February 3rd, 2011 @ 00:37
The recent conclusion of the WISE infra-red survey looks like extremely bad news for hyperdimensional physics. The massive extrasolar planet(s) required by the theory simply don’t exist. Bummer!
February 3rd, 2011 @ 04:59
Once again, you prove you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. Nor do you understand anything about the theory.
What’s it like to go through life with so much fear, bile and hated [sic] in your heart? It must be a bummer to be you. I’d have more sympathy, but you’re too pathetic to even feel sorry for. Hopefully you didn’t reproduce.
February 3rd, 2011 @ 17:59
Well, Mike, the insults were terrific fun, as usual. Now that you’ve got them off your chest, how about responding in rational terms?
Note: You wrote that at least one massive undiscovered planet is REQUIRED BY THE THEORY. Now that we know there’s no such planet, the theory is falsified. That’s science, Mike.
February 4th, 2011 @ 14:50
Once again DouchePat, all you prove is how little you know about everything, even the things you claim to read. The only thing that’s completed is the NEO survey. The WISE search hasn’t really even begun, will take years, and won’t even release its 1st snippett of data until April.
Why must you continue to prove how dumb you are publically? Does it give you some sexual pleasure to look like a fool in front of people? Oh, wait, that can’t be it. Nobody pays any attention to you anyway.
February 4th, 2011 @ 18:40
Key quote: “In early October 2010, after completing its prime science mission, the spacecraft ran out of the frozen coolant that keeps its instrumentation cold.”
Does that sound like a search that hasn’t even really begun?
February 4th, 2011 @ 20:59
Thank you again for publically demonstrating how much you don’t know about science, how you haven’t read the information on the website, and what an idiot you are.
February 5th, 2011 @ 00:56
I pay attention to Expat.
If you can’t handle Science, you could try Science Fiction. You’re really just doing that anyways.
February 5th, 2011 @ 01:27
That’s too bad, he’s an idiot.
February 8th, 2011 (suppressed)
Let's try a different topic. Speaking at the Alien Event in November 2009, you said "NASA always seems to want to land or launch when the stars are in favorable positions, at least according to their mythology."
In "Dark Mission," you precisely identify the 5 stars and 5 elevations which you consider "favorable."
How many Shuttle launches and landings qualify as favorable by these criteria?
February 16th, 2011 @ 02:12
Once again, I am vindicated and you look like the fool that you are
February 16th, 2011 (suppressed)
I guess some very slim possibility has been restored to your daft idea. But you have definitely not been vindicated in your assertion that WISE has not even begun.
...and, whaddya mean, "Once again"?
February 16th, 2011 @ 17:43 (suppressed)
“What Matese claims is that he sees an excess of comets coming from a particular place, which he attributes to the gravitational effects of a large planet in the Oort cloud. I have nothing against the idea, but I think the signal that he claims he sees is very subtle, and I’m not sure it’s statistically significant,”
–Dr Hal Levison, planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, COL
February 16th, 2011 @ 19:54
Yeah dumbass but what you claimed was that the study had been completed and no object had been found. All it took was a cursory reading of the article you cited to know that wasn’t true; all that had been done was that the images had been taken. The article you cited (but failed to understand) made it clear that SOME of the results would be available in April, not that all the results were “in,” as you claimed. If you knew anything about how these projects work you’d know it takes years and sometimes decades before all the results of the studies are known. Maybe if you had a clue about anything you would have known that and not made a fool of yourself yet again. But it seems to be the only thing you’re good at.
And of course, once I pointed that out by posting this new article, you do the usual debunker avoidance trick; instead of admitting you were just plain wrong (as I have proven you to be many times over) you change the subject and try to get me to defend something else. I’m sure you’d love it if I spent all my time responding to your idiocy, but I have better things to do with my energy than waste it on responding to a serial douchbag who can’t even be bothered to read a complete article before he starts attacking me. And please, before you go whining on your blog about how mean I am, you attacked me first. I was never anything but polite to you until you started accusing me and my associates of dishonesty.
“It’s no secret that a liar won’t believe anyone else” — Bono
February 18th, 2011 (suppressed)
02/16/11, Mike Bara: "I was never anything but polite to you until you started accusing me and my associates of dishonesty."
12/10/07, Mike Bara: "Face it, you lost. Go away."
12/21/07, Mike Bara: "bison breath ... ignoramus and\or liar"
01/03/08, Mike Bara: "a significant character disorder....I’d match wits with him, but he’s only half prepared."
01/07/08, Mike Bara: "You are irrational. Step away from the computer before you injure yourself. .... your continued demonstrations of your own stupidity ..."
02/23/08, Mike Bara: "your arrogance, stupidity and venality is quite obvious to everyone who reads anything you've already posted."
03/23/08, Mike Bara: "As if we needed more proof you are a complete idiot,"
04/20/08, Mike Bara: "More proof that you're an abject moron"
06/29/08, Mike Bara: "I'm not confused. You're a complete idiot."
07/26/08, Mike Bara: "all you prove here is what a fool you are "
12/21/08, Mike Bara: "how many more times must you be embarrassed in public before you give up?"
03/17/09, Mike Bara: "No, .... you blithering idiot, it wasn't a lie. You just never get tired of coming in here and revealing the depths of your idiocy, do you?"
February 18th, 2011 (suppressed)
On Oct 15th, 2007 8:23 AM PDT Mike Bara: "Why is it those who are so frightened and threatened by the data we present never want to argue the data itself, but always try to attack us personally? Could it be because arguing the data is a losing proposition for you?"
I really don't think I've ever come across such an incompetent debater.