Tuesday, June 21, 2016

More of Mike Bara's errors and fantasies

        I must admit to having a "soft spot" for Jimmy Church. I like his voice, he does ask sensible questions, and unlike Richard Hoagland he never interrupts his guests. It's unfortunate that he falls hook, line, and sinker for all the woo that this blog exists to mock, and doubly unfortunate that he and Mike Bara are such good pals that Mike gets on the show all too frequently.

        Last night, as a supreme example, Jimmy gave Mike two whole hours to promote himself as an expert on the "Secret Space Program" -- not by coincidence the subject of his forthcoming book. He said there are actually three American space programs, one public and two secret. Launches, he told us, take place from pads deep in the wild country of Utah where nobody notices. I'm willing, I suppose, to imagine somewhere so remote that a launch would go unnoticed, but how about the heavy traffic to and fro? Does Bara think the people of Utah are such rubes that they wouldn't wonder why oversize loads were regularly traversing their back-roads? Which direction do they launch in? East, over Colorado, or South over Arizona? Range safety must be an absolute nightmare. Also, how do they conceal this spaceport from all those enthusiasts who spend their nights scrutinizing Google Earth looking for oddities?

No gravity in Earth orbit
        It wasn't too long before Mike was laying on us some of his major misunderstandings about spaceflight. "In orbit there's very little gravity," he said. He just cannot seem to get it into his head that gravity is exactly what maintains an orbit. He has this totally incorrect mental picture of gravity pretty much switching off as soon as you leave the Earth's surface. Then we got his equally incorrect account of the early days of the US space effort. Here's the fortune cookie version: Von Braun was puzzled because Explorer 1 went 33% higher than planned (he claimed 60% in his book The Choice.) Then Von Braun realized that it was because the upper stages were rotating, and rotation sucks in hyperdimensional energy from the 6th dimension. So Von Braun adjusted for that by sneaking an extra term into the rocket equation without anybody noticing. Got that? Well, not a word of it is truenote 1. This blog has given a correct version of this slice of space history more than once, but since Jimmy Church doesn't read this blog he didn't know enough to call Bara on it.

        Well over an hour into the interview, Bara went off into fantasy-land. It went like this:

72:17 JC "Now what's the third version of the Secret Space Program"?

MB: "Well, to me, um, it's NASA. Because you've got this program that was started by the intelligence agencies, where they invited people like T. Townsend Brown to come and give them presentations on how to develop anti-gravity aircraft and spacecraft. And they said "Thanks very much" and all of a sudden anti-gravity disappears from the official scientific literature of the day. Then you've got the program that I think Kennedy started, and then I think really you have NASA, which is not really a secret space program but it's secret in the sense that it really is a public space program but it had nefarious aims and there was a lot of -- again, to use the word -- shenanigans going on at NASA, the Apollo Program ... I think that really the third program was the NASA stuff, which was actually basically a salvage program. It was designed to go and salvage Anunnaki technology from the Moon and bring it back here for reverse engineering.

76:05 JC "What was the technology that they were after? Are you saying... when you say Anunnaki, are you... do you have specific evidence or something that points towards an ancient.. you know, Moonbase that was there and we went and exploited it?

MB: "Well, yeah. We've talked about different things on this show before -- about the ziggurat on the back side of the Moon, things like that. But I think that...um, even, you know, deeper that that, I think to me the biggest most obvious artifact in all this is what Hoagy called Data's Head on the Moon, which is this human-looking head which is clearly not a skull though, it's some sort of robot, a machine, that is in Shorty  crater on Apollo 17. There's a lot of other stuff in these images of Shorty crater that appears to be mechanical debris, and it's like the arm from Terminator, you know, if you bring back the arm from the Terminator and start working on it and reverse engineering it, then you're eventually going to get some ideas and figure some things out, and you're going to develop, you know, super-secret technologies from that.

        Again, this is familiar territory to regular readers of this blog.  For newbies, here's a link to the main picture of Shorty crater. Can you find the robot head? Do you think they could have descended into the crater and picked it up, even though no such descent was in the plan? Even though they were being reminded that they were behind schedule? Do you see a lot of other "mechanical debris"?

