What good can possibly be said about a book that has so many errors and accomplishes so tragically little? Well, let's see — at least it has an index, which is more than can be said for Dark Mission. The copy-edit is not too bad, although since it was done by a computer there are plenty of missing words, homophones and misplaced apostrophes to giggle at. Do book editors ever actually read MS these days? Mike Bara evidently worked commendably hard, delivering 75,000 words to New Page Books on June 21st, having signed only in March. It's very unlikely he got an advance. That's about all the positive I can think of.
Rather than take issue with the bone-headed pseudo-psychology this book represents, I will try and simply point out factual errors in the order in which they appear in the text. I may not be able to resist a little sarcasm. Sorry, it's my nature, just as it's Mike Bara's nature to chastise us all for our left-brained materialism as he steers his 2007 BMW 5 Series toward Las Vegas one more time for a rendezvous with his favorite strippers and porn starlets.
OK, here goes:
1 p.15 After a scattershot dismissal of the whole of conventional physics, Bara writes "What we have been missing ... is that Newton and Einstein aren't the whole picture."
Who does he think has been missing this? Certainly not every physicist in the entire world, all of whom are engaged in a daily struggle to fine-tune their equations and unravel the logic of the Universe. Does he think nine billion dollars were spent building the Large Hadron Collider by people who had missed this point?
2 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."
Oh yeah? Who sez? A human brain and a short wave radio transmitter are not quite the same, Mike.
3 p.31 "...astrology is a perfectly valid and defensible science."
FACT: No it isn't.
4 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."
No, the reverse would happen. CentriFUGAL means "directed away from the center," so we'd become lighter, not heavier.
5 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."
Ahem, excuse me but aren't planetary orbital eccentricities measured in relation to the Sun, not to some other random planet? Yes indeed they are.
FACT: Mars' aphelion is 154 million miles, perihelion 128 million miles, eccentricity 0.09 (cf. Earth 0.017.) Mars' orbit, although more eccentric than that of Earth, is not remarkably so. The figures Bara cites are correct but they do not illustrate the point he says they do.
This is a truly appalling, inexcusable error, coming so early in the book and making it absolutely certain that Mike Bara is not qualified to write on the subject of planetary science. When the New Page editors saw this they should have canceled his contract on the spot. Terrible, terrible. Embarrassing.
6 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.
FACT: Neptune's dark spots are transient, forming and dissipating in just a few years. The one Mike is presumably citing, observed by Voyager 2, was first observed around 25°S and drifted north before dissipating.
The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is stable, and centered at 22°S.
The volcanoes of Io are far too numerous to be assigned any specific latitude. 12 known volcanoes are cited in the reference.
Olympus Mons is at 18°N.
Mauna Loa is at exactly 19.5°N - Bara almost got one right but he got the wrong Hawaiian volcano.
I'm sure he's going to say "I only wrote that they were very near 19.5°." Yes, Mike, you did, but that has no real meaning. Olympus Mons may be "very near" 19.5° but it's even nearer to 17.8°, or 18.8°, or.... etc. If this is supposed to be a geometric theory you're selling, it's either exact or it's useless.
7 p.57 "The human brain is nothing but a complex electrical signal transmitter."
FACT: Although there are some electrical pathways in the brain, chemical information exchange by neurotransmitters has overwhelmingly more influence. Why else does Mike Bara think the whiskey sours he knocks back in the lounges of Las Vegas, as he eyes the cougars across the bar, make him feel so nice and relaxed?
8 p.58 "...aren't our thoughts, which are also nothing more than electrical energy, actually coming from higher dimensions?"
It's hard to say what meaning to attach to this muddled idea. It's something to do with astrology, I think. The safe answer is "No, they aren't."
9 p.60 "Newton's laws of motion ... only work if the object being measured doesn't rotate."
Poppycock. The planet Earth, to name but one, is rotating, and objects in orbit around it still obey Newton's equation of gravity. If he'd written "Newton's laws of motion only work if the object being measured isn't moving at a substantial fraction of the speed of light," he'd have been right.
