God Sarah I just looked at you pictures [sic] on your Facebook page. Please don't reproduce. You are just too ugly to be allowed to have children.Adrienne did, however, defend Mike's unwillingness to respond to the many criticisms of his "work." She posted this to FooBoo yesterday.
I don't think that Mike should be expected to repeat work that has already been done by Einstein, Kozyrev and DePalma. Mike is an engineer. As I understand it, engineering is the practical application of math and science to solve problems. Engineers test theories and then turn them into something practical that people can have access to and use. This is what Mike does. Of course, he understands the math. He's done the work he’s needed to do in order to reach his conclusions and because of his desire to share his knowledge and discoveries, he’s put his findings out there for everyone to see. By doing that he’s opened himself up to criticism, and that’s to be expected, but just because someone doesn’t understand something he has stated or they don't agree with a topic or concept of his, it doesn’t mean that he is obligated to explain it to them further.
The text was really addressed to Catriona, not me, so I didn't presume to respond directly. But this is what I would have written if it had been any of my business:
Dear Adrienne,
I accept your definition of what an engineer does. I merely wonder whether, in fact, your client has ever done it. A man who thinks that "astrology is a perfectly valid and defensible science" (The Choice, p.31) or that "Newton's laws of motion ... only work if the object being measured doesn't rotate" (The Choice, p.60) must be suspected of having a highly impractical view of the world and how it works. A man who has said he's an experienced jetliner designer (Shiny Side Out radio, 4th August) and yet makes a colossal error in a rather simple calculation of orbital mechanics (The Choice, whole of ch.12) must be suspected of self-delusion at the very least, and quite possibly of fraud. At any rate, I for one would not wish to step on board any jetliner he had designed — if, indeed, any such aircraft exists.
You write that "Of course, he understands the math." How do you know that, Adrienne? He has stated that "hyperdimensional physics" — a vaguely-expressed concept that your client and two other people in the entire world believe in — is based on Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations. And yet, not once in all the writings and lectures of your client and his former co-author has any single one of those quaternions been used or even, as far as I know, mentioned. You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about your client's mathematical talent.
Your client, echoing Richard Hoagland almost word for word, has written (The Choice, p.47) that the following features are at a latitude of 19.5°:
Neptune's Great Dark Spot
The Great Red Spot of Jupiter
The erupting volcanoes of Jupiter's moon Io
Olympus Mons on Mars
Earth's own Maunakea volcano
This, he has told us, is evidence of this concept he calls "hyperdimensional physics." Well, Adrienne, do you know what? None of those features are actually at 19.5°. If he'd written Mauna Loa instead of Mauna Kea, he'd have got one right. Oh, I suppose some of the 400 volcanoes on Io are probably at 19.5° just by chance, but is that the foundation of a new branch of physics?
Bruce DePalma documented the fact that a rapidly-rotating sphere in air describes a higher arc when projected than a non-rotating one. Physicists (that's the collection of people your client calls "blithering idiots") would say that's a nice example of the Magnus Effect. You referred to this experiment in what you wrote on Facebook. Could you please cite any mathematical analysis of this phenomenon written by DePalma or Hoagland? Are you truly, truly, convinced that Mike Bara, in spite of being wrong about almost everything in physics and astronomy, understands the mathematics involved?
I suppose you're correct in writing that Mike has no obligation to answer follow-up questions from his readers. Perhaps, then, the best service you can offer him as manager at this point is to advise him not to respond at all, rather than to respond by insulting readers who are better qualified than him in physics and astronomy. Another service you could usefully deliver is to explain to your client that fact-checking, in these days of google and wikipedia, is so incredibly easy that it's well worth giving it a shot. And another is that juvenile web forums like Call of Duty Zombies are not really a reliable source of graphics for professional publication
Regards,
expat
80 comments:
This really is getting too funny for words. Never has a woo-merchant been so exposed as unable to defend his woo. I get the image of a guy who spent a lot of time just nodding his head (and thinking of that cute Hooters waitress) while Hoagland droned on and on about his various theories. He heard Hoagland's words (and translated them into English), but he didn't bother with the BS science and math that went with them. That's why he can't really defend this nonsense with the easy (and dishonest) confidence that Hoagland manages. With Bara, it just looks comical.
I personally believe that "Adrienne Loska" is just one of Mikey's sock puppets. As in, she doesn't exist outside of Mikey's wet dreams.
Proof:
1. Mikey and Dick, the Beavis and Butthead of Planet Woo, don't have tuppence hapenny to rub between them. (Hey, renewing mikebara.com costs only $7.99/year.) Hiring a manager would cost money (unless he's found a really, really desperate follower who wouldn't be too reliable). Especially hiring a hot babe who looks like his favorite Vegas stripper.
