Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Kicking it to the Pseudo Scientists

    “Are Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara liars, or merely mistaken?”


Kiddie gaming forums and NASA

There is a one-mile square ziggurat on the Moon. Or so Hoagland and Bara would have us believe. An astonishing, astounding, heart pounding revelation of ancient alien technology right on our own doorstep. Until you realise that the veracity of the above must surely be suspect given the source.

 Not only the source of the information but the source of the evidence itself. You see, the photograph of the ziggurat was found by Mike Bara on a children’s video game forum named, “Call of Duty Zombies.” It is a well-known fake by a hoaxer named kksamurai. Who earlier this year admitted to having faked the image over a decade ago. End of story.
Well not quite. Mike Bara sent the faked image to his former co-author Richard C. Hoagland who further “enhanced” the image with Photoshop before declaring it to be real. Bara went even further and dedicated book-space to it in his horribly error-laden
scrawl, “Ancient Aliens on the Moon.”

When challenged regarding the authenticity of the photograph both Hoagland and Bara countered by claiming that all other images of the same location taken by Japan, Europe and NASA had been tampered with to hide the ziggurat.  However, the image that Bara had found on a children’s gaming site was the only untouched image in the public domain.
While this is of course preposterous, and the kind of unfalsifiable nonsense that both Hoagland and Bara are wont to belch forth. One has to remember that the list of factual crimes committed by Hoagland and Bara is as long as Hoagland’s forked tongue.

Comets bullshit physics and homophobia

It is not the first time, nor will it be the last that Hoagland and Bara have put false information in the public domain. Mike Bara tells us that centrifugal force would flatten us like pancakes were it not for the Moon’s calming influence and that light can penetrate our deepest oceans before being reflected off the ocean floor and back into space. Ridiculous I hear you shout. And you would be of course correct. But Bara did actually claim the above and had these “facts” committed to print.
When challenged Mike Bara responded by calling this author a cunt, and suggesting that I should be a suitable homosexual partner for John Travolta. Apparently Mike takes great exception to being proved horribly, horribly wrong.
Hoagland, while not being as rude as Bara, is certainly more intelligent, and likes pretending to be a scientist. Bara likes to pretend to be an engineer. Between them, the comedy of errors both in print and via interview are many, varied and highly entertaining in their mirth.
Hoagland told us that Comet Elenin was a hyper-dimensionally shielded, intelligently guided spaceship of some type. No, I am not making this up.

Hoagland however certainly is. He then went on to inform us that this space craft had been sent to Earth from Earth 13,000 years ago by the “Shem Su Hor”, or “Followers of Horus” to bring a message to humanity in modern times.  He also asserted that President Obama is a member of the Shem Su Hor, and will be the President that discloses an ET presence to humanity. Whatever the message was, it was not made public, nor did ET show up on Pennsylvania Avenue.     

Mike Bara claimed that he was confident he could prove that there were no such things as the laws of physics. He claimed that Newton’s laws of motion only work if the object being measured doesn’t rotate. He claimed that Werner Von Braun, “snuck” a couple of extra terms into the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation without the engineers noticing and that this accounted for the over performance of Explorer I. The list goes on and gets no less disgraceful. Once again I  must reiterate, “I am not making this shit up.”


  Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara are indeed liars.

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Mikey Round 2.

Here are a couple of posts Mikey boy allowed on his Blog and replied to.

Why do you consistently refuse to debate me 1v1 Mike. Instead you tuck tail and run like a wee pansy shouting "you are a HOMO."

Scared of engineers Mikey love ?

Chikenshit yellow belly. With nothing to back up his big mouth.
Lets debate centrifugal force you fraud.

Kindest regards

Because A) You are not important enough for me to debate; and B) you have no ideas of your own. All you can do is repeat what others have told you, because you're not bright enough to figure it out yourself.

Where you once again prove what an idiot you are...

And I know you failed to notice, but in my crushing destruction of your precious Dr. Robbins above, I didn't mention any of the subjects you raise. If you can't come up some better defense of the subject at hand than challenging me to duel, don't post.

Pure loathing,


No debate forthcoming since Bara has the brains of a mouse.

Mikey boy strikes back

In a letter to the chief pseudo scientist RCH on which I was cc'd Bara wrote:

"Derek loony-tunes response to my latest dismantling of poor, hapless Stuart Robbins. He's so lame he can't even address the issues in my post. I mean, is he seriously challenging me to a duel or something?

You notice how these clowns never actually try and refute the evidence at hand? They just change the subject and pretend they didn't pwned.

What a nut..."

In response to my email below:

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

Followed up by:

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the reply.

I have asked you many times to debate me 1v1. You have never accepted. This is not dueling. I have challenged you on many issues, none of which you will debate with me. Please re-read your diatribe against Dr Robbins. Count the insults directed at him by you. I think the loathing is coming from your direction Mike.

