Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Mike Bara plays "My gf is prettier than yours"

Part 1

        He cheated!! His "girl" is Shana Eva, a married actress he met at Conscious Life Expo. I don't believe she's ever been a girlfriend in any truly satisfying sense. What does it say about a man that he attempts to rebut a Ph.D. astronomer with this drivel, and then cheats into the bargain??

There's more...

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

        Amazingly, Bara allowed two of my comments to appear, and counter-commented with what look like death threats. I'm not sure if Google's ToS cover those...

Two more comments of mine were suppressed:

You write that your statement about the eccentricity of the orbit of Mars is FACTUALLY CORRECT. However, it is not. The reason is that the disparity between closest and furthest approaches to another planet IS NOT A MEASURE of eccentricity.

You may have forgotten that, on 12th November 2010, you made it FAR WORSE by writing this:

"I was simply using the example of the wildly varying distance between the Earth and Mars as an example of how eccentric, meaning eliptical [sic], Mars orbit is. If both orbits were circular, there would be no such variation. They would maintain basically the same distance relative to each other. It is Mars' orbital eccentricity which creates this 200 million mile variation."

It's good that you showed the histogram of planet eccentricities. It makes the point that, discounting Pluto, ONLY ONE planet has eccentricity > 0.1. That falsifies your opinion that high eccentricities throughout the solar system are good evidence for solar fission.

You write here that orbital eccentricity "has nothing to do with the Solar fission theory." Please re-read The Choice, pp.33-37 from "The problem we face today..." to "....got there in the first place."


Derek Eunson's comment was also suppressed:

Why won't you allow a discussion on your blog regarding your attempted rebuttal of Dr Robbins' critique? You are exercising extreme moderation.

Why do you refuse to debate me 1v1 ?  Instead you tuck tail and run like a chickenshit, yellow bellied wee pansy. What's up Mike, scared of engineers ?
        All readers are encouraged to post comments themselves. Ya never know, ya might get lucky.

        I sent Mike another message informing him (politely) that If Mars' orbit were perfectly circular its distance from Earth would still vary from 47 million miles to 236 million. His reply was as follows:

"You're a complete fucking idiot."

        I'm seeking clarification. That's where we stand for the moment.


Binaryspellbook said...

Bet this won't get published either. I emailed it to the badass himself also.

Hi Mike,

I notice that you make reference to protocols in your latest bloggery. Scientific protocols. Are you aware that your friend and former co-author RCH has never ONCE met the rigorous protocols required by the scientific method in his torsion field experiments.

NO baseline
NO control
NO raw data released
Off scale graphs
NO calibration

Dr Robbins outlined very well on his site how such an experiment should be set up. You, and Richard, would do well to read it. If those criteria were met, then perhaps real engineers and scientists like myself and Dr Robbins would take note.
If you really were an engineer like you claim (incidentally I don't believe that for a nano second) you would realise that Hoagland's experiments are worthless.

Oh and loved the claim that having a tattoo makes you more badass. In fact I am still laughing. Perhaps you could be more badass scientifically rather than pretending to be some tough guy. Which you clearly are not.

That whole diatribe about Dr Robbins was very telling Mikey. I think you lack confidence in a seriously debilitating way. Causing you to strike out with pathetic high school level insults instead of debate.

One of your best yet was saying on radio, "I think Von Braun snuck in a couple of extra terms into the equation without anyone noticing." What utter nonsense, and further proof of the fact you are no more an engineer than I am Elvis.

Utterly pathetic.

Just in case I don't manage to make one of your lectures in the US next year. Do you have any plans to come to Britain. I'd really love to have a little chat one on one Mike to discuss our scientific differences. Anywhere anytime just you and me. I'm guessing you don't have the balls for that. Prove me wrong Mr Badass.

Kindest Regards

James Concannon said...

Mike Bara is a child.

Chris said...

Children grow up, whereas Mike Bara's infantile tantrums and creepy self-loathing, erm I mean self-love, speaks for itself.

Biological_Unit said...

I guess we should ask Tom Van Flanderen about HD Fissicks.
I have his book and it's heavy enough to stun an ox!

Biological_Unit said...

I tried to post this at Baranoia Central:

The kind of alignments I’m talking about and the energies involved have nothing to do with gravity?

You're making all this shit up!


You hate Math! You are like a Hockey player who doesn't know how to skate - you just like spearing people from the bench with a hockey stick!

Chris Lopes said...

Perhaps you should have suggested that Mike read up on a guy named Kepler. Learning science from Uncle Dickie has its downsides.

Biological_Unit said...

Newton stood on Kepler's shoulder - Mikey relies good'ole Cut-and-Paste from the interweb!
This forces us to disprove vague concepts on the Net. He hopes that we will tire ourselves out of the discussion.

Biological_Unit said...

Bar Rage:

Second, “peer review” is not and never has been a requirement of the scientific method. There’s nothing in any accepted definition of the scientific method which says anything about it. It is an invention of the tenured scientific-materialist class, designed to keep anyone and any idea which is outside their accepted canon from being considered or studied by mainstream science or seen by the public in general.

A Canned, stupid response! Let's get to Mars by Prayer or New-Agey Chanting. Mars Revealer needs his paranoia back!

Anonymous said...

Bara is a moron.

Trained Observer said...

Wait a minute! Did he say peer-reviews were invented to keep mainstream science from considering or studying new ideas? Isn't the exact opposite true? Aren't peer REVIEWs there for the careful consideration and study of new ideas to vet them? When I read that my brain started grinding gears like a rusty old tractor. Sheesh. Bara's tendency for double-speak is astounding.

Anonymous said...

Second, “peer review” is not and never has been a requirement of the scientific method. There’s nothing in any accepted definition of the scientific method which says anything about it. It is an invention of the tenured scientific-materialist class, designed to keep anyone and any idea which is outside their accepted canon from being considered or studied by mainstream science or seen by the public in general.

I take it he has heard of the Royal Society, hasn't he? Hasn't he? What a fuckin idiot.


Dee said...

"... designed to keep anyone and any idea which is outside..."

Especially those extremely poorly formulated and documented tenacious ideas which Bara and Hoagland have been pushing.

Bara is correct in that sense. But it's designed not only to keep them out but to prevent as many scientists as possible from wasting time on finding the errors and polluting the stream

This has been my biggest criticism of Hoagland & Co over the years, outside any content: if he had hooked up with some educated science folks experienced with publishing and then together had worked on an acceptable format, perhaps some low impact journal or magazine would have published something. Surviving a few rejects, tune, refine, etc. Like many scholars have to struggle.

The problem always seemed to be RCH's inability to cooperate on a basic level which is the beginning of good research: getting out of your basement and work with equals instead of falling out with them each and every year. Bara never even bothered, he always flies solo anyway ;)

expat said...

Very good point, and I agree.

In fact I messaged RCH just today as follows:

Ritual Alignment Model
Let me try one more time, perhaps you're in a co-operative mood today:

- What tolerance do you allow on the star elevation?

- Do you take the time of an event as planned, or as occurred?

If you refuse to provide this information, how do you expect other researchers to confirm or falsify your work?

FlightSuit said...

I find the woman in the photo with Stuart Robbins to be more attractive than the one Mike Bara is restraining from behind.

expat said...

Any idea what he means by "Are her initials AFF?"

FlightSuit said...

I haven't a clue. Perhaps it's a reference to somebody who unfairly harassed Bara by confronting him with facts.

Anonymous said...

Judging from Bara's general name calling and misogynistic patterns, I'm guessing he meant to type 'ARF'.