2. From Mikey's behavior on the whole Ziggy syndrome, it sounds like his income for the next few years is dependent on "Ancient Aliens on the Moon" beating "Fifty Shades of Grey" to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. You guys are spoiling his retirement plans.
3. I've seen this kind of behavior before from desperate people on the web. Creating sock puppets, using pictures of hot babes half his age, to spew out his schizophrenic rantings is a definite symptom of a desperate man.
My conclusion is the guy's broke, hasn't gotten laid in a while, and is losing the plot. Now he's making up imaginary friends (managers) to try and fool us into thinking that someone gives a f**k about him.
Sorry Mike, you're just another failed flim-flam man who backed the wrong horse.
I just hope and pray that Sara Shanae is real. I am jealous that Mike Bara gets drunk dials from her.
strahlungsamt
Exposing the fraud is fine, getting into personal attacks & conspiratorial thinking is another level.This is becoming utterly childish
Tara,
That wasn't a personal attack. That was a psychiatric evaluation based on watching Mikey's behavior over the last few years, moreso since the whole ziggy thing started.
The personal attacks and the childish conspiracy theories are coming from the other side.
As long as Dick and Mike keep publishing lies about NASA and deceiving people with non-science, I shall continue to throw everything I've got at them.
I stand by everything I've just said.
strahlungsamt said
Its fine,my comment was merely a personal reaction (not worth much) but I consider we should play the higher standards in confronting this imbecile
I am quite concerned by the fact some individuals around here are talking this issue way too seriously. Don't forget we`re dealing with a cuckoo who authors New Age books. Bata doesn't represent a danger to the fabrics of modern society
For all the hard work you guys have put in to smoke the rabbit out of the hole, here is a treat.
Treat
hope you enjoy the comedy.
Tara,
It isn't so much Bara (or Hoagland, though his messianic impulses can be a problem) as it is the kind of people he attracts. Some of them are frightened by the world they live in and Bara gives them good reason to be. That fear can feed on itself and end tragically.
You are right though, that Bara by himself is no threat to anyone. He's happy being the D-list celebrity that he is, and always will be. That's the difference between him and Hoagland. Hoagie wants to be L. Ron Hubbard, Mike just wants to be the Fonz.
FWIW I think Adrienne's real. Google her and you get "TV producer and director, and world traveler" based in Seattle.
Of course it's not definitive, but it's about what you'd expect for someone Mike has run into and who's volunteered to be his manager for very small money.
Chris Lopes
Thanks for the feedback. I agree, Bara is a pale imitation of Richard Hoagland, who is the ultimate big sleaze mack daddy. Hoagland has been around for about 30 years has become the driving force behind a significant pseudo scientific counter culture.
Why this recent shift of focus away from Hoagland and on to Bara?
Is Mike Bara actually the brains behind the operation, or does he simply have a behind for brains?
Hoagland has been inactive. Bara has been hilarious. That's all there is to it.
Looks like you guys are right. Adrienne Loska actually does exist. I googled her.
Still, I find it amazing that somebody can parrot his thinking so much and not actually be him. I find it even more amazing that he actually has money to pay her. Then again, judging by the comments on Facebook from his followers, she's probably a true believer and might be working for free. Who knows?
All that said, I'm dropping the topic until something comes along to either support or refute my theory (something no pseudoscientist would ever do).
http://mikebara.blogspot.com/2012/08/really.html
Really?
So after a pleasant weekend of watching football and blocking the fake Facebook profiles of douche bags that don't even have the balls to use their real names, I came back to work today only to find I'm still very popular with the psychopathic cyberstalking hater crowd. My manager Adrienne Loska pointed me to a so-called rebuttal of my last post by "Dr." Stuart Robbins on his hate-blog.
... continued at the link.
Originally, this really was about Hoagland. He's the one who presented the infamous image (without credit)to the C2C audience in a bid for some air time. He's the one who claimed to have spent 2 days verifying the thing. And he's the one who declared it a 43 year old mystery.
Since then, he's been conspicuously absent from the conversation. He's provided nothing in the way of follow up on the issue. There is no paper on the image on his web site. Hell, he hasn't even brought the issue up to his FB groupies. It's almost as if he'd like us all to forget his part in all this.
Though that post is about what I would expect in the way of a "crushing" rebuttal from Mike Bara, I do hope that this wasn't what he meant in his blog posts last week.
As a complement to Mike, do also read Stuart's excellent rebuttal to same:
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/08/
The funniest thing about Mike's blog-post -- what he thinks is a crushing rebuttal -- is that he used the wrong version of the cropped Apollo image. It's the one _without_ the ziggy drawn in. D'oh!!
Thanks jourget. Mike's post was pretty pathetic, I must say, and his ability to quote-mine and misrepresent what I said would put a young-Earth creationist to shame.