I maintain you do not have the balls to debate me. All those "typos" you claim are not typos. You were simply wrong and are trying to wriggle out. I'm curious to hear how you will wriggle out of asserting that light can penetrate our deepest oceans, be reflected off the ocean bed and back into space. Why don't we use that as a debate starting point ?

Kindest Regards



Hi Mike,

Since you have deemed me "too unimportant" to debate. Perhaps you would care to read the below quote:

Light absorption in the sea reduces the amount of visible light rapidly with depth.

Also note that absorption is greatest for the long wavelengths of light (measured in millionths of a meter or in microns " ยต ") and somewhat less so for shorter wavelengths of light.

The colors that you can see beneath the sea depend on the wavelength of light available to illuminate an object.

A common observation is that a white plate will appear light blue underwater, because the long wavelengths of light, which include the red colors, have been absorbed in the surface water and only shorter wavelengths of light associated with blue colors remain to illuminate underwater objects.Also, the intensity of this light decreases rapidly with water depth, for example,

only 73% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 centimeter (less than a half inch)
only 44.5% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 meter (3.3 feet)
22.2% of the surface light reaches a depth of 10 meters (33 feet)
0.53% of the surface light reaches a depth of 100 meters (330 feet)
0.0062% of the surface light reaches a depth of 200 meters

Bottom line -- most of the light is absorbed or scattered within the top few meters of the ocean.

Indeed by 100 to 200 meters deep, virtually all of the solar radiation has been absorbed......remember that the abyssal plains, which cover the vast majority of the ocean basin, are between 4000 and 5500 meters deep, consequently the vast majority of the ocean is dark and cold!!!.

[Source: HERE]

How do you reconcile the above with what you wrote....

"the clouds are the highest in the atmosphere, meaning that they are reflecting more light back to the camera and at a faster rate. Since they are returning more light, the clouds are the lightest. The surface areas ... are darker, because they are a bit further away from the camera than the clouds and therefore the light has to travel further before it is reflected back. The deep blue oceans are therefore the darkest, because the light has to travel all the way to the ocean floor before it is reflected back to the camera."

Shouldn't you now apologise for being wrong and issue a retraction. I don't think you will get away with calling the above nonsense YET ANOTHER typo.

Don't these publishers ever employ fact checkers, technical editors, something, anything, to weed out codswallop. Bullseye for you Mike, apparently they do not. Fortunately there are publishers who do. Unfortunately for you they would never be associated with the tripe you have penned in the past. Must do better, try harder, perhaps you will wise up and start actually checking "facts" before simply making them up.

The real reason you won't debate me is that you are terrified of being exposed as the sciolist you are. It has nothing to do with my importance or lack of it.

Using ad hominem as you are wont to resort to when cornered like a weasel really displays your lack of knowledge and personal insecurity. You pander to the gullible and daft with "witty insults" and nothing substantial to back up your claims.

The eccentricity of Mars' orbit is a classic example. You are 100% wrong, yet still claim to be right. Do the maths Mikey. Calculate the max/min distance to Earth from Mars if Mars had a perfectly circular orbit. Go on, do it. If you can. Your argument falls flat on it's arse right there.

All that aside. I really cannot wait to hear how you weasel out of the "light and oceans" disgrace. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to prove there are no such things as the laws of physics. I am sure you remember making that claim.

Kindest Regards to you and your "internet wife."


He will not of course reply and address the issues. More likely call me a homo and run like a chicken from debate. Fucking arsehole.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Leeds Expo 2013

Hi Richard/Mike,
I have arranged to meet my friend Richard Dolan in Leeds later this month at the Leeds Expo 2013.
High on the agenda will be both of your work. I plan to explain in easy to understand mathematical terms exactly why neither of you should be afforded any credibility whatsoever as researchers or scientists.
I will take with me a veritable treasure trove of howling errors, lies, stolen and plagiarized work.

For example, Mike's ridiculous explanation of eccentricity, his laughable understanding of light, and of course my favourite centrifugal force howler.
I also won't forget to bring along all my social media clips. Such as Mike Bara writing on facebook, "Who the FUCK is Richard Dolan anyway."
I'm really looking forward to explaining just how disastrously wrong Richard's pretend mathematical analysis of Elenin was. The ideal rocket equation is also something that will be discussed. Since it is even yet freely available to laugh at on the Enterprise website.
Would either of you two sciolists care to respond. I feel that it is only fair that you be forewarned and given a chance to defend yourself.
Incidentally a defence should consist of more than calling your critics a douchebag, a cunt, a homosexual or a NASA operative as Mike in particular is wont to do. Hoagland to his credit refrains from the low class insults of Bara and prefers to stick with the ABC agency accusations.
Kindest Regards


You're a source of endless entertainment ... a case-study in classical "obsession."          :)


