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