The original title for the blog post I wrote last night, before I changed it, was: "Mike, Can You Read?"
I plan on following this as long as Mike continues to post about it. Or for another few weeks and I submit my Skeptical Inquirer article about it, whichever comes first.
Bara's just playing to the crowd now. He stopped actually arguing about all this when he discovered he was dealing with a real scientist. So yeah, he going to lie, take things out of context, and "misunderstand" what is being said just so he can say (in a loud whinny voice) "Hey look guys, I won..hahahahahaha!"
I've known a few guys over the years who would pretend to "misunderstand" a difficult question asked by their girlfriend. Pretending to misunderstand is a tactic that some dishonest guys instinctively resort to, because it buys them time: While the faked misunderstanding is being cleared up, the wheels are turning inside their heads, furiously concocting a plausible lie to get them out of whatever trouble the girlfriend's original difficult question has put them in.
So it's funny to see Mike Bara relating to y'all in the same way that a weasel boyfriend relates to a woman he's trying to deceive.
Hello Mike,
I just listened to some pure comedy gold where a CADCAM technician described himself as a jetliner designer. Since nobody with a nanogram of grey matter between their ears believes a word that comes out your lying mouth perhaps you could up the ante. Tell people for example that you went to school with Bobby Charlton, are dating Her Majesty and that you could easily beat up Mike Tyson.
All of the above are more believable than the utter horse manure that vomits forth from your lying mouth. Yes Mike I called you a liar. For that is what you are.
How dare you speak of Einstein as if you understand in the slightest his work. You are a fraud Mike. Linda Tripp's twin brother.An opportunist and a despicable little sneak.
To Adrienne Loska:
Your client Mike Bara is really scary, Adrienne. He finds a faked up 40-year-old Moon image on a teenage sci-fi internet forum, and proclaims that it shows a ziggurat one mile square. He "enhances" it further, but he won't say how, and passes it to Richard Hoagland. Then he says it's the "centerpiece" of his new book.
He's told by someone infinitely better qualified than him to go take a look at the images of that area taken much more recently with better technology. Does he do that? No, he ignores the image with 80x better resolution and mocks the wider image because he doesn't understand how to view it.
If he persists in including this poppycock in AAOTM, he's going to get _murdered_ on Amazon reader reviews. If you think his Amazon author page looks bad now, just wait.
So now Mikey's joining forces with the Moon landing hoaxers to develop a Unified Conspiracy Theory involving Stanley Kubrick....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193548785X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=193548785X&linkCode=xm2&tag=darkmissinet-20
Best-selling author and Secret Space Program researcher Bara brings us this lavishly illustrated volume on alien structures on the Moon. He looks into the history of lunar anomalies and the early NASA programs. He gives us an examination of ruins on the Moon in the Sinus Medii region. Using images from the Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter and Ranger missions. He looks at the Apollo lunar missions to the Moon and the photographic evidence supporting the "transparent dome theory,” plus he looks at further anomalies in the Mare Crisium region, including the hexagonal shape of the Crisium region itself, watch- crystal type glass domes over the craters Cleomedes F and Cleomedes F/a, and an historical image of a giant shard of transparent material that was whitewashed from later versions of the same image. Bara discusses the popular theory that the film "2001 -A Space Odyssey” was used as a training ground for Stanley Kubrick to develop the technology to fake the footage of the landings plus the curious mission of Apollo 17-possibly a technology salvage mission, primarily concerned with investigating an opening into a massive hexagonal ruin near the landing site. Bara details how the astronauts managed to get nearly 30 minutes of "off camera” time to investigate an entrance into the ruin and then later proceeded to a nearby crater to retrieve technological objects. He examines evidence from the Russian Zond series of lunar probes as well as the more current Clementine and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter data, including an in-depth study of strange objects in Tycho crater. Plus a look at the current politics of the new race to return to the Moon and what hidden agenda's may be behind it. Finally, Bara looks at the various arguments that the entire Moon is an artificial object. Bara shows how the Moon would have been an ideal place for an alien species involved in genetic experimentation on Earth to have set up a base. Includes 8-page Full-Color insert.
Still in touch.Quiet funny.Greetings from Extremadura...
bravo, Astroguy.
;)
James,
I hadn't thought of the book angle, but you make a good point. It's going to be a tougher sell (though the usual suspects will probably still buy it) with so much heat coming down on such a silly image. It's not like "The Choice", which was just a bunch of new-age nonsense dressed up to look vaguely (because that's all Bara's limited knowledge base could manage) scientific. You can get away with much (though Expat made sure he didn't) when you aren't saying anything that relates to reality.