Hi Richard,
I'm sorry to hear that you find plagiarism, lies, obfuscation, disgraceful mathematics and even more disgraceful claims of science amusing. Is this really how you view the poor saps who buy into your palaver.
It's an utter mystery to me why you describe yourself as a scientist with "decades long demonstrable scientific competence." I'm utterly bamboozled Richard. You know I have taken apart your terrible mathematics, torn up your hand waving probability calculations regarding comet Elenin and pointed out on numerous occasions why your paper on Werner Von Braun is poppycock.
Why are you still pretending to be a scientist. You don't even have the decency to remove the thoroughly discredited Von Braun paper from Enterprisemission.com. Perhaps it's just to spite the people who have shown you to be a sciolist. Perhaps you simply just do not care.
Kindest Regards
No, I just don't care about YOUR obsessive stalking ... or opinions.

You obviously have NOTHING better to do, which tells us a LOT about your life ... or, the need to actually have one.

Derek, as usual you have it all backwards. I've never called you a cunt. I said you you're so angry because you HAVE a cunt.
Say hi to my buddy Dick. On second thought, don't. If he listens to you he's not important enough to care about.
Loath and despising,
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the reply,
Any chance you can explain planetary eccentricity or perhaps orbital mechanics to a cunt ?
Kindest Regards

Carl Sagan, Judy Wood and fabulism

Hi Richard,
Would you care to comment on what Carl Sagan and Andrew Johnson have said about you. I am particularly astonished at Carl Sagan taking a swipe at you, since I have on many occasions heard you refer to him as "my dear departed friend."

QUESTION: Richard Hoagland has recently got hold of some pictures, Hasselblad pictures from NASA, which were taken some twenty years ago of the moon, and he has been describing those in great detail. He gave a talk at Ohio State University a couple of weeks ago and he had video cameras on and they were supposed to have videos available. I wonder if you’ve heard about this and had previous knowledge of . . . .
SAGAN: You forgot to mention what is on those videos.
QUESTION: Structures on the moon.
SAGAN: Richard Hoagland is a fabulist. By the way, it’s not difficult getting hold of the hand-held Hasselblad camera pictures; NASA freely releases them to everybody. These are in the public domain, they’re available to anybody. You don’t have to do something remarkable to get the pictures. The aspect of this story I know best has to do with the so-called Face on Mars. There is a place on Mars called Sidonia, which was photographed in a mission I was deeply involved in, the Viking mission to Mars in 1976. And there is one picture in which along a range of hulking mesas and hillocks, there is what looks very much like a face, about three kilometers across at the base and a kilometer high. It’s flat on the ground, looking up. It has a helmet or a hair-do, depending on how you look at it, it has a nose, a forehead, one eye—the other half is in shadow—pretty eerie looking.
You could almost imagine it was done by Praxiteles on a monumental scale. And this gentleman deduces from this that there was a race of ancient Martians. He has dated them, he purports to have deduced when they were around, and it was 500,000 years ago or something like that, when our ancestors were certainly not able to do space flights, and then all sorts of wonderful conclusions are deduced and “we came from Mars”or “guys from other star systems came here and left a statue on Mars and left some of them on Earth.” By the way, all of which fails to explain how it is that humans share 99.6 percent of their active genes with chimpanzees. If we were just dropped here, how come we’re so closely related to them? What is the basis of the argument? How good is it? My standard way of approaching this is to point out that there is an eggplant that looks exactly like former President Richard Nixon. The eggplant has this ski nose and, “that’s Richard Nixon, I’d know him anywhere.”
What shall we deduce from this eggplant phenomenon? Extraterrestrials messing with our eggplants? A miracle? God is talking to us through the eggplant? Or, that there have been tens, hundreds of thousands, millions of eggplants in history, and they all have funny little knobs, and every now and then there is going to be one that by accident looks like a human face. Humans are very good at recognizing human faces. I think clearly the latter.
Now let’s go to Mars. Thousands of low, hilly mesas have all sorts of features. Here’s one that looks a little like a human face. When you bring out the contrast in the shadowed area it doesn’t look as good. Now, we’re very good at picking out human faces. We have so many of these blocky mesas. Is it really a compelling sign of extraterrestrial intelligence that there’s one that looks a little like a human face? I think not. But I don’t blame people who are going into the NASA archives and trying to find things there; that is in the scientific spirit. I don’t blame people who are trying to find signs of extraterrestrial intelligence—I think it’s a good idea, in fact. But I do object to people who consider shoddy and insufficient evidence as compelling.
Now we have a link to a page where a fair amount of libel (or is it ?) is being aimed at you. Check The Evidence.
Incidentally Richard, I heard an interview with Dr Wood, where she told the audience she doesn't know you, has never met you nor corresponded with you in any manner. She was also mighty peeved that you had taken her work and presented it as if you knew what you were talking about, made an arse of it and misrepresented her findings. She said you had no permission to do so.

Any comments ?

Kindest Regards

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

Mike Bara: "The laws of physics don't exist."

