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?
Very funny. So... the ONLY reason that people would challenge Hoagland and Bara's nonsense is because it is true? I guess when people don't comment negatively on what they say, they must be off the mark! Or maybe there's no conspiracy about those elements of their claims. But here's a thought: maybe some people want to present the truth so people won't be taken in by their strange and sometimes demonstrably wrong ideas.
Abuse if you slight it, will gradually die away; but if you show yourself irritated, you will be thought to have deserved it.
Cornelius Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD)
Using the same logic, the more Bara calls his critics "psychos," "douchebags," or (gasp) "homosexuals," the more I know that you all are onto something and what he is saying is ridiculous.
By the same logic if Bara and Hogland and people like that criticize NASA, ESA and the international scientific community is because these agencies and groups say the truth
Very good point. Why didn't I write that?
C2C accepts Hoagland as an expert in astrophysics and planetary science. By those standards, Bara can be an authority on rocket science and orbital mechanics if he wants to be. Just don't let either one of those jokers near a real rocket. It would put the science of rocketry back decades.
This just in:
Mike liked Nikki Nova.
International Model (adult & fashion),Playboy TV host, B movie starlet, Improv comedian, who also produces, directs and writes for multiple publications
I am currently (gleefullly) working on my first post where I tackle any claims by Hoagland and crew. Okay, I'm writing abour Hoagland's claim about Phobos being a spaceship. Mostly it's because that topic is low-hanging fruit. I'm trying to keep the tone from being comdescending or ad-hominem. I'm bending over backwards on that, trying not to call him or others pseudo-scientists. I wish Mr. Hoagland would have more updates to his website. BTW, does anyone know where I can find his 1989 "paper" message from cydonia. I thought I had found it on his website, but I haven't been able to find it again.
One shouldn't mock, but the way Nikki writes that all her photos are copy-written [sic] is just adorable.
Does no one actually read the FB TOS?
Thanks, Expat. I don't know how I found it before or how I lost it since...
I'm always amazed when porn stars and sex workers are willing to be friends with somebody like Mike Bara, a hardcore Republican whose party is completely devoted to furthering the patriarchy, moralism, sexual repression, blue laws, and slut-shaming with make life difficult for sex workers and porn stars.
I just finished my first substantive post on my new blog. I hope ya'all like it (I lived in Raleigh, NC, for one year). Here's the URL for the homepage of my blog: http://interposemission.blogspot.com
I'm surprised Richard C. Hoagland doesn't have a wish list on his Facebook account. Can you put "$40,000 so I can do some science in Egypt" on a wishlist? Probably not. I'm guessing it has to be an item that can be ordered from Amazon or some other online store.
Post a Comment