This next book though has to a bit more than that because the subject matter is a bit more concrete. It will involve image processing, lunar geology, and the specifics of how such images are obtained. None of those topics are part of Bara's core competency, which means he'll be depending on what he learned from Hoagland to make it work. In other words, expect this thing to be one giant Charlie Foxtrot from beginning to end.
Considering that Hoagland has claimed that virtually the entirety of Dark Mission was "[his] research", I find it delicious that Mike has cut out the heart of the first book to expand into a second. It's sure nice of Dick to throw Mike a bone like that...
jourget,
Perhaps that's why Hoagland has abstained from this argument for the most part. He used the image in question for his own gain and now sees no point in helping Bara promote his borrowed work.
so Mikey is the new David hoarse-shit Wilcox? Regurgitating old shit with new shit like a pig. For that's what he is.
These are the same priests who burned innocent people at the stake. These are the same ones who kill innocent women for the sake of fidelity.
Damn you omen readers. Damn you Mike. Go back to ignoramus. Go back to your disease collectors.
BTW can you guys please send this clown a note saying he ain't a bestselling author nor is he really a engineer. He just knows who to draw using CAD.
Mike's latest reminds me of when Sylvia Browne said she would test for Randi's million dollar challenge, but then said she couldn't figure out how to get in touch for him. Mike says that he was going to look at the original images I posted to see if the ziggurat was there, but oh golly-gee, Mike the Engineer couldn't figure out how to view them! And the fact that they looked somewhat scrambled was further proof of the NASA conspiracy.
the Moon landing hoaxers
That's yous guyz, right?
1905 Airplanes > 1942 Jets
1969 "Manned" Moon Missions > 2012 Hiding in Low Earth Orbit
You can tell the blurb is promoting a work of Bara's because of the blatant factual inaccuracies it contains within its single paragraph, entirety aside from the ludicrous nature of its central thesis.
I can only assume that Mike intends to propose that Kubrick played a role in falsifying only the footage from the landing missions as a means of covering up the ruins, as he apparently still believes that the landings actually happened (Apollo 17 "possibly" retrieving artifacts, and all). Gotta love that "possibly"-he still doesn't want to let that one go, even after he had to admit that he and Hoagland don't have any evidence that that happened.
I'm not sure whether the punctuation in "30 minutes of "off camera” time" is simply an example of Hoagland's inappropriate quotation marks finding their way into Mike's book blurb, or if he thinks Cernan and Schmitt were only figuratively off camera. Maybe they set up cardboard cutouts of themselves, or something. In either event, I'm sure the authors of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal will be interested in finding that out, seeing as how they've meticulously documented every minute of the Apollo EVAs, audio, TV, still photos, and all.
I'm still amazed at how much this looks almost entirely like an extended, rehashed version of Dark Mission Chapter 4. Sinus Medii and the transparent domes have been *exhaustively* done (in a way that implies Hoagland was responsible for the research). Is Mike out of ideas this soon?
James,
Both Catriona and I have our quills on the starting blocks. The deal is made. She buys this one via her substantial research grant and then I get to wallow in the backwash of her ridicule. Should be a hoot mate.
I've looked into the Apollo 17 EVA Station 2 story. It's true that Cernan & Schmitt were not always visible on camera while they were at Nansen -- in fact, Cernan actually remarks that he didn't set the camera ideally before they walked away from the LRV -- but they can be heard the entire time collecting samples and calling out sample numbers which correspond with the actual known inventory of moonrocks.
As for "retrieving technological objects" at Shorty -- Ha Ha Ha. The most read post this blog ever posted -- 5436 views -- was my exposé of Data's Head.
http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2008/06/datas-head-image-proved-fraudulent.html
The same US Gov that was dumping Agent Orange at this time was sending numerous unmanned picture-taking missions to the Moon. This is how the hoax was planned and carried out.
Don't y'all burn your bridges with NASA by agreeing with me!
We've been over this ground before:
http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-mike-bara-have-copyright-problem.html
Expat et al,
here is another loon who is in to face of mars.
disciple of hoagland
unlike bara, this one is a bit smart
http://secretsun.blogspot.ca/2012/08/mindbomb-john-carter-pkd-and-face-on.html
The only thing substantial in my world isn't my grant. Its my debt.
AAOTM should be good for a giggle.
Cantra x
The newest dialogue between Stuart and Mike is up:
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/
http://mikebara.blogspot.com/
Stuart, good job trying to guess where Mike was going to go next, but it looks like he just continued his reading comprehension problems. The way I read your quote, it says both that non-NASA spacecraft have imaged the area, *and* images with 100x the resolution exist, not that the non-NASA spacecraft were the ones providing such high-resolution photos.
Mike's final, brilliant rebuttal is that all NASA images, no matter the resolution, are worthless. Which, you would think, would make the entirety of his and Hoagland's career pretty much worthless as well, seeing as how a large proportion of their conclusions are based on NASA images. But you see, *those* are leaked. Maybe we should just ask Mike, precisely, what is needed to prove him wrong, or even if there is any data that is publicly available that could do so.
