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]
Derek,

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.

RCH

==================================================
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 ?

Regards,
DJE

        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)