I thought it might be a good moment to approach him about withdrawing his utterly despicable accusation that critics (and I assume he includes me) have sent sexually harassing messages to his Faceache floozies. I sent the following:
To: Mike Bara <mikebara33@gmail.com>
From: Expat
Subject: Man up, Mike Bara
Date: 5.12.14
Now that your two sports teams are both champs, it's time to be a man and admit you lied.
It's been six months since you accused your critics of sending sexually harassing messages to your Facebook cuties. You have been asked to provide examples and you have failed.
We, on the other hand, have provided two examples of the reverse process. In case you've forgotten here are the citations:
http://binaryspellbook.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bara/
http://binaryspellbook.blogspot.com/2013/08/mike-baras-internet-wife.html
Since you made the accusation in the foreword (you called it a forward) to a published book, the appropriate place for your retraction and apology would be a foreword in AAoM2. You should, right now, also issue a retraction and apology on your FB pages.
BE A MAN.
"AAoM2" is shorthand for Ancient Aliens on Mars Part2, a book Mike is writing right now, for publication September-ish. I got no reply, but I know Mike has been at the computer since he's been tweeting about how much he misses his brother's dog. So I guess even if his sports teams are champs, Mike himself cannot step up to the plate.
9 comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agVbNT-6aYE
you prolly have seen this vid. plz check out starting at 1:08:00. what do you say RCH is presenting, a hand drawn graph peraps?
Got a reply from Noory at C2C regarding Mikey boy debating Dr Robbins. According to Noory, "it takes two to tango."
So there we have it. Mike after using C2C to attempt to discredit Robbins (and the rest of us) and agreeing to a debate has tucked tail and ran like a wee lassie. Again. Man, what an utter pansy.
Anonymous (comment #1), I suppose such graph could easily be reproduced from the data file from his MicroSet timer and related software hooked up to his Accutron 214 watch. Although the visual seems somewhat styled like an oscilloscope screen, it's more likely coming out of the recorded data file. And it seems even less informative and ambiguous, presented this way, of course.
Anon: No, it isn't hand-drawn. It's his laughably unscientific Accutron/Microset toy. This blog has commented on it ad nauseam.
And by the way, F=ma is not the correct formula for the frequency of a tuning fork. Hoagland's grasp of mathematics is at 5th grade level.
Ah! Found the F=ma remark around 1:07 in mentioned video just after"Einstein was pushed gently out of the auditorium" together with most Science and Basic Caution but okay. Actually I don't think he tries to say F=ma is a calculation of frequency or anything, just that forces and/or acceleration change if you'd be able to influence the mass (is he thinking about Higgs boson and field then?)
The idea seems to be that the mass of the fork changes under influence of this "torsion" (note: [this Torsion field or else the Einstein–Cartan theory or otherwise The Ether) and so "inertia is changing". Now does he talk about the "area moment of inertia" or "I" in the general tuning form equation, a smaller number for density ρ or a higher elastic modulus E?
Would it so hard for him to at least give us an idea of the changes in mass needed for his readings? From that data, perhaps better experiments could be conceived. So much opportunity for something at least approaching science wasted by endless powerpoint presentations and stories of the good old days.
Dee
The reason F=ma is so wrong is that the acceleration of a tuning fork tine is irrelevant to its resonant frequency.
Mathematically, the only term in the REAL tuning fork equation that could be affected by a hypothetical torsion field is the density ρ. I've tried asking him nicely to confirm this but I get no answer.
Don't forget, too, that in his original text about this, he made it very clear that the orientation of the fork in relation to the field is highly important. Parallel, inertia increases. Orthogonal, inertia decreases. Yet in all his "experiments" he has not once stated how the fork was oriented.
I want to go to one of his drone-athons just so I can ask "Why don't pianos and all brass instruments go out of tune during eclipses?"
Thanks Expat. And of course anything left that ever might had any speculative scientific meaning in that presentation dies instantaneously at 1:57 when the intricate of the "signal" he's measuring is linked to some actual "torsion wave" communications coming from inhabited bases at both Moon poles. It's not explained because it's "a long story" (and unpublished AFAIK). But Hoagland decoding messages from "gods" or "aliens" with another version of the "microwave oven" as signal amplifier? Note he brings in here as well crystal clocks from the devices in the set-up and "beat frequency" with the crystals acting as "amplifiers". Oh my God. It's like this whole subculture breeds paranoia and schizophrenia. And rewards it with medals and audiences.
For me it's not the abuse of mathematics or discredited theories of the past, it this whole paraphernalia multiplying around it and the "over and beyond" speculation introducing the most stunning additions with the least of additionaly evidence or explanation (turning it all "inner sanctum"). Any audience is just robbed from any possibility to react or digest all of this. It's being brownbeaten! Although for most it will turn into a ride I suppose, a SciFi B-movie, just to protect themselves a bit.
Post a Comment