Hi Mike,
Do you remember this:

NEW PAGE: So I take it you would disagree with Stephen Hawkings’ recent book, The Grand Design, in which he declared that the universe didn’t need a creator to exist?

BARA: Absolutely. I’m completely confident that I can prove there’s no such thing as the laws of physics; therefore I don’t see how Hawking can base his beliefs on them.

We are still waiting for the "proof" you claim to be in possession of. 
Of course we will never see it, unless you happen to stumble across one on a kiddies computer game forum. Shades of the ziggy Mikey ?

How would it be possible for a mathematical DUNCE to prove there are no such things as the laws of physics. A dunce who thinks centrifugal force makes you heavier. A dunce who thinks light can bounce off the seabed of our deep blue oceans and back into space. A dunderheid who has no clue about orbital mechanics or planetary eccentricity. A homophobe who routinely dismisses critics as gay. A rude, ignoramus of a man who referred to a woman critic as a "cunt."

Not holding my breath for that "proof" anytime soon.

Oh, and love the new 'shopped ziggy.

Kindest Regards

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

Hoagland baiting.....

More Hoagland baiting, with a reply OMGZ !!!!!

Hi Richard,

Please find attached a graph I put together in my lab this morning showing what an acceptable graph should look like.

No off scale rubbish, data clearly labelled and unmanipulated.

May we see a torsion field graph similarly displayed.

Kindest Regards

When we formally publish ....

(As background, you might want to read the extraordinary history of "Gravity-Probe B" ....)


Looks like Hoaxland is going to use frame dragging as proof of a torsion field and hyper-dimensional physics.....DJE

Hi Richard,

I took your suggestion on-board regarding GPB.
I found it most enlightening. Not that I was disinterested initially.

May I ask if you propose to suggest that (in particular, as opposed to the geodetic effect) the frame dragging effect is what you envision as a torsion field ?

If this is indeed the case may I discuss in detail the mathematics involved. I have as both a graduate and as a post grad student studied Einstein's theories both special and general in some detail.

For fun (yes, geekness is a trait of mine) I have played with particular solutions to general relativity with some interesting results. Perhaps you have found similar. Even before publication, would you be willing to submit your analysis for peer review ?

I will guarantee that any analysis will be done without bias and with anonymity. The analysis would take place between the universities of both Glasgow and Santa Cruz. We will do it gratis.

If we can verify your mathematics, we will publish and concur. No BS Dick. I promise you that we will be fair, open minded and transparent.

Imagine the book sales, publicity and perhaps the Nobel prize if you are correct.

What say you sir ?

Kindest Regards

I'm not holding my breath for a reply on that one. Primarily because I think we've rumbled his next move, and he knows sod all regarding real mathematics.

Note regarding frame dragging: The effect is so small that the angle would be like measuring something that was 40 human hair widths at a distance of 10 miles. Yet Hoagland can do it with a 40 year wristwatch and a laptop.

If indeed he plans to claim frame dragging as torsion. Let's wait and see.


Thursday, 29 August 2013

Hoagland in fantasia again...

Dear Richard,

Do you recognise this statement...

"OK, now comes the part where the "mathematically challenged" (or squeamish ...) might want to turn away. If you do, we promise we'll summarize the cool stuff -- in neat, plain English -- at the end ...."

You should because you wrote it on your website as part of "Von Braun's secret."

You then go on to completely bollocks up the mathematics. Yes, the same mathematics you are warning people to turn away from. No bloody wonder you are asking them to turn away.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply delete the entire mathematical mess you made. It's too late to save face of course since it has been disseminated far and wide. But for goodness sake man, have you no shame whatsoever.

Kindest Regards

None .... :)

Certainly, NOT from you.


Hi Richard,

Not much more to say on Von Braun's secret. Since you admit to having no shame.

Implicit in that statement is that you have no respect for your audience, since the whole sorry mangled mess of mathematics and abject lunacy is still on The Enterprise Mission webpage for all to see.

You often say science is nothing if it's not prediction. How's this for some science.

I predict Richard Hoagland will never admit to being wrong about anything. I also predict that he will steadfastly refuse to take down what he calls, 'a paper' regarding the over-performance of Explorer1. Even though it has been proven on many occasions to be utterly wrong because Hoagland is a mathematical dunce."

No baselines, no controls, no data, no calibration, nothing. Please stop stealing from people with your lies. Please return the funds you fleeced from your congregation to go to Egypt with your laptop, accutron and microset toys. You didn't go because you didn't get enough funding, but kept the dosh anyway. What an utter bandit.

Kindest Regards

No, Derek, I have no respect for YOU--

Since you attempted to have your girlfriend "seduce" me with the promise of "LOTS of money ..." -- if I would "just turn over to YOU all my unpublished work on the Accutron torsion field measurements ...."

Before publication.

Nice ethics, Derek.