There's a terrible tendency for people like Mike Bara, who know just a little physics, to think "Einstein came along and disproved Newton." It's absolutely not true. Einstein came along and ADDED to Newton — EXTENDED Newton into more exotic contexts. A young man sitting under an apple tree can still reckon the falling apple is going to bonk him on the head according to Newton.
10 p.67 "...most mainstream physicists are actually blithering idiots..."
Well, perhaps I shouldn't classify that one as a factual error, exactly. I include it so that readers who don't plan on ever reading this ridiculous book get an insight into Mike Bara's personality flaws.
11 p.72 After expounding on ancient cultures such as the Mayans, Egyptians and Indo-Aryan Hindus and how life, to them, is a continuous repeating cycle, Bara writes "...in the west, time is an arrow. To the ancients, time is a wheel."
Is he saying that we in "the west" don't understand that the Sun rises and sets every day, or that the seasons repeat every 365 days? Is he saying that the ancients didn't understand that a human life is lived from birth to death? This is a sentence that sounds as if it's an aphorism but is actually without useful meaning.
12 p.128 Mike Bara is perenially confused about the International Space Station, or ISS for short. He thinks it's really called Isis, to fit in with Richard Hoagland's utterly indefensible theory that NASA spends its time worshipping Egyptian Gods.
FACT: The international space station is known as "International Space Station." ISS is not the same as Isis. Nobody attempts to pronounce it as though it were an acronym.
FACT: NASA is not interested in Egyptian Gods. When it isn't launching spacecraft, it spends its time trying to get a decent annual budget.
13 p.134 On this page Mike Bara demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of gravity. He writes "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."
And what, pray, does Mike Bara think would be keeping him in orbit?
FACT: The pull of gravity simply follows an inverse square law. Newton, brilliantly, told us that the force exerted by the Earth on Mike Bara's body is equal to G*m1m2/d2 where G is the gravitational constant, m1 the mass of the Earth and m2 the mass of Mike Bara (less than it was a year ago, we understand. Well done Mike.) d is the distance Mike is from the center of the Earth, 6371 kM at the surface, about 6726 kM at ISS orbit. Yes, Newton's equation works perfectly well even though the Earth is rotating (see Bara's other error, p.60.)
Bara goes on to compare gravity with his imagined aether, and to state that, whereas gravity has a limited field of influence, the aether "exists everywhere and connects everything." This is just an extension of his ignorance. To be sure, if Mike Bara were to take his body to Alpha Centauri, he could safely ignore Earth's gravitational influence. But mathematically, no matter how large the factor d becomes, some infinitesimal value for G*m1m2/d2 could be calculated. So it's totally misleading to portray gravity as local only.
14 p.139 Bara describes a Faraday cage as being shielded by lead.
FACT: If it were, it'd be highly ineffective. The whole point of a Faraday cage is that its material is a good electrical conductor. Lead isn't.
15 p.143 "In November 1957 the Soviets had launched Sputnik 1..."
FACT: Sputnik 1 was launched on 4th October 1957.
Chapter 12 is all about the higher-than-expected orbit of USA's first satellite, Explorer 1. Richard Hoagland made a disastrous attempt to work out the mathematics of this on a web page, and this blog explained why he failed. Mike Bara's take on the situation is a little different but no less inaccurate.
He writes that "Explorer 1 ended up in an orbit that was almost 60% higher than it should have been." That is approximately true — the apogee was almost 60% higher than planned — but it's extremely misleading. What really matters is the additional energy the satellite had at orbit insertion, as measured by its instantaneous velocity. And a small change in velocity results in a much larger excursion in apogee (even Hoagland understood this, actually.)
