Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Take cover, Mike Bara's getting annoyed again!!!! AAarrgghhhhhhhh.....

Mike Bara's youtube ID is osiris19533. Osiris has been busy uploading a Bara-flood of self-promotion that even his erstwhile co-author Richard Hoagland would envy. A Nine-parter called "World in Crisis," a 2-part 'MUFON-LA,' and three videos captioned 'Mike Bara Alien Event.' I confess I haven't looked at every second of these Bara-vids, but from sampling I've got the idea that these are all Mike Bara lecturing and powerpointing to paying audiences of the already-converted, the true believers, the Branch Hoaglandians, the UFO-abductees. I almost wrote "...suckers." The content of the lectures seems to be the usual pseudo-scientific claptrap having a highly approximate relationship to the truth.

In Part 1 of "World in Crisis," wittily sub-titled And The Emerging Shift In Consciousness, Rev. Brian Keneipp (who has a nifty and dangerously unreligious taste in matching ties and shirts) introduces Bara as an "award-winning author" (at which Mike grins sheepishly.)

In comments under this vid, a viewer called sirrahusa writes (6/30):

Award-winning author? Huhhh???? That wretched book didn't win any awards. It received precisely ZERO professional reviews and the reader reviews on Amazon were largely mockery.

Read the dorkmission blog for an itemized list of the appalling technical errors in Bara's book. He's completely ignorant in the field of planetary astronomy.

[I added the link, it wasn't in the original Youtube post, obviously]


Mike responded yesterday with an all-too-typical lapse of either truth, logic, or just plain decency:

Obviously, you are just another front ID for that douchebag known as expat.
Yeah, other than getting to #21 on the NYT Bestsellers, list, it didn't win any "awards."

Douchebag...


He then banned sirrahusa from further commenting, just as he banned me from the darkmission blog, despite a prominent hyperlinked invitation "Want to discuss [the book]? Visit the Dark Mission Blog."

sirrahusa found a niche where he was not yet banned, and wrote as follows:

Hi Mike... I'm lucky enough to have had a French gf at one time, and I can tell you that a douchebag isn't that bad. It's just a bag of water, often with some antiseptic added. Maybe you could find a more appropriate insult to use when logical argument fails you.

BTW, almost making it to the NYT best-seller list is NOT an award. Cheers.



That's where things stand so far. I'll keep you posted -- especially if Mike Bara ever writes anything other than insults. If Mike should happen to wish to comment right here, he's very welcome to. I don't believe in banning people whose views I disagree with.

12 comments:

Christopher said...

"-- especially if Mike Bara ever writes anything other than insults."

Since I'm already 51 years old, I'm guessing that won't happen in my life time. :)

Christopher said...

BTW, have you ever seen his Roswell Festival presentation for DM? He's not nearly as entertaining or watchable as Hoagie.

expat said...

I don't believe I have, no. He copies his style on RCH, even tothe point of going on 10x longer than necessary.

Christopher said...

Then allow me. Here is a link to it. http://vimeo.com/10138527

I dare you to get through more than 10 minutes of this crap.

Christopher said...

The latest on Hoagie is that he claims new images from the ESA show another derelict spaceship (an asteroid with grooves). I mentioned a paper on the subject in the thread that explained such things along with the abstract of another paper that predicted such things back in 1979. So far, no response.

expat said...

Obstinate bastard, isn't he? Anybody with a nanogram of science acumen would say "Oh, interesting. Pockmarked and grooved small bodies seem to be common in the Solar System. So much for the theory that Phobos is special."

Not Hoagland. Oh no.

Christopher said...

I liked the assumption that the papers were about refuting his theory, "explaining the unexplainable" as he put it. Neither paper had anything to do with that. One of the papers was written in 1979, long before Hougie's obsession with Phobos, and the other paper was an attempt to interpret data from Galileo and NEAR Shoemaker. In other words, they were about science, which explains why Hougie didn't get it.

expat said...

Wading through the ocean of garbage, I see now that he's saying "Since the modern theory of the grooves on Phobos depends on its low orbit around Mars, and since Lutetia is not in low orbit around anything, that supports our[1] theory that both are abandoned spaceships."

That's like saying "Since neither the capture nor ejection theories seem to fully explain the origin of the Moon, that supports the green cheese theory."

[1] "Our" must mean him and his gf. I don't see anything in Dr Falkov's résumé indicating any qualification in astronomy. Hoagland's résumé, as is well-known, contains no qualification in anything.

Christopher said...

The thing is, that's not what the paper says. The model the paper talks about (as someone else on the thread pointed out) is of material on the surface falling into the fractures that were already there. Hoagland is arguing with the wrong model.

Biological_Unit said...

Do yous know that RCH has a Facebook page?

Yous won't be able to post on his wall (I can't).
Anyone can debate the Kool-Aid drinkers in the discussion area.

- - - - - - - -

There is a Sunspot at 19 degrees north. See, he's right about something!!

expat said...

To contribute to the Wall you have to be a fan. Personally, I am not a fan.

Christopher said...

Actually all you have to be is a "friend". I post there from time to time, but getting into actual debate is not really worth the trouble. When I see something easily refutable (like the Alan Bean thing) I mention it, but for the most part it gets ignored. Richard is apparently the alpha and omega of knowledge there.