So, the more you rant and rave, the more I am amused by your truly pathetic OBSESSION with our work.

And, if it is SO wrong ... why do you even "care?" :)


P.S. EVERY scientist or engineer at one time or another, has made mathematical errors -- even YOU. :)

Here is one of the more famous ... by the guy who "invented" the Big Bang Model, no less ....


Hi Richard,

Thank you for the reply. Although as expected you answer nothing.
Yes you were offered cash, safe in the knowledge you had bugger all data to publish since you make it up as you go along. This has been undeniably established by myself and others. You know this, yet still you have such utter nonsense as Von Braun's secret on your website.

You use no baselines, no control and no calibration. Your "science" is worthless junk. Where is this data you intended to blow our minds with. You said over a year ago you were working night and day to get this information out. Yet nothing from you. Could this be because myself and others have shamed you into silence. I'd like to think so.

Hilarious to hear you talking of ethics Richard. You fleeced money from people to go to Egypt, didn't go and then pocketed the cash. Nice ethics Richard.

You ask if your work is so wrong why do I even care ?
I care because you insist you are a scientist dong scientific work. When in fact you are nothing more than a cheap swindler making unfalsifiable claims and dressing them up as real science. Remember Hale Bopp ? - I hope you do since you were instrumental in convincing people it was something other than a comet. We all know what happened at Heavens gate. You must bear some of the responsibility of that human tragedy. It's disgusting.

Not content with Hale Bopp, we then get Phobos, YU55, Elenin, and quite possibly Ison (I predict you will be calling that a spaceship too).

Obama as a member of the Shem Su Hor, Elenin is a spaceship, miles high glass skyscrapers on the Moon, utter garbage dressed up as HD physics. Are you seeing a pattern here Richard ? - A pattern of one monumental cluster frag after another. You are no better than Sean David Morton, another well known liar and thief.

Kindest Regards

Thursday, 22 August 2013

Hoagland replies.....


Now, now ... temper ... temper ....             :)

And please ... DO post this as far and wide as possible -- gratuitous obscenities included (of course)!
It will ONLY drive more folks to read what you (literally) are "raving about" ... and, to find out what we ACTUALLY have said (and written) ....

And, thanks to YOU, to finally "open their eyes."

Hi Richard,

Obscenities are a favourite of your former co-author. I have the screenshots to prove it. Mikey boy likes to call female critics "cunts."
Both you and I know this is unacceptable as a man. We may have our differences Richard, but you will agree that speaking to a lassie in such terms is not the actions of a man. Bara would do well to stick with the rudimentary grunts and gestures he was obviously taught as a fledgling.

Moving on. Please respond to specifics. For example Von Braun's secret. You can't, can you. Because you have been proved wrong. Big time.
Yes the teenagers have been unleashed. Bad for you mate,  good for the sheeple rednecks you plan to fleece.

Please delete the thoroughly discredited Von Braun's secret. It makes a respected scientist like yourself look like a tit.

Oh and can you please state what units torsion waves are measured in. And hows about some data for we real engineers to discredit.

You know, baselines and stuff like that. Bring it on man, you v me on C2C. You can make it happen. But Noory must not be allowed to moderate since he is under your spell, and is therefore biased as well as a dunce.

Kindest Regards

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Abject Spunk Trumpetry yet again by Hoagland and Bara

Dear Richard and Mike,
This is an open letter which will be plastered all over every piece of social media myself my colleagues, and our children can find. Isn't it truly amazing how many people you can reach on social media when you get teenagers and young adults involved. Don't you find it astonishing how our children have taken to such things.
Now on to the truth. I realize that this is something that both of you are unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, shall we press on regardless.
To document the bare faced lies you two bandits have been perpetrating over the years would require a ridiculous amount of time. However, since I actually have a real job as a real engineer I will have to cherry pick. And oh my, how big the cherry tree is.
Hoagland's preposterous lies about Von Braun and Explorer1 have been exposed because he couldn't even fill in the numbers and crank the handle on one of the most well known (and simple) rocket equations. I refer of course to the equation derived by K.Tsiolkovsky. Yet this utter garbage is still on his utterly shambolic 1990's style webpage after all these years. Even after multiple instances of Hoagland's atrocious mathematical skills being pointed out. The man has no shame. You couldn't even paint a red neck on this clown. His hubris knows no bounds.
The torsion waves Hoagland pretends to measure with a 40 year old wristwatch and a laptop computer don't exist. Even if they did exist Hoagland has done nothing to prove it. In fact his method is so far short of the scientific method that it is simply laughable. No baselines, no controls, no calibration and no fucking data. Hoagland even refuses to share his data with what he calls "complete strangers." This is what we real engineers and scientists do all the time you dimwit. It is called peer review.
Hoagland told us that comet Elenin was a spacecraft with a hyperdimensional shield generator on board. He attempted to prove this by faking yet another image. First by legitimately stacking frames and then using photoshop to manipulate the final image. True to form Hoagland refuses to tell anyone what frames and in what order he used them.