        I have a new question about this fantasy, too. Much earlier in the interview, Bara stated quite flatly that President Kennedy knew there was advanced alien technology on the Moon, and that was the true motive of Apollo. In which case, why did it take six separate missions to go and fetch it?

====================/  \===================
[1] Longish notes for anyone who really wants to get into this subject.

Von Braun was puzzled: Explorer 1 went into a 223 x 1592 mi orbit, cf. the planned 220 x 1000 mi. So it is literally true to say that its maximum altitude was ~160% of nominal, as measured from the surface of the Earth. However, that is not how the energy of an orbit is measured. The correct measure is the semi-major axis, which takes into account not only the apogee but the perigee and the diameter of planet Earth. By this measure, the excess is just 6.5%. The actual velocity at orbit insertion was off by 2.46%. So Von Braun would not have been puzzled at all -- to the contrary, the orbit was never expected to be precise because of the imprecision of the solid rocket fuels of the 1950s, and the fact that the Juno rocket had no guidance after first-stage burnout. The second stage was, in fact, a ring of 13 Baby Sergeant solid rockets -- and the whole point of the rotation was to even out unpredictable variations of their thrust. Mike Bara seems aware of that but he can't seem to stretch his mind to the idea that the non-nominal performance can easily be accounted for by known factors.

Rotation sucks in hyperdimensional energy from the 6th dimension: This codswallop is so unscientific it makes me want to scream. First of all, there's absolutely no credible evidence that rotating something draws energy into it. Bara cites two experiments -- the "Allais Effect" and Bruce DePalma's spinning balls -- but neither has been confirmed, the claimed effect is minuscule, and DePalma's result has a better explanation. And then, even supposing that could be shown to be true, adding energy to a rotating rocket could have many possible results. It might heat the thing up, or make it luminesce. Yes, it might accelerate it but equally likely DEcelerate it, or cause it to veer off course. In the special case of a rotating planet, Bara and Hoagland have repeatedly claimed that the result is an upwelling (typically of volcanic heat) at the 19.5° latitude. They want it both ways -- upwelling when it suits their daft ideas, acceleration when that seems to fit the requirements. It's hopelessly, irretrievably, wrong.

Von Braun adjusted for that by sneaking an extra term into the rocket equation without anybody noticing: Again, I scream. It's been 58 years since Explorer 1's triumphant orbit. Mike Bara is seriously expecting us to believe that two whole generations of rocketry engineers have been educated and come of age without noticing what was in their equations??? Bara once addressed this point, saying that nobody knows these days what the actual equations are, they're just algorithms in a computer. Engineers simply feed in their data and crank the handle.

If you believe that, you'd believe anything.

Friday, June 17, 2016

The "Quayle gallop"

        Coast to Coast AM is concluding a vintage week, during which it offered us some of its most notable fantasists. You know, those guys who actually know nothing but can make it sound as if they know a great deal for as long as George Noory wants them to. Here's a line-up of the most delusional:

11 June: David Sereda: Zero-point energy, crop circles, anti-gravity. C2C has described him as a "Filmmaker and mystic ecologist."
14 June: Steve Quayle, Self-described expert on everything that means doom for the human race, who announced a year ago that he would never appear on C2C again. This blog has mocked him before, and Jason Colavito had a go last year, opining that "Quayle is either self-deluded, deeply stupid, or intentionally deceiving his audience."
15 June: Michael Salla. Salla promotes the idea that we are at war with extraterrestrials and have been for some time. He says that this is a cosmic secret, only known to very senior military officers, on a need-to-know basis. He doesn't explain how he knows it himself. His actual expertise is in conflict resolution.

        Steve Quayle came on in the second hour on Tuesday night and galloped through the following topics: Fukushima radiation -- Chemtrails -- Nephilim -- Robotics -- Hitler -- Fallen angels -- Drones -- Artificial intelligence -- Xenogenesis -- Human cloning -- Chimeras -- Genetic Armageddon -- Stargates -- Wormholes -- Andrew Basiago -- Edward Teller -- Abduction -- Supersoldiers -- Black Knight -- Bigfoot -- Frankenstein.

