Sunday, September 29, 2013

A birthday card for Mike Bara

photo credit: Jonathan Daly

        Actually, it isn't Mike's birthday. And actually, this isn't really the intersection of 33rd and Isis. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

        Casual readers who have NFI what this visual joke is about can get enlightenment here and here.


"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..." --The Choice, by Mike Bara, p.214

        Mike Bara the pseudo-author recently wrote that that passage was a "typo."

        The expression typographical error is misused so often these days that there's probably no hope of ever retrieving its real meaning. A true typographical error belongs to a bygone age when typographers used linotype machines to set hot metal in forms for printing. In other words, some person other than the author or the editor had to repeat the keyboard work the author had already invested, in creating the manuscript. Obviously this process was not error-free, and so mistakes could creep into the press form that were truly not the responsibility of the author or the editor. For book printing, galleys were provided for the editor and author to check, but always under pressure of time. Journalists would not generally even see galleys, such was the pace (and still is) of the daily newspaper grind.

        These days there is no such process as re-keying of book or newspaper text. Once the author has composed his or her thoughts into a text file, it simply flows from one computer to another until it ends on the printed form. There is no possible way in which an author could write "far from" and the text could somehow come out as "close to."

        So when Bara the incompetent author says that passage on p. 214 was a "typo," he really means it was an "error." HIS error. At least he admitted it, in a cack-handed way.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Expat strikes back

        I was a little miffed when Richard Hoagland said on Art Bell's radio show last Thursday "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data.

        OK, I was a lot miffed. I sent a rather comprehensive message to Hoagland, rebutting the accusation. If he replies to my e-mails at all it's generally the same day, so I guess he has nothing to say. Therefore I'm now making it public.

        It's important to understand that this is not an attack on RCH. The attack was his original statement, heard by millions of Art Bell fans and Einstein-only-knows how many more on Youtube. This is a defensive riposte, and I'll be lucky if 1,000 people ever see it.


To: Richard Hoagland
Date: 9/22/13
Subj: "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data."
From: Expat


I'm one of your critics, but I'm not stupid. I have more education than you, I've authored or co-authored more than twice as many books as you, plus I've produced, written and directed fourfive major broadcast TV documentaries about spaceflight.

Dr Stuart Robbins is another of your critics and he is not stupid either. He is an actual working scientist, which is more than either you or I have ever achieved. Dr Robbins' specialty is lunar and planetary surfaces, do you understand that? He's an expert and he knows a lot more than you do.

Dr Derek Eunson is not stupid either. He's a highly educated working design engineer.

Now to your data...

I have looked at your data on the skull-like rock in crater Shorty and I have shown that your image is fraudulent.

I have looked at your data on the orbit of Explorer 1 and I have shown that your calculation is so catastrophically wrong that there is no hope of resurrecting your proposition. IT'S DEAD. Please withdraw it. Dr Derek Eunson also concurs.

I have looked at your data on the Ritual Alignment Model. Many times. I have told you that I would like to try and confirm or falsify this idea. I asked you two key questions and you refuse to answer.

I have looked at your data on glass domes on the Moon. As you know, I falsified your proposition yesterday. Other similar claims of yours are easily attributable to contamination of your scanner glass.

I have looked at your data on what you call prisms showing in Apollo 17 images. I have already told you you are mistaken. The gnomon patches are not red/green/blue but orange/green/blue.

I have looked at your statement about the latitude of the Port-au-Prince earthquake, and I have shown that it was a lie.

I have looked at your data on the Gulf Oil tragedy of 2010 and I have shown that you lied again.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of Phobos and I showed that your proposition was highly improbable. People with much more expertise than either of us then falsified it.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of comet Hartley-2 and found it has no credibility.

Likewise Tempel-1.

I have looked at what you humorously call your "data" (actually Judy Wood's "data") on the dustification of the WTC and found it is so far from credible it wouldn't even make a decent Sci-Fi story. It's pathetic, Richard.

I have looked at your data on the artificiality of Vesta and I showed that your proposition was highly improbable.