This war of words is getting pathetic. Dr. Robbins answers Mike's queries with something approaching a doctoral thesis, and Mike's response is a verbalized brain fart. Mike should have followed his first instincts on this and just let it go with an "I won!"
Mike is really toiling to keep treading water on this one. Normally I take no pleasure in another human being's discomfort. But Bara is SUCH a piece of work I am indulging myself.
Yup, another failure of reading comprehension, another punting by Mike, and I'm also getting fairly sick of this back-and-forth. I tried to indicate that with my last section of the latest post, but with Mike's reading skills, I'm uncertain if he'll pick up on it.
And for those who are interested, Mike's twin posted to the previous-previous post: http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/mike-you-seem-to-miss-the-point/#comments
I've had an interesting conversation with someone who was posting to Mike's FB page (Tara) in the comments section of that same post. We talk about motivations and reasons for getting into this sort of thing. And intellectual honesty.
@Astroguy
Likewise, the pleasure was mine
I`m probably a calculative little bitch,but this is the way I see it.
Bara found the picture,got excited with the new opportunity, he asked Hoagland for confirmation (Hoagland being the god father of the conspiracy market & grand priest of all things Mars....).Hoagland vouched for it (knowing it was crap), Bara went public over it, people started asking questions & the shit hit the fan. End game, Hoagland is nowhere to be find to come to the rescue of Mike Bara. Pretty sleazy way for Hoagland to discredit Bara and prevent him for scoring a new "discovery".
Hoagland is an ego-maniacal Behemoth.I wouldn't be surprised if Hoagland jumped on the occasion to kill "the competition". If Bara was such a savvy business man, he would have waited before exposing himself. Maybe Bara is just a "true believer"?. His attitude proved he is not as shrewd as we think.
Would be funny. If true. Karma is waiting with a big stick for these two intellectual midgets. This whole mess is on par with Wilcock's latest claim of having been ET contacted in a field outside London at the Olympics.
LOL I hadn't heard that one.
if it stinks like shit, looks like shit, then it must be ...
Just looked it up, Expat. This is what I found. Have a laugh: http://universallyaware.ning.com/forum/topics/hoax-or-real-david-wilcock-gives-account-of-meeting-aliens-at-oly?xg_source=activity
Hoagland never ceases to amaze me,he has such capacity at incubating bullshit.
Any of you old timers remember when King Richard C was vaguely associated with Major Ed Dames during the comet Hale-Bopp fiasco?
No, but I remember that in 1995 he said Mars Observer was still alive around Mars and sending back data with its laser altimeter, and the Hubble was picking it up and storing it in its high-speed photometer, and that's why the photometer was the instrument removed and returned to Earth when STS-61 swapped it out with COSTAR, and "they" reprogrammed the Hubble's computer so that no one would know that all this extra data was coming in, and that's why some Hubble computer programmer committed suicide (was murdered) via handgun at some side-of-the-road rest area.
What was that about incubating bullshit? Because for me, it's all coming together, man.
Tara,
I don't think that was Hoagland's original intent. I think he just wanted to get some air time on 7/20 and this image gave him an excuse. That he didn't actually do any "research" to verify the image is just Hoagland being his lazy self.
On the other hand, you are right that Hoagland isn't the least bit interested in helping Mike through this mess. As you suggest, it's hardly in his best interests to do so. He knows a substantive discussion with someone who knows what he's talking about is a loser for him, and letting Mike self-destruct let's him stay "king of the alien artifacts hunter" a little while longer. For Hoagland it's the perfect storm of happenstance meeting self interest.
Jourget - I remember that, too. And I was in middle school ... so I think I have an ancient C2C episode where he was talking about that.
@Chris
Tonight,I had a conversation on Facebook with James who is associated with this Blog & we spoke about my own little conspiracy theory regarding Hoagland possible manipulation of Mike Bara.On a radio program, Hoagland acknowledged helping Bara analyzing the ziggurat photo.James found the exact quotations from Hoagland:" you gotta go look because this is just absolutely astonishing -- and I've spent now several days trying to make sure this is real, and to the best of our analytical abilities it's real, there's a whole bunch of little "tells" around it that tell us. For one thing, hoaxes are never subtle. This is subtle. This is the kind of thing that an expert would instantly recognize -- and unless you have trained eyes it's going to take you a minute or two maybe to see it, but once you see it, you're never going to not see it".
astroguy,
Yep, it's on YouTube. In twenty parts. Man, when Art or George let Hoagland off the leash, he can go forever.
"Trained eyes," I love it! This isn't the first time Hoagland's stated that he's better than the average person is at seeing the patterns of artificiality in a lunar or Martian photo, patterns which the average lay person might miss.
