The occasion was his lecture at the recent Contact in the Desert conference/orgy, now available on the tube that is Google. The first 30 minutes of this drivel was solid Trump propaganda. Mike is a staunch and uncompromising Republican of the "socialists are all wimps, nya nya neener-neener" variety. This blog tries not to get into party politics, just as it has no particular position on the question of whether Manchester United or Manchester City is the better team (Mike thinks City, and tweets the point constantly.) Right now when the world thinks "Manchester" it's thinking of graver things than footy.
Upside down
For the next seven minutes, Mike treated his audience to his standard pareidolia schtick, showing them a tank, a flying saucer, and the famous (ahem) ziggurat, on the Moon. Then came this:
37:33 Bara: "This is a picture of what they say is debris running down the side of a crater. What I love to do with NASA images, is I love to flip them upside down. Because.... just because they say that UP is that way doesn't mean that up IS that way. ... What happens when you flip it upside down? When you flip it upside down it becomes this."
Bara: "Now, my model for NASA and other people is that there is glass structure -- crystalline structure all over the planet, some as much as 20 miles high [which] was used as a meteor shield, because glass is actually as strong or stronger than steel. It'd be a perfect thing for a meteor shield."
Well, I have several comments on that dismal performance. Take a look at the original page this image came from, and you'll notice a few things:
Thing 1: This image was not posted by NASA, but by Arizona State University. See that URL, asu.edu? It's part of a strip from the Narrow Angle Camera of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, showing a landslide down the side of crater Marius. So it isn't "a NASA image" at all.
Thing 2: Scroll that page down to the entire NAC strip. Poke that |+| button a few times so you can interpret the image. If what Mike says were true, and the jaggy feature was really sticking up instead of down, the rest of the strip should show pure black sky. Instead, it shows the floor of the crater, as we expect based on ASU's captioning. I have already criticized Mike Bara for this flagrantly dishonest image manipulation, in reviewing his book Hidden Agenda.
Thing 3: In his book Ancient Aliens on the Moon, Bara cites a paper by Rowley & Neudeckernote 1 in support of that idea that, on the Moon, "glass is actually as strong or stronger than steel." As I wrote in February 2013, Rowley & Neudecker say no such thing. On the contrary, a paper by J.D.Blacicnote 2 in the same journal tells the converse story.
Table 1 from Blacic, J.D.
The young's modulus of lunar glass is ~100 giga-pascals cf. Earth glass 68 because of the extreme dryness of the environment. But steel is way stronger at 224 giga-pascals. So I make that three whopping inaccuracies in just that short excerpt from the lecture. I maintain this amounts to a confession, because he's saying this wasn't a random mistake or some accident. The inversion of the image, and the publication of it alleging that it was something it patently is not, was a deliberate act. Shame on Bara and on the publisher, David Hatcher Childress.
Valve handle
Bara next switched to Ceres, Powerpointing the famous salt deposits and claiming that they had to be evidence of internal illumination. He even showed an aerial image of Las Vegas at night, noting the similarities to the Occator crater on Ceres. Evidently he thinks a dwarf planet can contain a Vegas-like city, devoid of any context--devoid of an atmosphere and almost all gravity, as well. Cougars in micro-gravity? Could be fun, I suppose.
Then it was on to Mars, with Bara essentially repeating the errors I reported on back in March, complete with that 20ft high cat playing air guitar. "My philosophy," he said, "is if it looks like something then it probably is." Yes, we know Mike, that's the problem.
Then came another old favorite. After showing the Antikythera mechanism, he continued...
1:00:32 There are things like this on Mars too. Because if you look at the pictures, what you see is stuff on Mars. This is a microscopic view, it's not really super-small but it's...about that big. This looks like a bunch of rocks..but I'll tell you what that is. That is some sort of pipe with a fitting on it that screws into something else... a valve handle.
Mick West of metabunk.org explained, long ago, that this feature is actually the impression of a Phillips head screw in the casing of Opportunity's x-ray spectrometer. The head of the instrument is pressed firmly into the dirt in order to get a good reading.