So here's the calculation for Explorer 1
Planned orbit 354 x 1,609 kM (220 x 1,000 miles)
Actual orbit 359 x 2,562 kM (223 x 1,592 miles)
Radius of Earth 6,375 kM
Gravitational constant, µ, of Earth 398,660 kM3/s2
semi-major axis of planned orbit, Lsmaj, (354+6375+6375+1609)/2 = 7356 kM
distance from center of Earth to orbit point, R, 6375+354 = 6729 kM
planned velocity at orbit injection, Vorb = sqrt(µ(2/R - 1/Lsmaj))
2/R - 1/Lsmaj = 0.0001613
Vorb = sqrt(64.3) = 8.018 kM/sec
semi-major axis of actual orbit, Lsmaj, (359+6375+6375+2562)/2 = 7835 kM
distance from center of Earth to orbit point, R, 6375+359 = 6734 kM
actual velocity at orbit injection, Vorb = sqrt(µ(2/R - 1/Lsmaj))
2/R - 1/Lsmaj = 0.000169
Vorb = sqrt(67.493) = 8.215 kM/sec
So we're talking about a velocity excess of about 3%. Bara writes "Despite various conventional explanations being bandied about over the decades since then, none of them have stood up to scrutiny." The conventional explanations that I'm aware of are a) cumulative overperformance of the fifteen small "Baby Sergeant" solid rockets, b) uncertainty about the pitch angle during burn of the 3rd/4th stages, and c) unusually strong high altitude winds.
I have to ask, in what sense have these not stood up to scrutiny? Who did the scrutiny? Not the notoriously error-prone Richard Hoagland, I hope for their sakes.
(The equation is presented here.)
17 p.146 "Werner Von Braun ... must have realized that if you wanted a spacecraft to follow conventional Newtonian celestial mechanics, Rule One had to be: Don't let it rotate. .... they immediately abandoned solid fuel rockets, spinning upper stages..."
FACT: Spin-stabilization continued to be a very common technique in spacecraft design, and it's still sometimes used to this day (See this, for example.) Solid fuel rockets are an extremely common phenomenon, especially for military applications in which instant readiness is an important factor. Bara is just wrong about this.
18 p.162 "...vibration ... is really just partial rotation..."
No it isn't.
19 p.165 "...every cell and every atom in our bodies is vibrating..."
FACT: Perhaps every atom is. It would be more correct to say that every sub-atomic particle is. But, every cell? I don't think so, Mike. It's amazing how this totally false idea has caught on in the crackpot New Age community. It seems that every two-bit spiritual guidance enthusiast who gets guested on "Coast to Coast AM" talks about getting the vibrations of our bodies tuned, or whatever. Bla-bla-bla. There's no foundation to the idea at all.
20 p.202 *sigh* Here we go again. Hoagland & Bara persist in claiming that the Brookings Report of 1960 directed NASA to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence lest it spread panic. They've been told, many times, that it just ain't so, but they will keep trotting it out. Here Bara writes that the report "detailed how best to inform the public in the event that NASA discovered extraterrestrial artifacts on the Moon or Mars." What utter poppycock!
FACT: The Brookings Report did not even consider the question. It recommended that the question ought to be considered, that's all. Here's the full quote:
"...two research areas can be recommended -- Continuing studies to determine [the public's] emotional and intellectual understanding and attitudes -- and successive alterations of them if any -- regarding the possibility and consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life. Historical and empirical studies of the behavior of peoples and their leaders when confronted with dramatic and unfamiliar events or social pressures. Such studies might help to provide programs for meeting and adjusting to the implications of such a discovery. Questions one might wish to answer by such studies would include: how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?"
If Mike Bara thinks that's "detailing how best to inform the public," he's got a reading comprehension problem.
21 p.206 Bara writes here that HAARP, although operating in the 3.6 megawatt range, can combine its 180 antennas to yield an energetic output of 5.1 terawatts. I've no idea where he gets the terawatt figure from — it's certainly an error.
22 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..."
No, Mike. Too far away. tsk, tsk, careless.....
23 p.217 "We have, each of us, enough energy to make this world into anything we wish it to be."
FACT: This is not true.
