Saturday, November 24, 2012

A corrected edition of 'AA ot M'?

        Nah—just kidding. Mike wouldn't do that. But I couldn't resist teasing him when he announced a special 'Black Friday' deal on his primitive blog.

Dear Mike--
Isn't it time for a corrected edition? Your readers surely deserve better than fuzzy pictures of Proclus, Asada and Picard when LROC strips of these craters exist at 100x better resolution.

It would give you an opportunity, too, to retract the Italian scan of East Massif -- given that Davide De Martin, who did the scan, has said the "spar" is a scanning fault.

I hope you'd also eliminate your excruciatingly wrong paragraph about the appearance of Earth from space.

On the other hand, I guess the down side is that, if you corrected the book, there wouldn't be much left of it.
New readers can decode the text by referring back to these bloggeries:

Proclus and Asada
Italian scan of East Massif 
Earth from Space (error #15)

Any bets on whether he'll allow the comment to appear?


Strahlungsamt said...

Oh God!

Now that Bad Astronomy has moved to Slate, the quality of the comments has gone straight to the gutter.

I just went to the page about the exciting discovery on Mars that NASA is supposedly covering up, scrolled down to the comments until I found this (copied and pasted with all spelling errors intact).

Thomas Turk
Why would nasa tell you anything now. They altered the color phots of previous Mars photos to show red instead of blue atmosphere. They degraded the Mars 'Face' to make it look like a natural piece of rock, wheres early shots showed symmetry, teeth, eyes etc. They ignored the geometric structures, mechanicak parts etc that the airbrushers omitted to airbrush out, so why expect anyjthing now, apart from maybe... microbes.

If you open you will need to re-organise your thinking and, you will defintiely stop waiting for snippets of info/misinfo from nasa. After all it was agreed at Brookings in 1958 that should there be any discoveries of past civilizations in our solar system in the upcoming space programs, they would not be disseminated.

The question is, is this Hoagie or one of his sheep/followers?
And that's not the worst of them. Trouble is, Slate gets a different audience from Discovery so Donald Trump's hair and Obama's birth cert get brought up quite a bit. Not to mention Tea partiers complaining about NASA wasting their precious tax dollars.

expat said...

PLEASE PLEASE stop posting bullshit.

Biological_Unit said...

Sorry "lady", humans evolved in Earth Gravity, just like every other living specie. An Inter-generational Star Ship, spinning to provide Gravity, would have stopped nearby. It would be a super valuable resource to ANY civilization! No such thing is out there!

Unknown said...


I just looked at the 5-part rebuttal by Bara about the Lunar Ziggurat and one thing that jumped out at me when he tried to reduce the noise in the pic (or even before, for that matter) is how it looks like a very poorly-produced FAKE. From memory, it looks like it has a higher sun-angle than other parts of the pic, but even more, there are very clearly defined edges, where, if we're talking about back-scatter, wouldn't its effects be more pronounced higher on the wall than at the bottom, which would have next to none?

Unknown said...

WTF? Enough said.

expat said...

Julian: wow, that was brave. The full exchange between Bara and Robbins is book-length, almost literally.

I agree with you but I think it was done rather well -- in other words, not too obviously.

Unknown said...

Well, I'm not saying Bara or Hoagland did it. I remember reading it can be traced to 2003 and, as far as I know, they didn't start commenting on the alleged ziggurat until more recenty. I have a hypothesis that maybe it was not originally photoshopped to represent what is currently on the moon. Maybe someone examined te original shot from NASA an thought it looked like an ancient ziggurat with a lot of wear and tear and wanted to show what that ziggurat may have looked like (sort of an artist's conceptual rendering).

expat said...

Goddamit, Misti, you are really, really slow on the uptake aren't you?

>>Or is NASA just somebody's sacred cow? <<


Unknown said...

I have read all of Robbin's argument about the Ziggurat, but have yet to finish Bara's original claim and parts of his rebuttal (most of the way through). To my mind, he has the burden of proof thing completely backwards. Robbins does not have to prove anything, Bara does. Someone might think that's a strange statement, but from my experience, it is the person who is making the affirmative case in a debate that needs to establish their argument. He makes extraordinary claims (ie, there is an ancient artifact on the moon) and he needs to have demonstrated that the best evidence shows that it is there. And that has not been demonstrated. He can't even provide real evidence that the photo is genuine. Oh well.

expat said...

The burden of proof is on Bara, no question at all. He failed.

John Cooper said...

John Cooper said...

The Return of Holy Cow!

NASA is just another kind of modern religion using the old brain washing methods! At the time when people start to losing faith in that religion the ruling elite will send false prophets to state that there is something which is sacred and hidden from them and it's so holy that cannot be told! Then the people regain their faith waiting for that missing part to come and so the cow becomes holy but also her milk and shit as well!

Biological_Unit said...

You nailed it!

expat said...

John, I don't follow you at all, but perhaps I'm not supposed to.