I'm also pretty sure I recall him saying that for some reason, men seem to be better than women at finding and recognizing the artificial objects in these types of photographs.
Hagland's set up of the image on C2C certainly encouraged Bara, but I took it as more of a "Hoagland making stuff up to make it sound good" thing. That Bara may have bought into the "science" of why the image is real is a distinct possibility. The question of a deliberate set up of Bara though is still an open one.
Was does wonder though what Bara thinks of Hoagland's silence. I mean it'd sure be helpful to have a "world famous space scientist" around when you are arguing with a real astronomer. Yet the one guy who's stock and trade in the alternative research community is real science doesn't seem interested. If I were him, I'd be tempted to think I'd been used, but perhaps Mike isn't that smart.
jourget,
Hoagland has always needed an editor. For instance, he always takes more time (by a factor of 2 or 3) than anyone else at those conferences, and it's always mostly material he's covered before. His papers are indecipherable nonsense and the one book he wrote on his on own is little more than a door stop. And you know what he can do with 3 to 4 hours of C2C time. Yes, he needs adult supervision.
I've heard that conference organizers get infuriated by Hoagland's time overruns, not to mention the other presenters whose time he steals.
I e-mailed Hoagland today (cc: Bara) asking whether, in light of Dr Robbins' retrieval of the Kaguya images, he was now prepared to retract. Nothing yet.
expat,
Yes indeed. During his presentation at the April 3, 2011 Amsterdam Secret Space Program Conference (also available on YouTube), he is verbally warned on two occasions to wrap it up, and gets a little miffed. On the second occasion (Part 11 of 12, at roughly 2:00), he tries something along the lines of "These people have paid to hear what I have to say, something I've been preparing for months, and are you going to tell them to stuff it?" The conference organizer then asks him if it's going to be 15 minutes for real, or what he implies is Hoagland's idea of 15 minutes. Funny stuff, especially when you consider that virtually this entire nonsense presentation is Hoagland cribbing from Judy Wood's nonsense. His "months" of preparation reminds me of his "days" looking at the ziggurat.
I think Judy Wood has guts.
Jourget is more Anti-Semitic than me.
I listened to the "Richard C. Hoagland-Secret Space Program-Amsterdam" suggested by
Jourget & Expat. Am I hallucinating?.
Hoagland claimed he & Robin "were very privileged few months ago,a year,a year & half something like that,that NBC the American network sent us to Mexico & Guatemala & allowed me to actually measured the Mayan pyramids in "Sutu",right there up close & personal, & the numbers & readings that we got are total confirmation of the "model", & the model is that what you need to change the human behavior to be better, is to raise the field to where everybody can once more partake & be part of community....".
Leaving aside the ridiculous pseudo scientific New Age "conscious shitting" non sequitur, Hoagland doesn't even gets the name "Sutu" right, but he now pretends he got personally involved in field archeology.Does anyone has a prove that NBC actually sponsored him & Lady Robin to engage in field archeology in Mexico?
Tara,
It was part of a lame "documentary" on 2012 that was done several years ago. Hoagland climbed up this pyramid with his laptop, supposedly took some readings, then told the audience what it was he did. Not exactly must see TV, though the image of Hoagland in that dorky hat was amusing.
He may have said in situ, the latin phrase archaeologists would use meaning "right there." Yes, the SyFy channel, which is owned by NBC, did indeed pay his way to Teotihuacan to climb the Pyramid of the Sun at dawn with his Accutron/MicroSet kit. It was 22nd April 2009. That's when he claims to have measured the pyramid's effect on the torsion field arising from the Sun. Dawn was 07:13 -- his trace starts at 07:19. There are no numbers, and there is no model. As for changing human behavior, he might make a start by teaching Mike Bara some manners and himself a little humility.
Yes, in situ is correct. Though, as is typical, Hoagland used it in a manner inappropriate for the situation. When archeologists use "in situ", we typically use it as a contextual reference to an artifact or sample *before* it is displaced from its original point of deposition. For example, I would take a photograph of a charcoal sample "in situ" before it is removed for C14 analysis. In reference to giant intact structures like the pyramid of the Sun, it would be absurd to say you took your measurements in situ, because it isn't like the pyramid as a whole is in danger of being removed for laboratory analysis. *Of course* his measurements of the pyramid are going to be conducted in situ. They'd have to be, unless Hoagland is sitting in his New Mexico office and saying he's taking measurements of the Pyramid of the Sun from there. Which I suppose we shouldn't put past him.
I think this is one of those occasions where Hoagland uses a "sciency" term to make himself sound smart, but screws it up.
@Expat.Chris.