Mike Bara declared quite some time ago that he was not going to pay any attention to his critics. It's like he just wants to be wrong all the time.
Update 6 June
With Dee's comment today, that makes three people who have pointed out that the School of Earth & Space Exploration at ASU is NASA in all but name. Stuart Robbins calls it the official Planetary Data System annex of JPL. I defend the distinction I make on these grounds: The walls of ASU may not be ivied exactly, but they do enclose academe. The day-to-day work of data processing is done by graduate students and post-docs, mainly. Even supposing there were some conspiracy within NASA to obfuscate certain planetary features, it's not credible that this would extend to ASU. Can you imagine NASA saying "Here's a contract to do data processing, but a condition is that you agree to falsify some of your data"? Can you imagine ASU accepting that? Can you imagine post-docs accepting that they have to withhold or "doctor" some of their output, and keep quiet about it?
====================/ \======================
[1] Rowley, J.C. and Neudecker, J.W. In situ rock melting applied to lunar base construction...etc
[2] Blacic, J. D. Mechanical Properties of Lunar Materials Under Anhydrous, Hard Vacuum Conditions: Applications of Lunar Glass Structural Components
45 comments:
Are you saying, Patrick, that the images from the NASA, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's ConTeXt Camera data, processed by the Science Operation Center with the final products being delivered to the NASA Planetary Data System, have been tampered with by faculty, staff, or students, of Arizona State University, School of Earth & Space Exploration?
Emphatically NOT.What would make you think that?
[ "Thing 1: This image was not posted by NASA, but by Arizona State University. See that URL, asu.edu? It's part of a strip from the Narrow Angle Camera of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, showing a landslide down the side of crater Marius. So it isn't "a NASA image" at all." ]
Confess, Patrick. The 'Thing 1', is in fact a NASA image, irrespective of whatever it may actually be of, altered or not by NASA or Arizona State University.
And NASA is a major funder of ASU's School of Earth & Space Exploration, although I wouldn't know the amounts, percentages or actual influence on hiring any secret image doctors in the teams for each and every program. But generally the Orb has somewhat of a point: that it's almost moot. Then again, Mike never was very exact even when "pointing to the fly" back in another shady bar. So this is, like "Bara-speak" for some "space thingy" making snaps somewhere in a place where universal laws could be suspended any minute, at will really :-)
I especially resent people pretending to support what I say, by misrepresenting me, as Dee does here. I'm saying flat out, that Patrick is wrong, and that the images are in fact from NASA, which controls the data.
Semantics, semantics. What does "control the data" mean? I assume the data stream passes through Deep Space Network, which is controlled at JPL. So it's controlled in that sense. But it isn't READABLE until it passes to ASU's post-docs for processing. There would be no conceivable way for the DSN admins to blot out a flying saucer or a glass tower.
The fact that the images can only be referenced primarily through NASA, is why photographs are only admissible in a court of law, with a first hand eye witness who can attest what it is that they depict.
Even you, Patrick, will acknowledge the people are pattern recognition dependent; seeing faces in clouds formations, for instance.
There are images on the NASA website that have obviously been altered. There is no way to be certain if those images have had aspects created or subjects redacted. Therefore, NASA has no dependable, credibility. It might be speculated that NASA does this as either a matter of National Security, or else to entice tax payers. When you exaggerate, it only gives weight to the subject of your derision.
Perhaps that's your real intent?
More specifically to your assertion of chain of custody, we really don't know if the chain of custody is as NASA has us understand it to be. The images supposedly come from the Moon, in this case, but whatever one believes about the US going to the Moon, or the Moon missions being fabricated in a TV studio, the images from probes or supposed probes, could be fabricated entirely on a desktop, transmitted into Space, and bounced off the Moon.
Are such images worth the time and expense and risk to human life, to justify a manned mission into Space, in order to verify what the images appear to be of? As you well know, even the anecdotal accounts from astronauts have been doubted and sometimes misrepresented.
« There are images on the NASA website that have obviously been altered »
Links please...
Just take the circular argument about the images of the Domes on the Moon.
Notice the rectangular cut and paste outline around the Face at Cydonia.