24 p.222 Bara writes that he'd love to have a Porsche to cruise around Hollywood with. He writes "It would feed my ego, and that is an aspect of my personality."
FACT: That's one thing he got right. And what an appropriate way to end this review. Thanks for reading, if you did.
I was going to make a snide comment about "Bara the scientist" not even being up to Hoagland's standards, but having read responses in other places, I may have it wrong. Peter Uwira points out on the Final Frontiers page that since those two split, there hasn't been much new material on TEM site. Which leads to the conclusion that much of RCH's papers are actually Bara's work.
That changes the perspective for me a bit. If Richard can't even put out the laughable crap that Bara is capable of, he's even less qualified to be anyone's "science adviser" than I thought. Geeze, what a poser.
Yes, how many "white papers" is he behind now? At least two -- Deepwater Horizon, and Phobos. And then there's the correction to the "Von Braun's Secret" math, which he "has all ready to go as soon as I have time".
I developed intracostal muscle cramp today, reading Hoagland "I've had another conversation with one of Enterprise's attorneys." He wants us to think TEM is a gleaming office building with many departments, including a large and talented legal team, instead of his and Robin's kitchen table.
He also owes a part 3 to the Von Braun thing, where he tells us how we can build a free energy generator with just a few things from a hardware store. Yeah, I don't expect much from him at this point either. It's sad to see him devolve into this kind of self delusion, mired as he is in his own mythology.
RCH's facebook wall:
And, the first miner reeached the surface EXACTLY at 11:11:11 AM Chilean Standard Time ....
Which, of course, is a mathematiucal "code" for--
No, it is not! 7:30 would be 19.5 O'Clock!
He's so lazy and sloppy that he overrides the spell-checker. I guess it's too much effort.
Correction - Centrifugal forces don't exist, because they do no "work". CENTRIPETAL forces act at a Normal to the alleged Centrifugal force. Objects in circular motion want to move in a straight line!
this is an OBVIOUS (at this point) "Templar Resurrection Ritual"
Let's hear the Templars speak for themselves! Since we know there are no Templars denying this, they must be the largest fake organization of modern times!
I thought he might be talking about binary, but it doesn't add up there either. 111111 in binary for 63. So I have no idea (and neither does he) what he is talking about.
Also, I am amused by the idea of a guy standing by the wench operator staring at his watch screaming "not yet, not yet!". Does he even think about the stuff he says anymore?
Nobody will regard a person is an expert unless he can create the impression that a large group of people regard him as an expert.
19.5 Degrees, Rotation. You're all now officially Experts!
I'll make a Prediction that RCH will never make a specific Prediction ever!
In an Amazon discussion forum, Mike Bara has posted, in reference to this list:
"Actually, none of those are errors, and everybody knows what a phoney you are. "
It goes without saying that I'd be delighted if he came up with something more specific right here.
I despise New Page Books!
Any bookstore that buys their books deserves to go out of business! One of their lead writers won't discuss their books! What does he think about the poor saps who actually bought his garbage book? (You dumbass, my check cleared, now get lost you losers!)
Funny comment of Enterprise Mission internal strife found on facebook:
MY "numbers" for Cydonia were published ~20 years ago, in "Monuments" -- direct from the OFFICIAL government agency which actually measured the original Viking images, because it had the crucial NAVIGATION dat...a (from NASA)... to make such geodetic determinations possible at all.
Anything else (in terms of "True North" at Cydonia) ... is just a "guess."
Of course, if RAND was deliberately LYING to me (through my friend Merton), back in 1983 -- when I was doing the original work on all of this -- there is NO WAY YET TO KNOW ... until someone OUTSIDE of these governmental space agencies actually lands on Mars themselves ... and SURVEYS (measures ...) Cydonia--
FROM THE GROUND.
Thus, my "silence."
Becasue, until that happens, this is all just a "silly" foodfight ... without that INDEPENDENT gedetic set of Cydonia measurements--
Which NEITHER Max, or I, have access to ... at this moment ... regardless of his CLAIM.