Thank you Gentlemen for the precisions.I became extremely interested in Hoagland`s claim, because Anthropology-Archeology happens to be my area of "expertise". I listened to the whole "lecture",there was nothing remotely "archeological" but courtesy of Hoagland (the Farce behind the Face),I became aware of the direct correlation between Martian subterranean civilization, Obama,the Mayan calendar,the NASA Free-Masons-Nazis,torsion field energy,the destruction of the World Trade Center,hyperdimentional physics,the esoteric properties of calcite carbonate crystal & Tetrahedra....I feel like I'm losing my sanity
@Jourget.Indeed, this is precisely why I mentioned it in the first place
It's my opinion that Judy Wood is stark staring bonkers, but I can't exactly prove it.
I made a small contribution to the huge blogwordcount on the day the towers came down:
http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2011/05/dustified.html
Tara,
"Tara Jordan said...I became extremely interested in Hoagland`s claim, because Anthropology-Archeology happens to be my area of "expertise"".
Excellent-likewise! What's your area of study? I originally started listening to Coast to Coast because of Hoagland's amusing space ideas. Like you, I became especially irritated when he began trespassing in archeology, an area in which (if possible) he appears to be even less qualified than space science.
Still not a peep from Mikey boy on Dr Robbins producing the images Mike challenged him to. Will he or won't he. Perhaps he will simply argue that every other space agency is run by the same 3 foot tall space-nazis that run NASA.
Mike Bara shared a link.
Thursday near Auburn, WA
More BS from Stuart Robbins
Mike Bara: Non-NASA Images, Where Are They?
mikebara.blogspot.com
Like · · Unfollow post · Share
6 people like this.
Patrick Orlob Here they are! http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/kaguya-selene-%E3%81%8B%E3%81%90%E3%82%84-photographs-of-the-moon-specifically-the-claimed-ziggurat-area/
Kaguya (SELENE / かぐや) Photographs of the Moon, Specifically the Claimed Ziggurat Area
pseudoastro.wordpress.com
Introduction After this point, Mike needs to answer the basic question of: What ...See more
Yesterday at 01:20 · Unlike · 4
Mike Bara Yeah...
Yesterday at 06:11 · Like
Mike Bara I'll have a response to this early next week after I've had a chance to go over the pictures.
Yesterday at 07:41 · Like · 1
Galina Preslic I do want to thank you for your work, for your courage.G.
Yesterday at 12:24 · Like · 2
Kerry Newman ...lunar explorer. http://tblnfilms.com/LUNARExplorer/LEXPALL.html
Lunar Explorer Archive One
tblnfilms.com
2). On your keyboard, you use the + and - buttons to ZOOM in and out. O...See more
Yesterday at 17:37 · Like
Catriona MacLeod I had a look at the images and Dr Robbins' write up. Debunking this will not be easy. I'm seriously starting to wonder if Hoagland is trying to set Mike up for a fall here. Hoagland has said NOTHING in support of Mike. Not that he is obliged to. However, isn't that what mates do ? Stand up for each other.
Mike's problem is that he thinks real scientists play by the same rules that pseudo-scientists do. That is, they make claims without any evidence at all in the hopes that they will be believed. After all, you don't need actual evidence to sell books and DVD's.
So when Dr. Robbins said there were other (non-NASA) images of the area that did not show the structure, Mike just thought he was bluffing. What Mike failed to understand is that a real scientist don't bluff on issues of evidence, because to do so would be professional suicide. The fact that Mike doesn't understand how real science works should not be surprising, as he learned everything he knows about such things from Hoagland.
@Jourget.I totally understand your approach & feeling, there is so much more than the pseudo scientific New Age Mumbo Jumbo,which I consider as "intellectual pollution"initially I have a Master Degree in political science but I drifted to field Ethnology & anthropology( preparing for a MSci in Interdisciplinary studies).
I became interested in this topic after reading Sagan & Russian astrophysicists hypotheses on Martian civilization. Exobiology & exo-archeology are both fascinating, but from a scientific perspective.
So basically Hoagland is jumping on the catastrophism market,now ?.His "Amsterdam Secret Space Program Conference" was nothing but "Torsion physics & new paradigm" applied to the 9/11 conspiracy.I think Hoagland is becoming more & more desperate for new materials.
Actually Amsterdam was just Hoagland borrowing (stealing really) the work of someone else (because he was too damn lazy to come up with his own new nonsense) and fitting it to his mythology. So Dr. Wood's work became "Space Nazis with deathrays!" and another "key to everything!". Afterward, he tried to make it sound like he was doing Wood a favor by bringing her work to public attention. The fact that he made money off of her work seemed to slipped his mind.
At the time when RCH was actually writing to FB he wrote this:
RCH 11 may 03:00
After viewing the 911 "plane video" many times, I concur on two major points:
The planes were NOT "hijacked commercial flights"; they were COPIES of those planes ... equipped with a "few extra frills."