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/cydonia2.html
Viking 1-61
(35A72
NASA can't even give us a real, non-altered, non-composited image of Earth,
and we LIVE HERE, dammit.
There are images on the NASA website that have obviously been altered.
Assuming, for a moment, that NASA does have a secret to keep, wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to omit these same images altogether rather than attempting to alter them and run the risk of having the alterations discovered?
(Can you think of anything more likely to call attention to something secret than an "obviously altered" photograph of it? Me neither.)
Why NASA would choose to spend its time dinking around trying to alter images when it can simply not publish them in the first place is beyond me.
There is no way to be certain if those images have had aspects created or subjects redacted. Therefore, NASA has no dependable, credibility. It might be speculated that NASA does this as either a matter of National Security, or else to entice tax payers.
Entice taxpayers to do what, exactly?
WS
Marius crater is clearly visible from Earth with even a basic telescope set up. Anyone can check for themselves that there are no crystal towers in it. You will not see any photographs taken by anyone, ever, showing crystal towers because they do not exist.
@expat « There are images on the NASA website that have obviously been altered » Links please...
Normally I agree with most of the arguments you put forth on your blog...but this...this is...Really..you must be having a laugh...or are you serious about this one? Please...this is a childish reaction to put it mildly. A tactic mostly used by politicians and their ilk in order to stall and prolong a lost argument. I'm sure Ripley will provide all the links you need to make you utter a careful motivated mea culpa :-) Surely you're not that daft....just take a look at all the nice orange/red pictures of Mars...although to be fair...lately there some "untainted" pictures showing a "Raleigh scattering" blue sky. There's no scientific sound reason at all to "adjust" the colors om Mars into the red/orange spectrum now is there? For some reason they changed to gradually showing "real color" pictures of Mars. A statement like "Nasa never altered, manipulated, falsified or changed pictures" and maintaining this as such in arguments is a beautiful and classic example of cognitive dissonance.
So come on expat, buckle up :-) and admit it :-)
and no stalling with reactions like....admit what....or...I won't buckle until someone provides me with the links...you're an expert of sorts...you know all the nooks and crannies of NASA when it comes these bamboozle pictures.
and if you insist :-)
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/html/jsc2000e10522.html
take the high-res option :-)
« Notice the rectangular cut and paste outline around the Face at Cydonia. »
I notice no such thing. There are 18 Viking images of Owen Mesa--here's a guide from MSSS.
Anon: The color of Mars imagery is definitely a problem. IRL the sky changes from sol to sol, depending on how much dust is floating around. That makes the subjective color of the terrain change as well. Don Davis is the expert on this. I could not agree that there are "obvious changes" in what JPL releases.
Japan's view of Marius crater's landslides as shown in a 3D model I made myself.
http://i.imgur.com/lPQOWAb.jpg
Because that's what researcher's actually do - they check things.
No crystal towers.
Very nice, OBM
Here, I added yellow arrows to point at the artificial looking lines which frame the face at Cydonia. There are many such lines, framing lots of other features in the same image from NASA.
I can only suppose that NASA creates such images in order to desensitize US from negative effects of potential exposure to ET, as per Brookings, if not entice tax payers to support extravagant missions to Mars. The more that NASA denies the existence of artificial artifacts off Earth, despite the evidence of them, manufactured by NASA, the more that people might tend to believe that NASA is covering up monuments on Mars, then demand missions to the Red Planet; cost no object.
Conversely, if the face is really a monument on Mars, then perhaps NASA cut the face from the picture, then pasted it back on, to make it look fake, so we wouldn't believe that it's real; again to desensitize US, though. There are so many similar images from Mars probes that NASA can't hide them, so maybe they can discredit them this way.
Obviously, this is all just speculation, but Patrick saying that he doesn't see the framed outline around the face, is even more incredible.
This is an extremely weak argument. In general, NASA does not create images, it acquires them. The negative effects of exposure to ET noted in the Brookings Report refer to actual face-to-face meetings between people from cultures at very different stages of development. I'm not aware of any research that warns against merely seeing evidence that a more advanced civilization exists or has existed. Cargo cults have no negative effects, they're just a waste of everyone's time. In any case, it's very hard to believe that anyone at JPL in July 1976 had read or even heard of the report, still less that they would have felt in any way obliged to follow its recommendations.
