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 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.