...
They COULD have even been delivering INSIDE the Tower one HALF of "the torsion weapon" .... :)
THis is NOT to say, however, that these "special ppanes" were GOVERNMENT planes!
As previously noted, the FAA aircraft registration system is SO screwed up, that two SUBSTITUTE, "specially-outfitted jet transport aircraft could EWASILY have been "switched out of the system" ... and NEVER have been missed!!
And, seriously, such a meachanism would have also had the added advantage of being the ONE WAY to get" the key portion of the weapon INSIDE the Towers ...."
Which, apparently, was ESSENTIAL to the rest of the Plan working -- which included an EXTERNAL "torsion field source" INTERFERING from outside (in orbit ...?) a directed "torsion BEAM," their oVERLAP led to the "interference pattern of destruction"--
====================
I wrote:
Hoagland: You recently wrote "The planes were NOT "hijacked commercial flights"; they were COPIES of those planes"
87 people died on AA11. ATC tracked it from Boston despite its transponder being turned off. Flight attendant Amy Sweeney was talking to AA manager Michael Woodward on a cellphone as the plane hit the North tower.
60 people died on UA175. ATC tracked it all the way from Boston. Three passengers made airphone calls reporting the progress of the hijacking.
These are FACTS. You are using a tragic event to draw attention to yourself and your nutty ideas, just as you did when you accused NASA of murdering the Apollo 1 astronauts.
PLEASE STOP IT. IT'S DISGUSTING.
@James
I was particularly disgusted after reading your post: "The seismic ignorance of Richard C. Hoagland ".I was not aware Hoagland made such ridiculous allegation, but again I`m not surprised.This old decrepit snake oil peddler is apparently willing to use anything to make a penny & draw attention to himself.
As you know,I`m not a Japanese citizen but I live in Tokyo & I was in Tokyo on March 11, 2011.This is very personal
James,
As we all (should) know, Hoagland doesn't give a rat's hind end about decency, truth, or other people. It's about having something to say at some dork-fest conference or the few minutes Noory lets him speak. For a while there, it was also about keeping the faithful occupied over on his FB page too, but apparently those "free loaders" are no longer worth the effort.
Hoagland will literally say anything for a few minutes of attention, even if it contradicts what he's already said. I keep waiting for the day that he ways in on Big Foot and the Lock Ness Monster mysteries, as I'm sure there is an HD physics connection there somewhere. Such a sad, pathetic man.
Chris,
Pathetic is right. There's a constant theme of him telling us he's looked over the data like a good scientist before drawing his conclusions ("days" for the ziggurat, "months" for his Amsterdam presentation, "many times" viewing the 9/11 videos), yet in most cases he makes mistakes that a bright high schooler would catch. I think you're right that he'd use anything to get some on-deck time, but he's got a compulsion to talk the talk while he's doing it.
Tara, my own MA is in archeology. My initial beef with Hoagland stemmed from his astonishingly amateurish misunderstanding of archeological dating techniques at Central American sites, but my frustration only grew deeper when I heard about his other screw-ups. I've worked at the Brickell Point (Miami Circle) site, so his mistakes there are pretty close to home. Research for my thesis also involved studying aerial photographs of the Central Great Plains, and we all know how much Hoagland likes to trumpet how archeologists can find ruins in aerial photographs just like he's finding them in orbital photographs. The difference is, promising regions in the photos are *always* cross-checked with the known archeology and history of an area to allow correlation and comparison with known patterns, and even then it's not as if the back-slapping starts without on-the-ground testing. We DO NOT just say "Hey, there's a rectilinear pattern! God doesn't build in straight lines (thanks Prometheus), so I just found some ancient ruins! Go me!" So, yeah. Sorry for the speech, but I get where you're coming from.
@Jourget. Its is fascinating that you did field researches & case studies. I made a modest & brief deconstruction of Mark Carlotto`s mathematical evaluations of the DM pyramid in Cydonia.(I submitted it to Paul Estrada from NASA & SETI Institute & Paul agreed with me). Right now,I am working on another project involving another region of Mars,which I also submitted to Paul,& this morning Paul gave me interesting feedback.I will definitively extend & pursue my project. I`d love to get opinions & feedback from individuals who are more experienced than I am (obviously you are). We should get in touch outside this blog.Do you have a Facebook account?
Tara,
I actually do not have a Facebook account, but you can reach me at:
mytoehurts@hotmail.com
As you may surmise from the juvenile address, this is not my professional email, but one that I opened in high school that I still check occasionally and feel comfortable posting publicly. I'd be very interested in hearing more about your Martian projects; though I am an Earth archeologist by profession, I study space science as a passionate hobby. Cheers.
Post a Comment