I already gave you a link to the MSSS page--did you read it? Did you see the significance of the map-projected images? Your idea that Owen Mesa was pasted on is just laughable, frankly.
The image from NASA which I posted the link to, as you requested, features a rectangular shape around the Face at Cydonia, as if it had been cut & pasted. I find that rather amusing, myself. Desensitization is a common therapeutic technique of Clinical Psychology.
I hypothesize that NASA may fear from the so-called, Brookings Report, that if Earthlings should encounter ET, that society would disintegrate. Therefore, in an attempt to mitigate such an event, people might be conditioned to accept the notion, so as not to panic if they were to encounter ET, and/or, perhaps at the same time, to not believe in ET and defect from Earth governments and enjoin with the ET's more technologically advanced culture. This being done in attempt as preventative measures.
A more conspiratorial hypothesis might be, that we are being prepared for a fake Alien invasion, to unify the World in one government, in defense against hostile ET, in order to prevent international nuclear war. There was an episode of Outer Limits starring Robert Culp as an astronaut who underwent medical and surgical cosmetic transformation to appear to be an Alien, for this very purpose.
Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
Theadora dear, you simply don't read my comments. I've already stated that your ideas have no merit, and explained why.
<>
No, you have decided there is a rectangular shape and that it was cut and pasted. No such lines appear in high resolution images, including those taken by agencies other than NASA. Higher resolution images show the face is entirely illusory, which kind of refutes your suggestion they are put there to encourage people to hand over research money.
Oh, and the Brooking report also contains a section that suggests alien contact of any kind could well be a unifying force.
Why would NASA contract the Brookings Institution, to conduct a study for: "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs,” in the first place, if they had no intention of creating policy, programs, and missions, based upon results from such research?
What would you propose be done, Patrick, in light of this excerpt from Dr Margret Mead's contribution:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640053196.pdf
The knowledge that life existed in other parts of the universe might lead to a greater unity of men on earth, based on the "oneness" of man or on the age-old assumption that any stranger is threatening. Much would depend on what, if anything, was communicated between man and the other beings: since after the discovery there will be years of silence (because even the closest stars are several light years away, an exchange of radio communication would take twice the number of light years separating our sun from theirs),the fact that such beings existed might become simply one of the facts of life but probably not one calling for action*- 351 Whether Earth men would be inspired to all-out space efforts by such a discovery is a moot question.
Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they have had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior.
Since intelligent life might be discovered at any time via the radio telescope research presently under way, and since the consequences of such a discovery are presently unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic circumstances, two re- search areas can be recommended:
-184- ~ . Continuing studies to determine emotional and intellectual understanding and attitudes -- and successive alterations of them if any -- regarding the possibility and consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life.-
36/*2 . . . Historical and empirical studies of the behavior of peoples 1 and their leaders when confronted with dramatic and unfamiliar events or social pressures.x/ provide programs for meeting and adjusting to the implications of such a discovery. studies would include: How might such information,under what circumstances,he presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?
My looking at all those images from NASA, again, as I have already done on my own, already before, and that you linked to above, has nothing to do with the link I posted to NASA of the Face at Cydonia, image #35A72. I did enjoy the comment you made in a thread below, about the probability of a Hoagland whisker in an image of the Glass Domes on the Moon. Changing the subject won't help you out of the bit of a sticky wicket which you've managed to have gotten yourself into, here.
« What would you propose be done... »
Nothing at all.
Monkey, the point is that the Face might well not be there at all, but only in image 35A72. That's why Patrick provided links to other images, in order to misdirect. I believe that I did make the other point, that the people of Earth might be united in defense against an Alien invasion as motive for fabricating the Face.
See, Patrick is in a double bind. If the Face is there, then NASA is covering it up. If the Face isn't there, then NASA is faking the image of it to scam mission funding from tax paying suckers. Either way, NASA is lying, as Richard C. Hoagland has persistently asserted.