 He also told us that Elenin had a message for humanity sent from 13,000 years ago by our highly advanced ancestors the Shem Su Hor (the followers of Horus) who apparently had something important to tell us. I must have missed it. Although Hoagland tried to tell the world that the Arab spring was due to Elenin's influence.Yes he really did say all that stuff, and he calls himself a scientist. Stop laughing, he really did say that.

 Comet Elenin disintegrated, everyone with an interest in comets saw it. Hoagland lied about this too, and tried to show an earlier picture as "proof" that Elenin was still intact. He milked that one big time, before being caught rotten on Facebook by many critics. He was caught so rotten that he had to abandon his facebook account (although it still exists he hasn't posted there in well over a year) as he was being made a laughing stock. Not that he already wasn't.
The whole disgrace is catalogued in a wiki page dedicated to Hoagland's spunk-trumpetry.

Hoagland insists that the wiki page is invalid because NASA edits it and are out to get him. Yes he really did say that too. Fucking clownhat.
Mikey boy Bara is simply a thoroughly disagreeable little man. He has no flair for mathematics, lies uncontrollably, and likes to refer to his critics as homosexuals or douchebags. Unless you are female in which case he will ask you not to reproduce because you are too ugly.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Hoagland replies, and says nothing.

9:28 PM (14 hours ago)

to me
Did YOU know that Wiki is edited by NASA (Google)?                  :)

As my grandmother used to say--

"Consider the source."       

Hi Richard,
It's very telling that you only choose to respond to emails where you have some wiggle room or you can throw forth one of your famous unfalsifiable claims. You refuse for example, when pressed, to state what units torsion fields are measured in. You refuse to admit that your Explorer 1 explanation is poppycock due to your inability to apply a simple equation correctly. But you will boldly state stuff that cannot be verified.

You could have written that Wiki (or indeed Rational Wiki, as you claimed in your reply) was edited by two of the surviving Von Trapp children supervised by Julie Andrews. It sounds as ridiculous as NASA editing pages dedicated to exposing pseudoscientists, but I cannot state that it is not true. No matter how preposterous the notion.
You told us that water is a very effective shield with respect to torsion waves, yet still wanted funding to visit the Baltic Sea object. Don't you remember being caught with that one ?
Not ONCE have you addressed your mathematical errors, and in fact they remain on your page after all these years. Perhaps you are lazy, or maybe you just don't give a monkey's curse about either your audience or your critics.
Not once have you provided baselines or controls when conducting experiments. You have never shown your data. In fact you stated that, "you would not hand over your data to complete strangers." This is what we engineers and scientists do on a regular basis Richard. It's called peer review.

Expat caught you faking data. You were nicked 100% with no get out of jail free card. You said there is a mile square ziggurat on the Moon, knowing the source of the data was from a teenage gamers forum, and quite probably knowing that the image was a fake, and not a very good one at that. Not a word though from you or Mike now that kksamurai has shown up with the original that he faked all those years ago.
As my Grandfather used to say, "If you can never admit to making a mistake, you can never be a real man."
Kindest Regards

Monday, 12 August 2013

Hoagland and Bara get Rational Wikified

Hi Richard,
Have you seen THIS on rational wiki ?
Mike even has his own page too. There are more facts on those pages than either you or Mike have had printed in books. I think the mathematics speak for themselves, however if you need a helping hand to understand what is being said mathematically I'd be more than happy to oblige.
I can't help Mike though, he understands even less mathematics than you do. He even wrote that light can penetrate our deepest oceans before being reflected from the ocean floor and back into space. Yes, I'm serious he REALLY said that. And in print too. As they say on the internetz LOL.

Kindest Regards

Friday, 9 August 2013

Attack of the lying twats

On the video bar on the right of this page you will find a couple of videos that show just what mendacity we are dealing with. By "we" I mean myself and others who take an interest in seeing snake oil salesmen like Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara exposed for what they really are. Dishonest liars who earn a living by fleecing the gullible. Below is a list of their idiocy.

  • Elenin was not a comet. It was a hyperdimensionally shielded spacecraft with a message for humanity. Sent by our ancestors 13,000 years ago. These ancestors being "The Shem Su-Hor" - the followers of Horus, an ancient Egyptian deity.
  • Asteroid YU55 is also an artificial craft.
  •  Mars' moon Phobos is a derelict and incredibly ancient spacecraft
  •   Light can travel all the way to the bottom of our deepest oceans.
  • Centrifugal force makes you heavier.
  •  President Obama is a member of the Shem Su-Hor.
  • Mars has a highly eccentric orbit.
  • NASA murdered the crew of Apollo 1.
  • There are ancient ruins all over Mars. Including a Nike trainer.
  • We went to the Moon to retrieve ancient alien technology.