I have looked at your pseudo-statistical analysis of C/2010 X1 (Elenin) and showed beyond doubt that your analysis was seriously flawed, leading to divide-by-zero errors and other absurdities. Dr Stuart Robbins has also falsified your reasoning. Dr Derek Eunson also concurs.

I have looked at your data on YU55 and shown that it is mistaken.

I have reviewed your prediction for Phobos-Grunt and found it to be worthless.

I have looked at your data on lunar atmospheric pressure and found that you totally misunderstood your sources.

I have looked at your data on the 40-year-old Accutron. Many times. Seeking to confirm or falsify your "results," I have asked you a number of questions about this. You have refused to answer. Dr Robbins has also reviewed your protocol critically.

I have looked at your data (such as it is) on the so-called ziggurat on the Moon and I find your proposition has no credibility. Dr Robbins has criticized your work and that of Mike Bara in exhaustive detail.

I have looked at your data on the strength of lunar construction glass, and found that you committed the cardinal sin of citing a paper in a science journal that does not in fact support your proposition. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY BE ASHAMED OF, RICHARD.

Will you please consider going on the radio and apologizing for your slur?


Saturday, September 21, 2013

Hoagland self-falsifies

        Richard Hoagland the pseudo-scientist devoted much of the first hour of his marathon radio appearance with Art bell to this image, taken on the Moon in 1967 by the unmanned lander Surveyor 6.

image credit: NASA (scanner contamination by RC Hoagland)

        He announced that the glow in the lunar sky was clear evidence of a glass dome, and the linearity was further evidence that it was artificial. He talked about a "stairway."

        I wrote  pointing out that the original orientation of the image was thus:

image credit: NASA

        The linearity is parallel to the original vertical. The image was produced by vertical scan of a vidicon and transmitted at low bandwidth. It stands to reason that we are seeing scan lines.

        Hoagland wrote back: "Then  I guess these guys presengted[sic] it "wrong" too ....                :)" And he provided a link to a paper in J. Aerospace Engg. by Colwell et al. He means Fig. 1, showing the lunar horizon horizontal, but also clearly showing parts of the original margins.

        The truly hilarious part is that he evidently didn't notice the caption -- the highlighted sentence in particular.

        Was it too childish of me to write back that he was pwned, adding "ALL YOUR GLASS DOME ARE BELONG TO US"?

Friday, September 20, 2013

Hoagland on SiriusXM with Art Bell, last night

        As I noted in a comment yesterday, I'm not willing to subscribe to SiriusXM so I didn't hear the show. I combed through the 25-page discussion thread on BellGab, and gleaned a pretty good idea of what went on.

        The BellGab thread consists of comments and reactions from Art Bell fans as they listened to the show. What stands out a mile is that 100% of them think Art Bell is God, and 90% of them think Hoagland has no credibility whatsoever.One opinion was "Art's fine; I just object to Hoagland as a guest, ever. The man's a fraud" (Sardondi.)

The images that never got discussed

        A page of images was provided for listeners to follow along with.  I loved the captions to the Inaccutron images -- presumably written by RCH himself.

image credit: Richard C. Hoagland

CAPTION: Enterprise Mission Torsion Field measurements of the Annular Solar Eclipse, May 20, 2012. Contrary to ALL “current physics” expectations, just before “first contact” the modified Accutron tuning fork detector “went nuts” — exhibiting ranges of frequency deviation from the standard ~360 hertz vibration rate exceeding 1000%!
The theoretical explanation behind these “extraordinary frequency changes” — when the Accutron readings should have maintained a simple “flat line” throughout the entire Eclipse, according to all current Physics models — is currently under intense investigation.