I can only suppose that NASA creates such images in order to desensitize US from negative effects of potential exposure to ET, as per Brookings, if not entice tax payers to support extravagant missions to Mars.
You seem to set a lot of store by the Brookings Report, a document that was written more than a half-century ago. Since we're talking supposition (rather than established fact), do you suppose it's possible that most people in the federal government of 2017 are entirely unfamiliar with it, let alone feel obligated to follow any recommendations it made back in 1960?
Put another way: if you were a grunt at NASA being paid to cover up evidence of space aliens, couldn't you make a great deal more money by blowing the gaff and selling books and/or media interviews showing the irrefutable proof that space aliens exist?
I suppose it all boils down to how much faith one has in people being able to keep their mouths shut. Me, I have very little faith in people being able to keep even minor secrets under wraps, let alone major, headline-grabbing ones.
The more that NASA denies the existence of artificial artifacts off Earth, despite the evidence of them, manufactured by NASA, the more that people might tend to believe that NASA is covering up monuments on Mars, then demand missions to the Red Planet; cost no object.
Unfortunately for NASA, it lost its monopoly on spaceflight years ago. When you look around at what private industry is accomplishing (and with far less money), it quickly becomes apparent that the taxpaying public would be less likely to shout "Chequebooks Away, NASA!" now than they have ever been, aliens or no.
NASA's main handicap has never been lack of money, but rather, the fact that they are a bureaucracy, something no amount of money will ever change. Bureaucracies are primarily concerned with self-preservation, not with innovation. That's why you get "products" from NASA like the Space Shuttle, which kept manned spaceflight expensive rather than reducing costs the way NASA claimed it was going to when they were seeking funding for it. Likewise, the first space tourist flew with the Russians, not on the Shuttle.
If alien structures or artifacts are ever discovered on another planet, I would bet on SpaceX, Blue Origin, or Virgin Galactic getting people there to see them before NASA.
WS
The reasons for the Brookings report are clearly outlined in the introduction to it:
"In seeking assistance in carrying out the objectives of this section, NASA, through your Committee, and the Brookings Institution agreed that there was a wide range of studies in the social sciences that could be made of the potential benefits and problems arising from the peaceful use of space"
The report is not a study of the impact of alien contact. It is a study of the social implications of space research, one small potential impact of which is the study of alien life (extant or extinct) that might happen as a result.
Cherry picking one small part of that report and presenting it as both the sole reason for it and its sole conclusion is not a true representation of its contents or intent.
I took a look at the image TOW provided and added some extra red arrows to highlight what appears to be even more lines, obviously signs of manipulation of the image for some sinister purpose.
It would appear that the image is covered with lines, so much cut and pasting must having been done that the original could have been a selfie made in front of the Taj Mahal.
More lines
Lines lines everywhere but not a moment to think.
If you look at almost any image, especially a low quality one of a natural formation, you're going to see lines on it, especially if you want to find them.
Just because some lines appear around something that you deem important, doesn't mean the others, that have nothing to do with your object of interest and would therefore weaken the importance of the lines around something that you're asserting as being doctored, don't exist.
Also I'm surprised that that you are not aware of the phenomena of seeing patterns in images... of I forget, you are.
"Even you, Patrick, will acknowledge the people are pattern recognition dependent; seeing faces in clouds formations, for instance. "
I think you'll find that lines are also patterns.
« If the Face is there, then NASA is covering it up. »
Please read my essay "40 years of the Face on Mars"
So then it's simply a matter of time, before enough people finally go to Mars, and return to provide sufficient testimony of what is and isn't there, to be credible enough to be believed by those who are interested; but when?
No Theadora, that's not it. Owen Mesa has been photographed at increasingly fine resolution by three US spacecraft and one European. The question of whether it's THERE is settled. The question of whether it's artificial is also settled, to the satisfaction of everyone except a few cranks like Keith Laney and Mike Bara.
I can see that I wasn't clear in my most recent comment. The Face isn't the only artifact to be investigated. Do you suppose that the ancient libraries are still there, or have the Space NAZIs looted them all, by now?