RELATIVE geometric measurements -- WITHIN the existing "Cydonia Measurements," of course -- are a TOTALLY different thing, NOT subject to this fundamental "Martian planetary cooriiinates limitation ...."
It's that ABSOLUTE relationship to True North which, for Cydonia uniquely remains TOTALLY elusive--
The real MEANING of Cydonia (even if Max and i also DON'T agree on what that meaning is ...) is contained within those crucial geodetic measurements (a fact I did not fully appreciate, when I was originally discussing all of this with Davies, there at RAND ... all those years ago).
So, if there are "provable" errors in my "Monuments" discussions of the true orientation of Cydonia ...they are ultimately tracable to RAND!
And, ~27 years after those initial RAND conversations, I have realized that EVERONE -- including RAND itself -- was/is "in on the Ritual!"
Yes, those early Cydonia measurements that Davies did for me are (now) HIGHLY suspect .
But -- without a totally INDEPENDENT space misson to Cydonia itself -- they're the ONLY ones we have ....
No, it isn't. I don't understand this part:
was/is "in on the Ritual
I guess they used Memory Erasers for all of us! I can't remember a damn thing! Has anyone been having memory blackouts here?
So the figures that Hoagland used to create the math that "proves" the existence of both HD physics and the artificiality of Cydonia is wrong, and it's someone else's fault? And he still isn't willing to admit it is even really wrong, only "we don't know for sure". Yeah, all hail Hoagland the "scientist".
RCH piles the crap on facebook:
Wait till you see the OTHER "prism" examples ... which (for some reason) AOL chose NOT to show--
As far as I'm concerned, they're THE "smoking gun" for our entire "ancient lunar dome" hypothesis -- especially, when they appear in the lunar VACUUM sky--
With the sun BEHIND the astronaut taking the lunar surface picture! :)
The floodlights are being reflected in the Scotchlite screen on the movie set of a famous hoax...
"Piles the crap" yes indeed. See next post.
WOW- glade I found your site, I always thought Rich and Bara were entertaining but, some of the crazy stuff especially lately is so far out there that it's embarrassing to admit I have even wasted my time to read it!
I didn't know Bara and Hoagy had split up :( I hope it was amicable and whoever got the dog gives the other visitation rites, what other internal strife is going on at TEM that I don't know about.
and BTW the whole thing about TEM being hacked....for over a YEAR is total BS! I work in IT security and if a site had been hacked that long without it being removed and secured (better I hope) is laughable... hell even the FBI would get in on the act at some point, not to mention i would fire whoever is hosting it and move it to a more reputable company. There is just SO much wrong on SOO many levels with the whole "my site has been hacked and I cant post anything" excuse, personally i find it offensive to my intellect.
Thanks for the contribution, anon. Hoagland & Bara had definitely planned a "Dark Mission #2" and something Mike posted shortly before he closed down the official DM blog made me think there was some resentment over its cancellation.
However, RCH popped up during Mike's "star turn" on Coast to Coast AM last week and they gave every appearance of being chummy, swearing to plug each others books for ever & ever, cross my heart and hope to die, etc.
I also know a little about web site management and, like you, I just roll my eyes at this "I haven't been able to post since April" nonsense. He must think we're children.
Update on that: Last night on C2C-AM he again protested that he hasn't been able to post for a year, "despite the best efforts of Keith Rowland." That simply deepens the mystery because KR is a competent network admin/engineer.
Could this simply be a cover for laziness? After all, Hoagland does display a pattern of unfinished projects....
Finally, a current decent dissent against these techno morons. My only complaint is that there needs to be: "more more more!"
I tangled with these assholes (being absolutely objective, I fail to find any other moniker for them) 12 years ago and was on CtoC with Psycho Bell several times. He sued me for $60,000,000 when I caught Hoagy in one of his numerous lies and he stumbled, and that was that. Bara is and was even more psycho. He appears to be more disturbed than ever. BTW-- he has no higher education or academic background whatsoever, as he so claims. He does have a HS degree. He never, ever "consulted" to anyone, Boeing, et al..
