanating from the vicinity of the anomalous object being investigated by the Oceanx group.

Since you have stated on many occasions that water blocks torsion, and, in fact stated that very same thing on the same show later on with regard to a baby being shielded in the womb. Aren't you asking for money to do the impossible. Since you yourself state that water blocks torsion, how could you measure a torsion field emanating from something 80m under the surface.

You appear to be slipping up Richard. You are haemorrhaging disciples from facebook and anti-Hoagland pages are appearing everywhere. This is NOT because you are doing something right. Quite the opposite in fact. The big guns are lining up. And it really is big guns. Dr Farrell doesn't want anything more to do with you, Richard Dolan either. In fact you can be assured that more distance will be introduced in the coming months.

How can you call yourself a scientist when you have no scientific degrees of any kind, have not released a paper of any kind that could be called science, and make uncorroborated and often conflicting statements about your own theories.

Dr Derek Eunson
Senior Electronics Design Engineer
Scotland, UK

[ full postal address, telephone numbers and e-mail provided]

Sunday, July 1, 2012

10,000 suckers have read this nonsense

        Today Mike Bara announces that sales of his book The Choice have reached the 10,000 mark. It's worth reminding ourselves, then, that 10,000 people have read the following howlers:

  • (p.17) "...if radio waves can be influenced by the positions of the planets, then our own thoughts, moods, and dreams can be affected, too." 
  • (p.32) "Without the Moon's calming influence, the Earth would spin so fast that the centrifugal force would most likely flatten us all like pancakes." 
  • (p.34) "Many of the planet's orbits, which ... should be perfectly circular by now, are highly elliptical. In fact, Mars's orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest." 
  • (p.47) "Neptune's Great Dark Spot, the Great Red Spot of Jupiter, the erupting volcanoes of Jupiter's moon Io, Olympus Mons on Mars... and Earth's own Maunakea volcano ...all were at, or very near, the 19.5° latitude.
  • (p.57) "The human brain is nothing but a complex electrical signal transmitter."
  • (p.60) "Newton's laws of motion ... only work if the object being measured doesn't rotate." 
  • (p.134) "On the surface of the Earth, the magnitude of the gravitational field is more than enough to keep me in place, but if I was in orbit around the Earth, ... the influence of gravity would be so slight that I would be essentially weightless and float freely." 
  • (p.143) "In November 1957 the Soviets had launched Sputnik 1..."
  • (p.202) The Brookings Report of 1960  "detailed how best to inform the public in the event that NASA discovered extraterrestrial artifacts on the Moon or Mars." 
  • (p.214) "An annular eclipse means that the Moon and Sun are in perfect alignment, but the Sun is not totally blotted out because the Moon is a little too close to the Earth..."
        And then there's the sad, sad story of Chapter 12, the entirety of which is based on a totally false proposition. Bara compares the planned vs. actual apogees of Explorer 1 and concludes that, since the latter is 60% greater than the former, this means that the satellite had 60% more energy than planned. He doesn't know enough to understand that the semi-major axis of the orbit -- the correct way to measure it --  was only 6.5% in excess.

        This incredible error alone should have been enough to get him banned from the public media for life. But no, the suckers apparently LOVE to suck.

More detail here.