        ...and that was all before the first commercial break. Truth was in very short supply -- here he is on xenogenesis, promoting his book on Fallen Angels:

11:06 "By the way, the word xenogenesis.. X.E.N.O... I get people trying to pronounce my book to me, and I have to correct them -- you know, some of them write Z.E.N.O. -- but I devote the whole book to basically where future technology is taking us. I told you, I can't go any further than that book, because we're now at the point where the end of the book is literally in play. So how it plays out is this -- these very evil entities, with their human cohorts, are absolutely bent on destroying the human race."

        I listened through this a couple of times, and it's not at all clear who the evil entities are. The fallen angels, presumably. Since he cites xenogenesis, I'm guessing that these evil entities somehow replace human embryos in human uteri with extraterrestrial embryos. Or something. But anyway, alarmism sells on late-night radio, and Steve Quayle is perhaps its most creative salesman. A glance at his page on the C2C web site tells us that he's been predicting catastrophe since 2002 (according to Quayle, collapse of the dollar on 28 May this year was inevitable.) Plus he still has that annoying speech idiosyncrasy "The point being, is..." Ugh.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Ken Johnston and truth

        Ken Johnston, the former Brown & Root employee who worked under contract in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, put out a press release six days ago. The occasion was so minor that I forgive myself for not having noticed it at the time. The release merely noted that Ken generously donated a copy of his self-published triple-book Ken's Moon (plus an additional multi-media package) to the Roswell UFO Research Center. Well, bully for Ken.

        This 650-word text was written, not by Johnston himself but by Karen Christine Patrick — Ken's editor and co-host of an internet radio show specializing in ufology and exopolitics. It's pretty clear that KCP is not God's gift to the technical writing profession — we see "The the three-book series includes...", "Ken's archives has been of interest...", "world reknowned" [sic in all cases, it goes without writing], plus other minor solecisms.

Painting over the stars
        But as in previous announcements and pronouncements by Johnston, truthiness is in short supply here. Consider this key passage:
"Most researchers today only have access to the current database of images that are in electronic format. Researchers have noted, there are significant differences between images in Ken’s archives and what is available to the public. Johnston is an eyewitness to NASA personnel scrubbing out details of photos and painting over the stars in the sky."
        I don't myself know of any significant differences between Ken's photo prints and the NASA electronic archive. Where the differences arise is between the "official" archive and the electronic scans of Ken's prints. But the comparison is between, on the one hand, a professionally scanned image from an original negative or internegative done in a clean room — and on the other hand, a photoprint stored in a ring binder for 23 years, then pulled out and scanned on a consumer-grade scanner. In the case of scans done by Richard Hoagland for his book Dark Mission,  the scanner glass is quite clearly contaminated. Compare, for example, the official version of AS10-32-4820 with Hoagland's scan:






Sparkle
        Quite apart from the scratches — emphasized by Hoagland's manipulation of the image brightness — there's something in there that surely can only be a human hair.


        As for "painting over the stars in the sky," that cannot possibly be the truth because the astronauts' chest-mounted cameras could not have been set to expose both dim stars and very bright lunar terrain in the same shot. It seems certain that what Johnston witnessed was strippers eliminating sparkle in the totally black lunar sky that might have been misinterpreted as stars.

Blobberies
        Appended to the release is a collection of a couple of dozen scans which are presumably there to convince us that Johnston really has something worth looking at. In fact, they convince me that the archivist, Bret Colin Sheppard (he actually calls himself an anomalist) lacks rigor to the point of despair. We see some of the usual fuzzy things declared to be "a lunar base", "a parabolic dish array"note 1, "an effigy or statue"note 2, "a sculpture", and so on. We are not told who carried out these scans or under what conditions of cleanliness. In not one single case did the industrious Mr. Sheppard find time to consult the library of ultra-high definition images returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to see what these blobberies really are (if anything at all.) The resolution of the LRO images would be typically 300 times that of the Apollo collection, and considering that LRO has been giving us these free gifts for seven years now, there really is no excuse for this slop.

