The question was triggered by the appearance of an imp in the tweetosphere, mocking our Mike in what I think is a rather childish way. It's fairly harmless as it stands, but what I fear is that whoever the imp is will be driven to post more and more outrageous stuff until it gets too disgusting to bear.
Mike's own opinion was that the critics are jealous because he's more important than them. Well, we've heard that one before, and I don't quite understand how "importance" is measured. If it's by appearances on pseud-psych radio, he's got me beat for sure. However, I protest that I'm not jealous — no, not even one tiny bit.
Over the target?
Fan #1 posted an explanation which is what I really want to comment on today: "You receive the most flak when you are over the target." That's a very, very common reaction pseudoscience has when its fallacies are pointed out and described. Richard Hoagland pushed the exact same button when he wrote to me, on July 25th:
The more you guys howl, the more certain I become that we're "onto something ...."So this is the theory. Critics only voice criticism if what they are criticizing is actually true, or very nearly true. The problem is, they never observe the logical converse. Did any pseudo ever say "I'm not getting any criticism, so I must be wrong"?
Mike managed to be wrong YET AGAIN during a very brief appearance on Coast to Coast AM last night (29 nov), commenting about Project A119. He said "Explorer 1 ended up 600 miles too high because they didn't understand the physics."
As this blog has pointed out many times, Von Braun understood the physics of satellite orbits very well. It's Mike Bara who plainly does not. The semi-major axis of Explorer 1's orbit (which is what counts) was 4868 miles. That was about 300 miles, or 6.5%, greater than planned. Easily explained by variability of the solid rocket fuel of the day. WTF made the C2C-AM producers think Bara was any kind of expert on this?