Unknown said...

Same here. Very obscure.

Jiminy Oddbird said...

Frank Schweinefleischposted
to Mike Bara
6 hours ago

How did you first meet Dr Hoagland, Mike, and get the gig as co-writer? Is it true that Preston Nicols actually ghost wrote Monuments of Mars?

Mike Bara
That is not true. Richard wrote every word of Monuments. I started writing web articles for Richard's site in the mid-90's and we put the book together in 2007 out of a selection of them.

4 hours ago

Frank Schweinefleisch
Who is the crazy hacker that keeps jamming Dr Hoagland's FB page? Is it Preston Nicols? Why does he have such a big grudge against the good captain? I figured it must be like some ghost that didn't get paid. Did you and Dr Hoagland split 50/50?

a few seconds ago

FlightSuit said...

Somebody should inform Frank Schweinefleisch that Richard Hoagland is not a doctor.

Ricky Poole said...

I'm always amazed when NASA is talked about as though it were SPECTRE, or KAOS.

expat said...

Looks as though Frank Schweinefleisch is Misti, and vice versa.

Chris Lopes said...

Anyone who has seen Hoagland's presentations can tell he wrote MoM. Both have the same dreary, unrelenting self-importance with nothing backing it up that Hoagland does so well. He really doesn't need any help in being that awful.

expat said...

Misti (or Frank Pork-Chop): Why would you expect to be given information about the X-37B? It's a classified project.

Unknown said...

So I guess Mike Bara likes a Pravda piece that calls Obama a Communist. LMAO. I can't allow myself to read the whole article. Two big honking lies in the first few sentences is enough. The second was saying that Obama raised faxes. He WANTS to raise taxes on high income households, but so far, he has only CUT taxes. Payroll tax cut anyone? Making work pay tax credit anyone? And Mike Bara says, about the article: I couldn't have said it better. If that's true, Mike, maybe you're in tge wrong business...

expat said...

Misti: If your aim was to annoy me -- congratulations, you've succeeded. You're a fucking genius aren't you?

Now for the downside. This blog is going temporarily to "moderated." Everyone else will get their comments posted. Yours will onl;y be posted if they are:

- on topic
- not annoying, or even facetious
- not decorated with silly corruptions of peoples' nicknames

FlightSuit said...

Expat, you have been more than tolerant of Misti's nonsense.

As for me, I really feel like I might have some hope of rebuilding my self esteem now that she won't be able to call me Fright Soot all the time.


expat said...

Rather confirming that Frank Schweinefleisch = "Misti" Parker, the very first post of Misti's that I refused to allow was essentially identical to Frank's post to Mike Bara's FooBoo. The one beginning "NASA is sloppy, corrupt and needs much more peer review."

Strahlungsamt said...


Pravda went from being the organ of the USSR's Communist Party to being a reputable news source during the Gorbatchev years. Under Yeltsin, it went all cuckoo and started writing stories about UFOs, ghosts and quack medicine. Now it's just unreadable bilge on par with the worst of the woo community (and, believe me, Hoagie and Mike are only the tip of the iceberg on Planet Woo).

Sadly, critical thinking was not taught in the Soviet Union. I deal with Russians on a regular basis and, believe me, you don't know what a backward mindset they have until you've hung out with them. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING evil in the world is caused by the Jews and the Zionist New World Order. Astrology, homeopathy and magnetic bracelets are legitimate science but mention a scientific fact and you're a Zionist out to destroy Christian (read Russian) society. The Evil Empire (translate America) is holding space aliens, the Moon Landings are faked and the Protocols of Zion are apparently taught as history in schools. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the Russian media was so keen to interview Hoagland.

If you don't believe me, go to, quite a good news source out of Russia. The articles are OK (if somewhat biased). It's the comments that are the real eye openers. Just read the blind rage of the average Russian and the level of awareness of the world really comes out. Especially when the name of Obama is mentioned.

"Richard Hoagland - People Already Live on the Moon"

Anonymous said...

It appears Bara has gotten his friends or facebook followers to give phony five star reviews of his book on amazon. Bara has no shame.

expat said...

Yes indeed, he was totally shameless about that. Every time a FuckBoo fan wrote "Loved the book, Mike", he replied "Well get on over to Amazon and give it a good review then." He's managed to get five 5*s to balance the four 1*s.

Ricky Poole said...

One of those reviews says, "Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Bara's conclusions, you can't help but be captivated by his witty, eloquent style and logic constructions. This tome is very entertaining and doesn't insult the reader's intelligence and handles a controversial subject with the utmost seriousness." This caused me to spit coffee all over the keyboard and howl with laughter. To say that review is dripping with irony is an understatement to be sure. "...doesn't insult the reader's intelligence ..." That is just rib cracking funny.

Unknown said...

A little slimy, but probably not any worse than having a book of junk science that misleads people about the evidence of a former civilization on Mars, the Moon or the conspiracy by NASA to keep it from the public. :)

Hey, Richard... We can use smiley faces after saying stuff too. LOL. :D

Unknown said...

