Now for the questions. This is the blurb for AAoM, just out.
"Best-selling author and Secret Space Program researcher Bara brings us this lavishly illustrated volume on alien structures on Mars. Was there once a vast, technologically advanced civilization on Mars, and did it leave evidence of its existence behind for humans to find eons later? Did these advanced extraterrestrial visitors vanish in a solar system wide cataclysm of their own making, only to make their way to Earth and start anew? Was Mars once as lush and green as the Earth, and teeming with life? Did Mars once orbit a missing member of the solar system, a "Super Earth" that vanished in a disaster that devastated life on Earth and Venus and left us only the asteroid belt as evidence of its once grand existence? Did the survivors of this catastrophe leave monuments and temples behind, arranged in a mathematical precision designed to teach us the Secret of a new physics that could lift us back to the stars? Does the planet have an automated defense shield that swallows up robotic probes if they wander into the wrong areas? And are the lights still on down there, deep below the sands of Mars, just waiting for us to uncover them? New York Times Bestselling author Mike Bara examines all these questions and more in his new book Ancient Aliens on Mars. Chapters include: War of the Worlds, The Mars Tidal Model, The Death of Mars, Cydonia and the Face on Mars, The Monuments of Mars, The Search for Life on Mars, The True Colors of Mars and The Pathfinder Sphinx."Does his former co-author Hoagland know about this? Looking at those chapter titles, I'd say RCH deserves at least 75% of the royalties.
Update:
Today Mike Bara is telling the strippers and porn starlets "New research confirms 12 year old Bara/Hoagland theory".
He means this research. He means this theory.
Anyone wishing to confirm that the 12-year-old web page actually is relevant to Marte Vallis (and it may well be, from my memory of it) had better be browsing with MSIE only. The page contains so many errors that it's unreadable in Firefox, Chrome and Opera.
Result of validation runs:
HTML: 2768 errors, 3 warnings
CSS level 3: 2251 errors
NOTE: This is what tends to happen when you make pages with Microsoft FrontPage 5.0 (circa 1998)
!!!!
8 comments:
Cue, "The Stupid: It Burns!!!" graphic.
In related news, I should be covering the "true colors" thing in a podcast episode in the next few months.
Seems like at least half of those chapters I've covered in other podcast episodes, too. Maybe I should put out an e-book soon after: "No Ancient Aliens on Mars." :)
What's amusing (to me anyway) is the way Bara is reusing the material he and Hoagland (who claims the research was all his) put in DM. I have to give him credit for being able to make (a little) more money off of that nonsense without having to share it with the guy who sat a few seats down from Walter Cronkite. Must really hurt to see someone make money off of stuff you can't even give away.
The tides page is quite readable when selecting in Firefox at least from the menu View->Page Style->No Style.
The mentioning of Van Flandern brought back a golden memory from Dark Mission, at the beginning of Ch. 8, where the SPSR anf VF was attacked for hijacking RCH's work and "failing to properly attribute", pebbling "absurd notions", showing ridiculous "pictographs" and so on, all at the Washington Club Press Conference in 2001.
But never mind, VF's Exploded Planet Hypothesis would still be supported wholesale, as evidenced by that web page.
Always "follow the data" after all and please forget about source and method!
D
That's quite true, yes (about "no style") but it's still disgraceful.
Also true that RCH and TVF seem to have fallen out. I have a certain amount of respect for Van F's work -- he was wrong, but at least he tried to do the science.
Did the survivors of this catastrophe leave monuments and temples behind, arranged in a mathematical precision designed to teach us the Secret of a new physics that could lift us back to the stars?
Sure they did Mike. Here's the irrefutable proof, the Stunning Confirmation that NASA chooses to ignore.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/jplimaging.html
Say Mike, have you seen any black helicopters buzzing over your house lately? I think NASA might be closing in on you and Hoagie pretty soon. There's a price to pay for disclosing official secrets you know. Hello Guantanamo.
Every time I see the words "lavishly illustrated" as it pertains to AAOTM, I have a small stroke.
I agree Expat. Tom Van Flandern was a peer reviewed scientist with real credentials who's published papers earned him respect within the scientific community.
That aside he was also a man who was prepared to revisit data, review his own work, and if later data contradicted his theory. Admit the error, learn from it and either rework or abandon his previous conclusions.....From Wiki;
"During the mid-1970s, Van Flandern believed that lunar observations gave evidence of variation in Newton's gravitational constant (G), consistent with a speculative idea that had been put forward by Paul Dirac. Years later, with new data available, Van Flandern himself admitted his findings were not significant, and the conclusions were contradicted by more accurate findings based on radio measurements with the Viking landers."
Compare the above to Richard Hoagland or Mike Bara. Neither have a university degree in anything, let alone a higher degree. Neither have publihed anything that could be remotely classed as peer reviewable (let alone peer reviewed) papers. And, neither have ever admitted to being wrong. About anything. Ever.
Even when proven mathematically to be wrong, the matter is either dropped, ignored, or the person who pointed out their errors is called a NASA shill and summarily banned from their social media pages. This from men who bleat endlessly and breathlessly about censorship and freedom of speech.
Also. As far as I know Dr Van Flandern did not publicly call any of his critics a douchebag, or a homo.
Yes perhaps Hoagland did have a falling out with Dr Van Flandern. He's certainly had one with Dr Farrel and Richard Dolan. Both of whom keep Hoagland at bargepole radius. A "Big Fuck Off" bargepole radius. This is pissing Hoagland off, and I love it. Both Farrel and Dolan are "A" listers on the UFO circuit. Neither will now share a stage with Hoagland. And have said so both in emails to me, and on public forums. Hoagland is now reduced to begging George Noory to invite Farrel and Dolan onto C2C AM. So they (including Hoagland of course) can discuss their common theories. It's not going to happen.
It can also be noted that Hoagland is now talking of Carl Sagan in quite a different light recently. No longer referring to him as "my dear departed friend." - Rather using desparaging terms regarding Sagan's opinions Such as, "YEAH RIGHT!!!!!"
I'd like to think that was in part due to a contributor to this page (help with proper accreditation Mr Expat please) who found a quote by Sagan who referred to Hoagland as a fabulist. Amongst other things.
I took some delight in making Hoagland aware of this fact via email. He, of course, never replied. But his attitude to Sagan changed. 1 - 0 to the good guys on that.
DJE
It was Esteban Navarro Galàn who provided the quote from Sagan.
Post a Comment