Monday, December 20, 2010

NASA's Egyptian God-worship examined, Part II

        Hoagland & Bara's so-called Table of Coincidence—the raw data on which they base their ridiculous theory—doesn't stop at Apollo. It continues with a hilarious claim that the Orion belt star Alnitak was at +19.5° over the Martian horizon as it would have been seen from the so-called 'face' in Cydonia, at the exact moment when the feature was first imaged by the Viking 1 orbiter on July 25th 1976.

        You have to think about that for a bit to understand how truly ludicrous this claim is. In order for the hypothetical Egyptian God-worshiping NASA clique to have contrived this feat of astrology, they first of all had to have known of the existence and exact latitude/longitude of this feature. That in itself is impossible. THEN they had to have calculated the arrival overhead of the orbiter to the nearest fifteen seconds or so. To do that, they'd have to have worked backwards to the arrival of Viking 1 in orbit, then to the trans-Mars trajectory, then to the exact time and azimuth of the launch. In short, the entire mission profile would have to have been contingent on that one astrological imperative. And if any part of that profile did not coincide with what was being planned anyway, by engineers who didn't care about Egyptian Gods, the clique would have had some explaining to do.

Ridiculous!!

        The table of coincidence concludes with a mixed bag of 43 data points, of which 35 relate to the Shuttle and/or ISS—launches of Zarya and STS-88 for example. Then a couple of events related to the solar observatory SOHO. Finally, the world premiere of the Hollywood movie Armageddon—as if the NASA clique had any control over that.

        Of these 43 data points, 14 are disqualified because they involve celestial objects that are not any of the five specified in the book "Dark Mission," and four are disqualified because their viewpoints do not persuasively relate to the mission (Phoenix AZ, the Egyptian pyramids.)

        Considering that Hoagland & Bara allow themselves to search Apollo landing sites for star elevation data that have nothing to do with Apollo (Sirius at -33° as seen from the Apollo 11 landing site at the moment of the first STS-88 EVA,) it's quite surprising that they didn't find more "coincidences."

        But really, as a piece of data-gathering this is beyond pathetic. Mike Bara says "NASA always seems to want to land or launch when the stars are in favorable positions" (Video, at 04:07.) What he should do, now that the Shuttle program is almost at an end, is to do the analysis and find out whether what he said was true. He should restrict himself to shuttle launches/landings, to the five named stars and to viewpoints from KSC (the Cape) or JSC (Houston.) There were also several landings at Edwards AFB, and one at White Sands.

        I don't believe Mike Bara will do this. I think he knows he'd finally be proved wrong.

8 comments:

Biological_Unit said...

http://hhmsssword.blogspot.com/

SOme one dial 3425 - 79673 . . . and clear the southwestern sky...

Sword


He has a large group of fictional Space military that can order up clear skies. Oh but no ..

I had a Clear Sky tonight, and I'm working to put up images to my Website.
There's supposed to be related Earthquake activity because of "alignments". So far, nothing has been reported.

Biological_Unit said...

An accurate depiction of the Solstice Lunar Eclipse, NO EHANCEMENT! There's way too much of that, in my opinion.

HijackthatUFO.net

Biological_Unit said...

I don't believe Mike Bara will do this.

No, he won't, he will be indignant and accuse you of being an "oppressor".

Biological_Unit said...

RCH's Facebook Wall:

Would it not be odd if the mythological depictions of gods was accurate descriptions of celestial bodies behaviour and events.

And that our current astronomy and astronoms wonder clueless even about our own solar systems behaviour, i would ...not be suprised.

I have a feeling we may know nothing about our closest planets behaviour, if so our understanding must be based on bad physic.See More
5 hours ago ·
#
Richard C. Hoagland Jonas,

It is .... :)

The HD Model explains MUCH more.


No, it doesn't!

Chris Lopes said...

Again, if our current physics is wrong, nothing based on that physics would work, particularly the non-HD based physics used by the chip designers who built the processors in Hoagie's computer. Why is this simple idea beyond his comprehension?

expat said...

"I think a lot of quantum physics is crap" --Mike Bara, on Coast to Coast AM, 10th Nov.

"Are you aware that it is quantum physics driving the electronics that makes your woefully uneducated voice audible to the Coast to Coast audience? ... If this crap is so beneath you, please do us scientists a favor (since we seem to be wasting our lives on this so-called "crap"), and throw away your cell phone, laptop, TV, DVD player, MP3 player, watch, GPS, automobile, etc. We really don't want to burden your productive life with useless toys we've invented that happen to operate on fundamental quantum physics principles. I suggest that you re-take (or take, since there's no evidence that you have) some college physics courses so you understand how ridiculous you sound to the educated listener.

--C. Soakasian, in Amazon customer reviews

Biological_Unit said...

would agree that physics is still in its infancy

No, I wouldn't! The ANCIENT Greeks had developed Atomic theory and guessed the rough size of the Earth AND posited the Sun-centered Solar System!

✿ ♥ France ✿ ✿ said...

Bonne année à toi aussi
La joie
Le bonheur
et la santé