I've decided to start my own pro-science and anti-pseudoscience blog. Getting a tad too annoyed by the Hoagland/Bara and Ancient Aliens crowd to hold it in anymore.

Here's the URL... I hope you are amused by the title (I was inspired by you, Expat):

expat said...

Yesterday, "biological unit" posted a comment here that was the vilest anti-jew propaganda that I've ever seen.

I'm glad the blog is temporarily moderated so that I was the only person who saw it. George -- that was disgusting. You aren't going to post anything here any more.

On another note -- I welcome interposemission to the small family of blogs that defend the truth. I'm not quite so happy about the joker who's using the twitter-name (tweetname?) MickBara to mock the other Bara. That seems childish.

Ricky Poole said...

What are you thoughts on Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films." It can be seen at Weidner claims that Hoagland's glass structures in Apollo photographs are actually the scotchlight screen system used to create these videos in studio. Weidner believes that we went to the moon, but we were shown footage shot in case some blunder occurred.

expat said...

I don't have an hour to devote to Jay Weidner's "Speculative Study" [sic] but he was on C2C with it last night, and in any case I've heard his thesis before.

I think his case is extremely weak. Weak to non-existent. What he says is a false horizon in Apollo imagery, hiding the base of the front projection screen, looks just like a horizon to me. I don't believe the Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens Kubrick used to shoot by candlelight was either donated by NASA or worth a million dollars.

As someone who, for professional reasons, has viewed every second of every film and video shot on the Moon, I have personally seen nothing inconsistent with the "official story."

Ricky Poole said...

I agree, I see no reason to doubt the official story or doubt the authenticity of the moon footage. One problem with the whole idea to me is one of budget. One of his assumptions is that Kubrick was given "an unlimited budget" to make all of these moon films in studio at the same time they were building spacecraft with parts from the lowest bidder. At any rate, Weidner's theories and "finds" in Kubrick's movies are entertaining.

Strahlungsamt said...


Thanks for finally moderating this blog. I've seen too many forums getting trolled and spammed to death by school bullies with no lives.

BU's anti-Jew rant was probably triggered by my comment about the Russian mindset. Sorry BU but that comment was based on my own experiences and I stand by it. You've only proven me correct.

My main reason for coming on here is that I also used to believe in UFOs and seances when I was younger. Sadly, it caused me to make bad judgements in my life and taught me one thing, that believing in wrong ideas causes you to do wrong things and that wrong ideas are never completely harmless.

I find it truly scary today how many people cling to long debunked ideas like Astrology and Homeopathy and how many otherwise intelligent young people "know" the Moon Landings were definitely faked. Explaining the optics on the Moon gets me blank stares. If I quote real science, I'm part of the Great World Conspiracy. Arguing with these people is an uphill struggle but I feel it's more important to get the truth out.

I thought of doing a debunking blog myself but given my workload, that won't happen before Von Braun's secret part 3 (stay tuned) comes out. One of my pet interests is showing the many scientific errors in 2001 and how it bears no resemblance to Apollo footage.

I look forward to reading some great rants on your blog. Best of luck with it.

expat said...

>>wrong ideas are never completely harmless.<<

Yes, yes, YES!!! That's EXACTLY the point. It should be the sub-title of the blog.

FlightSuit said...

Yes, kudus to you, Expat, for not tolerating anti-Semitic nonsense. Anti-Semitism, I've noticed, is just one of the things conspiracy theorists are all too quick to embrace as they slide down that slippery slope of theirs. If you believe that warring factions of Nazis and Freemasons control NASA and both conspire to hide alien artifacts all over our solar system, it's not much of a leap to also believe the Jews are secretly controlling and manipulating everything else.

This is why you see so much anti-Semitic content on a site like, for example.

Tara Jordan said...

@Strahlungsamt .You`re a real intellectual luminary, you posted something extremely
prejudicial & discriminative (borderline racist) to Russians ("I deal with Russians on a regular basis and, believe me, you don't know what a backward mindset they have until you've hung out with them. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING evil in the world is caused by the Jews and the Zionist New World Order"), yet you have the nerve to denounce Biological Unit "antisemitism"?. Charity begins at home

Unknown said...


I hope I shan'tt disappoint. I thought of calling the blog ISS Enterprise, but I thought that would (a) be a little too inside for Trekkies and (b) maybe would imply that "our side" is evil (if you read too much from the episode "Mirror, Mirror"). I admit that I thought Spock looked maybe better with a beard. :)

I'm thinking I might make the smiley face a running gag, just because Hoagland seems to use it quite a bit in emails where he is dismissive of skeptics. It's funny that he would use an example of pareidolia in dismissing skepticism, while basing a lot of his case for ancient extraterrestrial (literally) civilizations on pareidolia like the Face on Mars and datas head, etc. ;)