A few corrections: The SRBs on the shuttle stack are the largest, most powerful, most successful solid fuel arrays ever built and have shown a success rate of over 105.97%, with only one failure (STS-51-L). (132 flights out of 133 and counting). And too, the entire stack does rotate at T+73 seconds, once. Hoagy one stated the 51L failure was also due to the shuttle "not" rotating like a top all the way to orbit.......
I loved Hogdick's additional explanation of the STS-51L failure also: The Mormons! That's right-Mormons. Apparently he derived this from the fact Morton-Thiokol, of Brigham City UT, were in cahoots with the Mormons and took a bribe to make the SRBs leak on the shuttle, to then get more attention for the company, and thus more Salt contracts.
Oh well. You've done great and wish there were more. Thank you. Love it. Reminds me of when Phil Platt and I at Bad Astronomy used to gang up on Bell and Hoagy in the early days of the net.
Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC
NASA Visual Exploration
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel
OH KNOW!!!! He's done it again:
Hogdick (his official name in the early years and at NASA field centers), is now claiming the shuttle ET shutoff problem is/was caused by some sort of "Torsion Field" (WTF?) that also plagued the Russian space program and they solved it and some intense research by TEM infiltrated NASA and got the real cure.
1. The sensor was a glitch in carbon polymer on the diode in circuit board configuration. Solved by using a stronger polymer.
2. The Russians do not use hypergolic-hypergenic fuels. They use storable fuels (kerosene). Cyrogenics like Mono-Mono Hydrazine are what give Shuttle its tremendous boost, lift, and power, while the SRMs are the 2:44 >< min. burn motors that give the 4,400,000 lb. stack its inertial boost to get it moving vertically. STS uses liquid H and O2 for fuel for the 3 main SSMEs, which provide 33% of the lifting thrust at T-0.
3. This Torsion Field deal?........who knows...Torsion is physical movement. The sensor issue was ceramic-inert.
4. Hoag would not get within 2 light years of either NASA-KSC or the Plesetsk Cosmodrome or the proposed Svobodnyy Cosmodrome, without being shot in the face with a Solid Rocket Booster! So much for "sneaking" around NASA to get this amazing intel.
5. He accidentally referred in the story in first person direct by stating "we", as if he is part of NASA somehow.. (see item 4)
6. "A much more elaborate description of the effects of "torsion fields" -- including some of the decades-long, remarkable Soviet experiments which have confirmed the existence of this fundamental "new physics" -- may be found in Chapter 2 of my recent New York Times Best Seller (with Mike Bara): "Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA."
No. He does not.
My last stint on C2C with Hogdick, after catching him in 3 lies, was to say on air, "Richard, you are a pathological liar and have not the ability to formulate a complete sentence, let alone solve a 9th grade algebra problem!" I was cutoff then and all hell broke loose for the next year.
I really do hate these guys. However, I am convinced Bara and Hoag are on drugs. No one can post this sort of crap, with a straight face or clear mind.....
RAMS: Thanks very much for your contributions. You should find plenty else to amuse you in this blog.
Who sued you? Hoagland, or Bell?
Hi, and thank you for the welcome here. Very cool--this is as fresh and good as Phil's site. Love it.
Right after I was cutoff on air, Bell filed suit against me in 6 states for $60,000,000. It took 10 months to clear it up and get it dismissed as "Reckless Endangerment of Jurisprudence" and I was invited to countersue. (all suit docs will be back up on my site when it is back online). I did not. What I did was to contact the FBI and have them track him since he has built a case against himself for out and out fraud. At the same time, Hoag fled and C2C took a huge hit from the "woo-woo crowd" as the minions of this cult group went viral at Hoag for being a "coward".
It took about a year and half for things to calm and for Hoag to re-enter the world of "Strange" as I coined it back then and it caught on--"Strange" as a noun, BTW.