MY COMMENT: There's a little note in red letters at the bottom: "Frequency decreases vertically in this display." Well, it clearly does not, since a down-spike is labeled as 361.61 Hz and an up-spike is labeled 326.25 Hz.  So Hoagland presents a data trace that is obviously mis-labeled, and in which all the potentially interesting parts go off-scale, and he calls this science??? As for " currently under intense investigation" -- yeah right. Intense since May 2012?

image credit: Richard C. Hoagland

CAPTION: Enterprise Mission Torsion Field measurements of the striking “Hyperdimensional Effect” on Earth from Venus “transiting the Sun” — June 8, 2004.
Note the striking asymmetry in the detector response — with ALL the sudden frequency deviations taking place as Venus “moved off the Sun” — in striking contrast to the “zero changes” that occurred when Venus began its Solar Transit, several hours before

MY COMMENT: Note the fact that the most pronounced frequency excursions happened when the transit was all over. Also that, once again, his data is off-scale and would be rejected at peer review. He has no right to comment on "zero changes" at the start of transit, since the sun had not risen at Coral Castle then. It did not rise until about an hour before third contact. This is junk.

        There was a third image -- the data from Teotihuacan 2009 -- but this was so badly botched that the caption was the same as the 2012 solar eclipse one.

        Reading the BellGab thread, it seems that Art Bell never got around to asking about these pathetic examples of Hoagland's incompetence. Perhaps it's just as well -- it's obvious that Art didn't give Hoagland the free ride that he's been used to from that rhetorical lightweight George Noory.

        Commenter Dee has helpfully pointed me to a Youtube version of last night, which I've now (mostly) reviewed. I fell off my chair at this one:

00:58:01  "I am sick to death of my stupid critics saying I'm nuts because they won't look at the data."

        I might say I'm sick to death of stupid Hoagland saying his critics won't look at the data because he won't look at the criticism.

        Regarding the Surveyor 6 images, which occupied most  of hour 1, I invite everyone to look at this image, which shows the original orientation of the "dome" picture. Hoagland, of course, didn't show it that way because it explains what we all see. Bear in mind that the image was transmitted as a vertical scan at very low bandwidth. THE DOME DOES NOT EXIST.

        And by the way, Image #1 in Hoagland's set absolutely does show contamination on his scanner glass. It's as plain as day.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Richard Hoagland's homework in the dog bowl again

        This week I thought it was time to tweak Hoagland again about his evasive replies or non-replies to scientific questions about his Accutron "experiments."note 1 Derek "binaryspellbook" Eunson has made an offer of professional peer review of Hoagland's data set, and been met with... nothing. I sent this:


From: expat
Date: 9/9/13
Subj: Your published Accutron data


I've been reviewing your Accutron data and this is a summary:

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 1. Max. 364.474 Hz, but some off-scale when the event was over. Min. 360 Hz.

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 2. Max. 364.474 Hz. Min. 360 Hz.

Venus Transit 2004, Coral Castle. Trace 3. Max. 366.782 Hz. (after the transit) Min. 360 Hz.

Dawn 4-22-09, Teotihuacan. Max. 465.192 Hz. Min. 360 Hz.

4-26-09, Tikal. Max. 949.586 Hz. Min. 14.531 Hz.

Solar eclipse 5-20-12, High Finance restaurant. Max. off-scale. Min. off-scale.

The following questions occur:

- For the Venus transit data, why would greater frequency excursions occur after the transit than during it? Does this not violate Bruce DePalma's theory?

- Why are the published traces incompatible?

- Why would the greatest frequency excursions of all happen at Tikal, when no eclipse or transit was in progress?

- Why do you show negative excursions for Tikal and Sandia, but none at Coral Castle and Teotihuacan?

- Do you consider the Sandia trace to have any scientific value in spite of the fact that all frequency excursions are off-scale?

- When do you plan to publish data from Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, the 2012 Venus transit, and Mauna Kea?

- What was the orientation of the tuning fork in relation to the spin axis, in all cases?

Thanks and regards,

To: expat
Date: 9/9/13
Subj: Your published Accutron data

This is why it is best to WAIT for the formally published paper on all this.

All these "mysteries" ultimately do have a scientific (and really neat!) explanation ....

As I told your friend Derek, it would be very useful for you to read the history of "Gravity Probe B."

Stay tuned.



        As far as I'm concerned, that's just an updated version of "The dog ate my homework."  The chance of getting this sorry excuse for science data published in a proper journal is absolute zero. So the evasion continues...

Update June 2016
Two and a half years later, we're still waiting....

[1] New readers who have NFI what this is about can get a backgrounder here.