I kid you not. I'll leave it up to you to guess who said what.


Mike Bara's internet wife.

Yes indeed, as sad as it sounds it would appear that Mike Bara author of comedy titles such as "The Choice", and "Ancient Aliens on the Moon" has found himself a Facebook wife. Her name is Sara Shanae, and, like Mike, appears to have the same unbridled contempt for anyone who does not lap at the leathery bottom of her internet Hubby. Below is a post Sara made on The Emoluments of Mars.

SaraShanae said...
Expat - Mike is very gracious when it comes to talking with fans, and he'll answer just about anything you want if you do him a favor or two, especially if it involves fellatio. So maybe you should get down on your knees and ask him yourself? ;)

I'm not your messenger girl. I'm not surprised that you'd ask me to ask him for you though. I can understand that you're too intimidated to actually do your own work. I can tell by your website, sorry "free blow", as well, that you have no idea how to form even a single ORIGINAL thought of your own. If Mike Bara wasn't around and doing what he is doing, you wouldn't have shit to stand on.

Here's a thought: Since you're so incredibly knowledgeable in all of these areas, why don't you write your own book and get published? But you and I both know why you haven't and wont do that. You don't know how to create anything. All you know is how to mooch off of other people's work.

Better put on those knee pads, chump. Looks like it's going to be your only option for success. Mike's jizz comes with a LOAD of knowledge. Sucking one off might do you more good than stalking him online ever could, anyways. ;)

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

An open letter to Coast to Coast AM regarding the mendacious behaviour of Hoagland

An open letter to Coast to Coast AM

Greetings people of  C2C,
I am writing this in the hope that at least one of you will take the time to listen to THIS PODCAST. It explains in quite some detail just exactly why your "science adviser" Richard C. Hoagland is disgracing your show by promoting what he calls real science, when in actual fact he is peddling complete and utter, demonstrably false rubbish.
I refer of course to his "accutron torsion sensing equipment." You know the 40 year old watch hooked up via a microset measuring device to a laptop. Richard may well call me a NASA shill, or a disinfo agent to cover his tracks. But in reality I am neither. I am simply a disgruntled listener who also happens to be an electronics engineer of some 25 years experience and am sick to the back teeth of Hoagland's utter contempt for your audience and total disregard for rigorous scientific method.
I urge you to actually listen to the podcast on designing a proper experiment. It surely will convince you that Hoagland's silly experiments are utterly worthless. Not only that, but will convince you that Hoagland has demonstrably faked his data.
Does C2C really care about it's audience. If it did then Hoagland would be made accountable for his mendacity. On air.

Kindest Regards
Derek James Eunson

Intellectual Bad Ass my arse.

This sent to the intellectual fruitfly that calls itself Mike Bara.


Here is a post taken directly from the most excellent blog entitled The Emoluments of Mars, or more commonly "Dorkmission."

Hoagland and Bara a liars and thieves. I still have my original images but don't have time for their BS. I am kksamurai aka terry james aka rah

Will you now admit you simply went with an obvious fake because Hoagland told you it was real. Man you got chumped big time by your mate. Hilarious. Intellectual bad ass in Ferrari sunglasses my bahookey. Intellectual midget in "made in Hong Kong cheapness" more like.
Kindest Regards

Hoagland and Bara humiliated yet again.

Hi Richard,
This is an open letter.

I thought you may be interested to hear the latest podcast regarding your accutron torsion sensor. It may be found HERE.
I know that you will understand what Dr Robbins is talking about. Although  I'm afraid that Dr Robbins completely invalidates EVERYTHING you have ever done with your microset/accutron setup. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the scientific method will understand that.
It will be an embarrassing listen, but I urge you to struggle through.

This is why yourself and Mike Bara refuse to debate real engineers or scientists. Well, I guess this is why you won't debate. As for Mike, he won't debate because he is in an ever decreasing circle, regurgitating old claptrap that he has either stolen or plagiarised.
I wonder why Noory never did get round to inviting Dr Robbins on C2C despite initially thinking it was a good idea. Although Mike, in his wisdom said to Noory at the time, "if he's on I won't listen." What he meant was, "I won't listen because I'd be publicly humiliated (again) due to the fact that Dr Robbins actually understands science, whereas I simply make stuff up, and when called out on it I respond by screaming NASA shill, homo, and ugly cunt at them."
Bara truly is a repugnant little man. You are better than that Richard, why not take up the challenge and respond to Dr Robbins refuting his claims.
Oh and isn't it great that Terry James aka KKsamurai has shown up. You know..., the guy who faked the ziggurat. He admitted he created it, still has the original, and has called out you and Mike as thieves and liars. Mike even dedicated almost an entire chapter to this fake. After you told him it was real. That was a master stroke Richard. Make Bara look like an arse for nicking all your work and publishing it for himself, by telling him what was clearly a fake was real. Pure class.