I then warned Bell openly on the net in various venues I was coming for him. He finally left the US, and married his 4th wife and is living in Davao City, Mindinao, P.I. and has not returned to the US.
Hoag has a HS education, graduating with a 3.0 score and nothing more. Phil Wisemann, one of the historians for CBS News, says that Hoag NEVER consulted to them whatsoever on Apollo or anything other space related subject. The Angstrom Committee has issued numerous regrets the Angstrom Medal should have not been awarded to Hoag and it was not even them that gave it to him. It was an aide who did it without permission.
I'm getting Hoag's entire CV and background data for public posting online and on my website when it is back online.
Thank you for asking.
HYPER: Rapid movement, agitated, incoherent, exceptionally disoriented
DIMENSIONAL: There are four: breadth, width, length, time. These are fixed elements, save for Time, which is conducive to the speed of light, denoted as 'c' in equation form.
PHYSICS: A natural science of the study of matter. It is the oldest of disciplines of its nature, along with Chemistry.
Interesting. How then does one derive 19.5 and Martian cities from this. Too, why does Hoag use NASA data and related findings--to disprove NASA? And from this above, "Hyperdimensional" anything is one of the greatest and silliest oxymorons ever concocted by one hominid.
The irritating thing is that, as often as Hoagland has trotted out that nonsense on C2C, neither Art Bell nor George Noory had ever (to my knowledge) said "Could you explain that, Richard?"
As for being abruptly cut off, have you heard this:
This was fun. In 2004 I posted the following after sending it on to my boss at NASA, (Pam Steele), a commission from NASA for a hypothetical impact of a bolide of 1/40th mass of the moon, impacting same at roughly 60 miles per second. Below is the result.
For fun, I ask her to post it without any normal captioning. Then, I copied the URL and anonymously posted it to one of Hoagies sites he would post on, when he would allow dissent toward his psycho crap he espouses. He no longer does that--no dissent allowed from the rest of us.
He seized upon it. Posted it to the front of TEM, and then headlined it with, "NASA HIDES ASTEROID IMPACT INTO MOON!---Enterprise Mission Exclusive and press is being notified. URGENT!"
He had a huge dissertation what this meant to the solar system, us, and how it came in at 19.5 degrees, among other drug induced gibberish, and NASA was trying to coverup the news.
I waited a week, then, posted this: "Hi Hoag, RAMS here. Hey, do you mind getting that digital image of the bolide impact on the moon off your site, as that is my painting I did for NASA. Thanks a million loony tune. What?"
It was gone that day and the whole slew of pages with it gone as well, and nothing ever mentioned of it again by the Hoag.
(Painted in Maya and Apple's Renderman on a G4 Mac.--In the Collection of NASA)
Hey, Expat, that cutoff is awesome. Played well. Typical of the whole woo woo gender.
Here is my corrected link for the image in the above post that got Hoagie so stirred.
For folks here that may be new, I thought I better post a link for my own CV and verification I am whom I state I am:
This on the NASA main site, but they are redoing the imaging page at the NASa main site and have about 40 of my pieces on hand along with many cover pieces I've done for them for "NASA Today", their in-house publication and several other outside, public publications. As well, there is a large amount of pieces rom the Vendors as well, to contract for NASA.
When my site is back up, 'behold-the-rage.com', it has all indexes of work and failure work as well for NASA.
Too, for verification in the failure and engineering work I do for NASA, at FB, at my profile, is several photos of me working on the Rovers at JPL and other photos. At FB, I am "Robert A.M. Stephens".
Yeah you got me. I basically just make this stuff up as I go on.I woke up one day and thought, "Hey Mike why don't you cash in on all this new age BS... it seems easy, and with so many suckers out there who is going to check the facts?". Damn you and your facts. Facts prove nothing. I have facts buried in my backyard. And least said about what I did with science the better.
I do not care about your silly blog I am Mike Bara STAR of Ancient Aliens on the History channel, so ya boo sucks to you.
Post a Comment