        Think I'm making too much fuss about a mere press release that nobody noticed? Wrong. Notwithstanding its grammatical shortcomings, The Roswell Daily Record picked it up, and to my horror (and that of James Oberg) it found its way into AP, datelined 7th June. For whatever reason, AP decided to add its own bit of untruthiness in the tail-end paragraph: "Johnston was later fired from NASA." Given that Johnston never worked for NASA, it's hard to see how he could have been fired. His status as hero within the NASA-hating contingent is based on this falsehood, but the true story is that he was dropped from the all-volunteer Solar System Ambassador program after his loyalty was questioned and his self-reported career résumé was found to contain important prevarications.

        Oberg added a comment to the online AP story, including these words: "If you're going to promote a claim that NASA has been lying to the world for half a century about what Apollo found on the moon, please research your sources more thoroughly." Amen to that, and see Oberg's comments below.

===========================
[1] The so-called "parabolic dish array" is seen in AS15-88-11967. The Johnston version differs only in tiny detail from the official version. It's a collection of small craters behind the rightmost fiducial in row 3. Sheppard presents an over-zoomed detail which is far more likely to be dust or a reflection than anything real. The bright dots appear to be beyond the limiting resolution of the scan.


[2] The"effigy" also appears in the "official" version of AS12-49-7224. It's just a large rock. The scan provided by anomalist Sheppard is notably dirty, including another hair or fiber.


Also note Johnston's own comment about this particular image, noted in this blogpost.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Recommended reading

Social Network Algorithms Are Distorting Reality By Boosting Conspiracy Theories. A very insightful piece by Renee DiResta, web-published by CO.EXIST.

The sub-head: Talk of Facebook's anticonservative stance is in the news, but the issue of what news social networks choose to show us is much broader than that. Just ask the anti-vaxxers.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Defense against Windows 10

        There's no doubt about it -- Micro$oft wants all its Windows users to upgrade to 10. Anyone running anterior versions of Windoze cannot fail to have noticed the nagging that's been going on for at least six months now.

        Now it's got to the point where they're beginning to implement forced upgrades. Today when I declined the nag dialog for the umpteenth time, I got this message:

        YOUR WINDOWS 10 UPGRADE HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY 18TH MAY AT 04:00

        So, obviously, they plan to go behind my back and install the wretched OS while I'm sleeping. In a fury, I screamed about this to an IRC channel inhabited by jokers and techies, and one of them came to my rescue. A company called Gibson Research Corporation is offering a free registry editor called Never10, which bars 10 from installing itself. Note that I call it a registry editor rather than an app, because that's what it is. If you use it, nothing is installed on your system.


        As a bonus, Never10 scans your system and detects Win10 files that have been "pre-loaded" onto your system already. When I ran it, it found six point five gigabytes of these bloody things, which I promptly deleted.

        Here's the link -- it worked for me and you may wish to try it if you don't want your screen to resemble something more appropriate for nursery school, and your net activity easily monitored by faceless droids in Redmond WA. With grateful thanks to my knowledgeable IRC buddy.

Update 19 May 
It wasn't enough. I was hit by Win10 overnight. I'm furious.

Friday, May 13, 2016

The dreams of George Noory

        Two nights ago, Coast to Coast AM gave two hours over to the hysterical government hater Alex Jones, thus running the grave risk that George Noory wouldn't get a word in edgeways. However, Jones was gracious enough to allow the radio host to say a few words on the topic of the Illuminati -- that quite possibly ficticious secret society that is alleged to control everything worth controlling in this world. This spoof by "Gawker" gives a briefing if you need one.

25:09 Jones: "What is George Noory's definition of the Illuminati?"

Noory: "I want to go back to the movie Eyes Wide Shut, by the late Stanley Kubrick. And... for people who have never seen that movie, you have to rent it, and you have to look at it two or three times before it makes sense to you. But if you understand the Illuminati it makes sense to you even quicker. Now, there were people in the movie who had bizarre habits, and they dressed up in costumes, and they went to billionaire parties at mansions. And during the day they were successful business-people. They made a lot of money. They were multi-millionaires, billionaires in many cases. And they conducted business, they controlled things, they ran major corporations, but at night they became different creatures. Controlling, manipulative, power brokers, over-sexed, hiding under the shroud of costumes and masks. That's what I think the Illuminati is. It includes some of the most powerful people we know on the planet during the daytime, but at night they become crazy."

Jones: "Wow!! Wow, I've gotta say that is the best definition I've ever heard."