Kindest Regards

Monday, 29 July 2013

Mike Bara - the ultimate chickenshit.

Hi Mike,
I note on Twitter that you wrote, "Why do people who spend their whole meaningless, tiny lives attacking me think I'm going to help them? #doyourownhomeworkdouchebags."

I know not of whom you speak, but I could offer some advice regarding helping people. For a start you should admit to having been caught lying like a bastard on multiple occasions, promise never to do it again, ask forgiveness for fleecing people out of their money, never ever write another book, and finally, get a real job.
No Mike I'm not jealous of your F list celeb status, nor am I jealous of anything you represent. I'm simply smarter than you. A lot smarter Mike. And indeed if you would like to put that to the test. Bring it on. Anywhere anytime I will debate you. I will even give you a heads up on the mathematics I will use to trounce your horrible grasp of the subject. Just to give you some time to prepare a defence.
 Adrienne asserts that you are familiar with the work of both Einstein and Maxwell. Indeed I have heard you often speak of Maxwell's quaternions. You state HD physics is based on a subset of the Maxwell quaternions, but of course when asked, are unable to say which ones.
Come on Mike be a sport. Let's debate live on air such goodies as centrifugal force, albedo and the speed of light. Then we can go on to discuss Maxwell's original quaternions.
How's about it MIke ? ---- Chicken again ?
Kindest Regards

Friday, 12 July 2013

          Sciolists frauds and crooks.

Some observations regarding the sciolist who goes by the name of Richard. C. Hoagland. Not many people have the ability to think on their feet quite as fast as Hoagland. He employs a variety of defence mechanisms when cornered. These include but are not limited to; shouting over the questioner, scattergun replies usually quoting himself to confuse his opponents, having awkward questions fobbed off by his friend George Noory, completely ignoring the question and smugly telling the questioner what question they should have asked, or he simply tucks tail and runs.

George Noory’s intellect does not allow him to challenge Hoagland on any issues. He therefore is guided like a small dog with a tartan overcoat by Hoagland to perform in whatever manner pleases the pseudo-scientist in that moment. Hoagland only has to say hyper-dimensional physics and George Noory immediately falls to his knees, builds a religion around him and continues fawning and agreeing with every preposterous piece of claptrap that comes out of Hoagland’s mouth. I had no idea a radio host could be so subnormal and still be successful. It’s quite the puzzle.


                              A Letter to Hoagland.

Hi Richard,
As you probably know Curiosity will revisit Shaler in the near future. I noticed on the C2C website that you described Shaler in these terms, "A series of strikingly geometric, horizontal structures -- nicknamed by Enterprise "the Apartments" after their eerily "constructed" appearance. Measuring only inches in height, the key aspect of these features is not their scale ... but their INTENSELY "ordered" appearance ... which, to the uninitiated, only superficially resemble "geological strata" (as they've been officially identified by NASA)."
However previously on your own webpage you talk of Shaler in these terms, "NASA to investigate mysterious linear features called Shaler, which Enterprise has previously identified as "Martian apartments."
You even show the formation alongside of the destroyed Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
Since you have refused (until now) to answer questions on Shaler since it's dimensions were discovered (after you had mentioned apartments.....not nicknamed the formation apartments), will you now concede to having backpedaled substantially.
It's utterly obvious that you have. You spoke quite breathlessly about Shaler before it was revealed that it was an inches high formation. You said apartments Richard. You did not nickname Shaler until now.
That is deceitful and shows a complete lack of respect for your audience.
Oh and your use of the word uninitiated is surely wrong in the context you are attempting to create.
You are slipping down the road of Mike Bara. Who admittedly isn't as smart as you, therefore I am surprised to see you use his horribly inadequate escape route.
Bara will lie, get caught, then say "I never said that," even though it's in print. He will then resort to calling his critics, one of the following; ugly, a cunt, a douchebag, a hater, a psychopath, a homosexual, jealous of his success....etc"  - You get the idea. Please don't stoop to the level of Mike Bara.

Kindest Regards


Monday, 1 April 2013

Mike Bara once again shows why he is as thick as shite on the neck of a bottle.

Read Expat's review of Mike on yet another pseud-psych radio show HERE


Monday, 18 March 2013

Hoagland and Bara once again outed as fraudsters.

Once again Richard C. Hoagland and his former co-author Mike Bara are shown to be the complete liars, hoaxers, and fraudsters they undoubtedly are. Well done Dr Stuart Robbins, and Expat for a fantastic PODCAST.

For far too long these mendacious charlatans have been peddling filthy lies regarding ancient "artificial" structures on the Moon and Mars. Using images almost fifty years old Hoagland blows them up to astronomical (pun intended) proportions then sees 3 mile high glass skyscrapers in the processing errors.

But don't take my word for it. Check out The Emoluments of Mars which is a fantastic resource documenting the train wreck that Hoagland and Bara call "science."