Orb: "misrepresenting me, as Dee does here. I'm saying flat out, that Patrick is wrong, and that the images are in fact from NASA, which controls the data."
Well I was just putting the most positive spin on it really. But how would you suggest to control the data in a more fair, secure and transparent manner? And I can tell you, whatever you put on that list, it has been actually implemented already as long as it was in the realms of possibilities (finances, effort, best practice etc).
And internationally NASA defined more or less the standards for image control and archiving. Other nations don't do it that differently and way often a bit less transparent. So in the end you're suggesting here NASA and partners do something "bad" while it's actually clear to virtually anyone in the industry that it's good.
As I said -- the point is moot. Build your own darn spacecraft, make your own instrument image analysis. Then come back talk about trusting you (which is another topic, what did you ever say and do to trust that you are actually understanding what you're talking about here? See how your NASA "skepticism" comes back to haunt you? Mote & beam situations.)
Dee
Orbs: Well, now I know you're just trolling. Stop it--it's annoying.
Just because NASA is state of the art, that doesn't make it's propaganda honest. NASA is under the DoD, same as the CIA, the government agency which brought you MK Ultra. To say that we mustn't question government agencies, is to live in China or Russia. I wouldn't say the things that I do, if Patrick weren't baiting for it. If anyone tries to build their own Spacecraft and head to Mars without government license, the X-37B would most likely shoot it down with SDI. An retired astronaut told me personally that SDI actually does in fact exist, Patrick's contradictions, notwithstanding.
Questioning things is fine if you are prepared to accept the answer. If you have already decided what the answer is that's something else.
In terms end it matters not what the sources of data are, what matters is their veracity. I have seen nothing but bare assertion that any NASA images are not genuine. Evidence from other sources supports them. Bara's bullshit is not verifiable.
More bad-tempered trolling from Theadora disallowed
Either way, NASA is lying, as Richard C. Hoagland has persistently asserted.
...over 9,000 times.
OK: you got me. I had actually thought you were serious...until you blew the gaff by invoking the name of Richard Hoagland, a name that hasn't been taken seriously for years in pseudoscientific circles, let alone scientific ones.
Nice one.
Orbs: "just because NASA is state of the art, that doesn't make it's propaganda honest"
Actually it does tremendously increase the "honesty" factor. That "state of the art" image handling is all about decreasing human error, accidental or deliberate manipulation, increase transparency and thorough review all over the board of all actions. Very little chance to have any secret rooms or hidden software. Space science is all about minute control and understanding of each and every element of the process. To fantasize about intrusion is just a sign of not understanding the industry. Yes it might have been far from perfect in the 70's but since the 90's there's just not much of a case to be made that someone "inside" could start replacing stuff without leaving many traces for hundreds of others to notice or to be found out by the hundreds of researchers delving every day in these images, looking for and expecting consistency between missions, space agencies, theory, practice, predictions and results.
Now that does not all mean it's impossible. Actually to question the safety of the original data against decay, misplacement, hacking, errors, damage, etc, is one that actually is being asked all the time. And surely there's still improvement possible. It's just not the task for the outsider, who does not even know the details of the organization of all the image handling and verifications, to start pointing it out. At that stage it's really just speculation and entertainment. A discussion to keep oneself entertained. Just don't expect it to be more than that and all will be fine and people will discuss the topic more openly and directly with anyone seriously investigating the topic.
Dee
Questioning things is fine if you are prepared to accept the answer. If you have already decided what the answer is that's something else [emphasis added].
You have beautifully described why engaging with conspiracy theorists typically offers little but endless frustration: any facts (or, more commonly, supposition) that support their pet theory get played up; anything that does not support it is downplayed, explained away, or ignored altogether.
This is not to say that I don't appreciate others (like expat) who choose to undertake such a thankless, generally unrewarding task in the interest of determining the truth, only that I don't have the patience myself anymore.
WS
Dear Theadora: I have come to believe that your comments are not sincere, but merely provocative. In the vernacular of the net, you're trolling. I'm not going to allow it.
Post a Comment