        Now, it happens that I know Eyes Wide Shut pretty well. I know all of Kubrick's work pretty well, he's a genius in my book. To me George's interpretation is pure fantasy. Here's the scene that George describes as a "billionaire party." I've nothing at all against naked women, but it isn't my favorite scene in that enigmatic film. It's shot in palatial surroundings, to be sure (actually the Long Island mansion "Somerton") so whoever the host is, he's not short of a dollar or three, and note that there was apparently no door fee.


        The ritual is clearly religious -- the costume and the censer attest to that. We see impassive onlookers -- in fact, at 04:20 in the Youtube clip there's someone who's a dead ringer for Richard Hoagland -- but we know nothing at all about them or what they get up to during the day.



        In Arthur Schnitzler's 1926 novella Traumnovelle (Dream Story), from which the script was partly adapted, the orgiastic gathering takes place during Carnival, during which masking, costuming and random fucking are the norm in many, dare I say most, countries that value the traditions. You don't have to be a tycoon of industry to participate. I was once in Cayenne during Carnival, and believe me I know whereof I write.

        So I say George Noory's account of the scene comes from his imagination, and Alex Jones' enthusiastic endorsement of it likewise from his. Do they really think this is what George Soros and Ben Bernanke get up to in the evenings?

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Checklist of Robert Morningstar's errors

James Concannon writes...

        Since I won't be reporting from AM*'s faceboo page any more, I leave him with a (possibly not comprehensive) list of his errors, both aerospatial and political.

1. AS15-P-9625 shows a crashed spacecraft on the far side of the Moon. Reference
2. The above frame is from Apollo 12 Magazine P (It's from the Apollo 15 pan cam)
3. AS17-M-2444 shows hangers [sic] in Mare Imbrium. Reference
4. The above frame is from Lunar Orbiter (It's from the Apollo 17 mapping cam)
5. Mis-labeling of seven craters in Mare Imbriumnote 1
6. There's more than one space station in Earth orbit (the other one is part of the Secret Space Program)
7. The Mars opposition of April 2014 will cause major earthquakes
8. "Planetary gravitational entanglement"  will cause more giant quakes in June 2015
9. Total misunderstanding of the Mono Lake extremophile GFAJ-1
10. NASA doesn't show images of Ukert crater
11. The Apollo astronauts were not aware of the DSE voice recordings
12. There's a 1967 edition of The Brookings Report (he claims to have a copy of this but he's completely unable to come up with any quotes from it)
13. AS10-28-3988 shows a 166-mile wide space station in lunar orbit (It's a 2ft piece of mylar insulation)
14. AS16-109-17761 shows a UFO ("Treasure of the Abyss") in lunar orbit (It's a scanning fault, only on some versions of this frame)
15. APOD 5 April 2004 shows a "Martian artifact" (it's the mark made by the Opportunity rover Rock Abrasion Tool)
16. AS17-M-2366 shows "Big Ben on the Moon" (It's scanner fluff. In 2367 it's migrated way off to the right)
17. Material was edited out of the Apollo 10 DSE tapes to obfuscate the "Music on the Moon" report
18. The Chinese Chang'e lunar orbiter photographed a lunar base
19. Frames from Apollo 16 film show a "Moon racer" following the Command Module (almost certainly an internal reflection)
20. Part of an Apollo 17 film shows a UFO observing undocking of the LM from the CM
21. After Apollo 11, NASA was "frightened off the Moon" (and yet landed five more missions?)
22. Frames from the Zapruder film were deliberately altered to obfuscate the real assassin
23. Kim Philby was homosexual (He was married four times, had five children and plenty of het sex on the side)
24. Andreas Lubitz, co-pilot of Germanwings 9525, was a convert to Islam
25. Hillary Clinton murdered JFK Jnr. by tampering with the avionics of his plane
26. Jupiter and Saturn used to be stars
27. "Cairo" means Mars (No,  it means The Conqueror. A word for Egypt is Mas'r, which has nothing to do with the Red Planet)
28. Thermonuclear war on Mars (he believes John Brandenburg)


Bye-bye Robert.

Update 13 May:
"Trekker" makes a good point in comments about error #1. Using the line tool in the ACT-REACT map, she shows that this is a depression rather than a dune or a spaceship. So I was fooled by the lighting, just not as badly as was AM*.


