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.