======================================
[1] "Aristarchus" should be Pytheas
"Krueger" should be Pytheas A
"Euler" should be Caventou
"Pytheas" should be Euler H (?)
"Copernicus" should be Euler (Copernicus is the HUGE rayed crater on the horizon)
"Lambert" should be Draper
"Helicon" should be Draper C

Sunday, May 8, 2016

How far away is the horizon?

James Concannon writes...

        The figure depicts an observer at height h on a planet of radius R. The observer's sight line to the horizon is the tangent to the planet, and therefore the distance to the horizon is given by d.


Data:

Say h is the eye level of a very tall man, to make it simple, call it 2 m
For planet Earth, R = 6,365,000 m

Calculation:

By Pythagoras's theorem, d2 = (R + h)2 - R2

(R + h)2 = R2 + h2 + 2Rh
so  d2 = R2 + h2 + 2Rh - R2
d2 = h2 + 2Rh
d = sqrt( h2 + 2Rh )
h2 + 2Rh = 4 + 25,460,000 and √25,460,004 = 5,046 m

So a very tall man on planet Earth sees the horizon at about 5.1 km. Of course that's assuming the planet is a perfect sphere, with no irregularities.

BY THE WAY: Phil Plait blogged this in January 2009, and ended with a table relating d to h for much larger values.

What about Mars?
The radius of Mars is 53% that of Earth, 3389 km or 3,389,000 m

So for Mars h2 + 2Rh = 4 + 13,556,000 and √13,556,004 = 3,682 m
The Martian horizon for the same basketball player is  3.682 km away

So the distance of the horizon is not directly proportional to the relative sizes of the planets, but to the square root. In the case of Mars - Earth, √0.53 = 0.728

Why all this fuss?
        I was moved to contemplate this calculation by an egregious example of the modern phenomenon of "Facebook ignorance." I took part in a convo on Robert Morningstar's page, prompted by this excellent panning shot across Gale crater, which ends on a clear view of Sharp Mountain (sadly, Blogspot doesn't allow embedded video but here's the URL.)



        Mr. Morningstar is quite ignorant of astronomy and mathematics, and it seems that his disciples are even more so.  I see no reason to shame the ignoramus so I'll just call him or her "Person A."
Person A: "Excuse me. This is so funny, I have to giggle. Did you know, Mars is a very small planet. and it HAS NO FLAT PANORAMAS at all, having such tight curvature, there is only one flat place at the North Pole for a sprawling building with a parking lot. So all these flat-stereoscopic images are phony as hell."

James Concannon: "The diameter of Mars is 53% that of Earth. Strictly speaking, there are no flat places on either planet. It's just a matter of how far away the horizon is."
 
Person A: "No it isn't. It's less than that of our Moon, yes. However, every single distance and dimension that NASA publishes is a hoaxed, false figure that has no relationship whatever to reality . . . like everything else they do."
        So this is my answer to those who say "Leave Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara alone FGS. Their NASA hatred is harmless." It isn't harmless if it leads to opinions like that.

        However, "Person A" then went on to make me doubt whether he or she was serious. I think perhaps my leg was being pulled.
Person A: "Let me relate to you, what I have been able to find out. No, they didn't go to the Moon in Apollo 11 the way they said; they hitched a ride with an Annunaki cruiser. No, Challenger isn't blow up in 1986; that was hoaxed, and 6 of the 7 crew members are still alive. Now, NASA nuked Jupiter with a spent nuclear engine; they bombed our moon and penetrated its southern water reservoir in 2009. They sent out Rovers to both Mars and Venus without getting an Okay from the people who live there; and so on Mars one Rover crashed a cliffwall and killed a score of people in summer 2007; then we invaded and lost a rescue party, who were held for ransom and died in 2008. The latest Curiosity Rover was met with gunfire and had to be replaced immediately. No, NASA's doctrine that there's nobody out there, and the photoshopping they do of all asteroid, moon and planetary photos doesn't hide the fact of Life. You can laugh at me all you want and wish; but someday you will find out I have been correct about what NASA is up to : the same sort of military aggression that the USSA is up to on Earth : conquest and coercion"