Dark Mission co-author Mike Bara will appear on the Shadows in the Dark internet radio program on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 10PM Eastern, 7 PM Pacific.
(www.shadowsinthedarkradio.com)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Forum Dedicated to Discussion of the New York Times Bestseller "Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA" by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara
Pages
Facebook Badge
Will you buy the new edition of Dark Mission
Twitter Updates
Our Favorite Links
2012 Mayan Calendar Doomsday Countdown
Mayan Calendar Countdown
Posts
About Me
- Mike Bara
- New York Times Bestselling author of "The Choice" and "Dark Mission - the Secret History of NASA" and frequent Ancient Aliens contributor.
13 comments:
Richard says there is zero chance that the Moon landings could have been faked. He also makes a lot of claims about NASA, Nazi's, Freemasons and Templars. OK.
Credibility is EVERYTHING. If someone does a 180 on an important topic, especially one that is a lynchpin to a “Scientific Theory” they have, then they can’t be trusted on ANYTHING else. AT ALL!
Let’s review a question given to Richard on his Captain’s BLOG in 2005. We will then see his answer. We will also review what Richard had to say regarding this same subject 12 years earlier on Laura Lee’s radio show. Again, this review goes to the heart of credibility.
CAPTAIN’s BLOG
Dan said...
OK…OK…
Let us just suppose, just suppose mind you (and NOT to violate Occam’s Razor), that there WAS a Planet V.
Before I pose my question, and because I like science fiction, I will make some suppositive (NOT to be confused with “suppository”) observations. Keeping Occam’s Razor in mind, we can be scientific and TEST everything here.
Given that there WAS a Planet V; given that an intelligent species evolved there; given that they built structures on Mars; given that they built a hotel/temple/battle-star that we now call Iapetus, I still have difficulty believing that they genetically engineered the human species on Earth.
It just does not make sense that they would have left us in such a primitive state. SURELY they would have colonized Earth and left us with “miracles” of eon-lasting technology archives much greater than the myths, legends, and pyramids that are extant on this planet.
Yet, GIVEN that a Planet V MAY have existed and this, or part of this, may all be true, it remains to be answered:
WHAT caused Planet V’s destruction?
I now postulate that they were a violent and destructive species that could not come to grips with their own rational faculty or their fear of death. GORT, and his associates, blew Planet V to smithereens.
If there ever WAS a Planet V, it should only require a high school algebra student’s knowledge of conic sections, coupled with a lot of orbital data, to prove that this was true. It should be “easy” to locate the time and place of such an event.
Yes, I am basing this on the standard gravitational model. Perhaps electromagnetism should be taken into account.
What do you think, Richard?
Richard’s reply:
There is a reason why we have NEVER published a "definitive scenario" for the "ancient, pre-Planetary V destruction solar system history" ....
Because we CAN'T ... at least, not yet.
There are simply too many scenarios which would equally fit with our current (very limited) solar system data set!!!
I KNOW it is irresistable to jump into "the solar system soap opera" ... but -- RESIST!! :)
We need to a) PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt that an ancient, solar-system-wide civilization (or more than one!) once existed in this system, and b) find the damn LIBRARIES!
Only THEN will we KNOW what happened (for instance, if there was a "Great War in Heaven") ... and how long ago it happened ... and to "whom."
And even then, we may NOT know for sure -- as history (on Earth) is ALWAYS written by the "victors" .... :)
So for the time being, I radically prefer to stay with the physical science -- which says with increasing certainty a) there WAS a Planet V ... and b) it blew up.
"Why" ... and "who did it" (if "ANYBODY" ...) is NOT knowable at present.
But, have fun with all the (inevitable) speculation. Just remember: it's still "speculation" ....
22/8/05 12:48 AM
RCH’s appearance on Laura Lee in 1993
LL- “We’re speaking next with Dan from Ballard, Hi Dan”
Caller- “Hi. Uh, I was doing some research about a planet in our Solar System that blew up. It was supposed to be roughly 2 to 300,000 years ago. This is still sketchy information, but according”
LL-“You know, Kepler was looking for the missing planet, wasn’t he, in the resonant shells, Richard?”
RCH- “Ah, well, the asteroids are presumed, in some models, to be the remains of a planet that blew up”
LL- “and it was between which and which planet?”
RCH- “well it’s between Mars and Jupiter. But I STRONGLY DOUBT THAT.”
LL- “Why?”
RCH- “There are very good reasons for doubting that there ever was a planet there. The primary reason is that we have pieces of the asteroid belt, as meteorites. When you subject then to an array of very sophisticated analysis and some not so sophisticated, one of the first things that you see, is that they were never pieces of a big planet. Many of them are in what is called a pristine or primordial condition. They have never been exposed to heat, they have never differentiated. Their minerals are in a primitive state compared to an advanced process state that occurs on a planet like the Earth. So it’s kind of hard to imagine how you build a world out of stuff that doesn’t carry the signature of a world.”
LL- “Does that answer your question, Dan?”
RCH- “But, but don’t go away. There IS a planet in the Solar System which has been destroyed, but it’s still there.”
LL- “Mars?”
RCH- “No. Venus.”
LL- “Venus!”
RCH- “And I believe, strongly, that a lot of the information that has come to us in mythological form and a lot of the current information coming to us through channel form that keeps talking in this ambiguous terminology about a world destroyed, is trying to tell us about Venus, which didn’t use to be environmentally the way it is now”
LL- “I was reading an article that said Venus used to have an atmosphere”
RCH- ‘That’s right. See, you can destroy a world and still have it exist, if you simply destroy the environment, you change radically the environment of the world.”
LL- “So wake up Earth, because we may be on the same course as we speak, right?”
RCH- “Unless we do certain things which I think we are going to do, because we have an enormous grace period. We now know enough and the rate of advance of what we know is going to accelerate, that I think we will definitely be able to take control of our environmental destiny”
LL- “And we have Al Gore in the White House”
RCH- “And we have Al Gore in the White House”
What does the TEM have to say about this? BTW, I was at a UFO Conference appearance of Richard’s in 1995 and asked him about his statement on Venus. He literally turned white and denied ever saying it. Of course, I did not mention that I have an audio tape of it. I thought it might come in handy down the road when credibility became an important issue!
Fool,
I find your post almost incomprehensible. You take some supposed quotes --from 15 years ago-- and then act like this is some huge discrepancy?
The answer is simple, and completely obvious. Our position re the EPH has changed because the DATA has changed in the last 15 years. In 1993, when these alleged quotes were made, there wasn’t much published at all on the EPH. By 1998, after a lot of back and forth with Tom Van Flandern, Richard had changed his position. By 2001, when we published our own Mars Tidal Model, we had come to the conclusion that there was indeed a “Planet V,” and that Mars had indeed once been a moon of that planet. So by 2005, our position was different based on the new accumulated evidence.
It’s really pushing it to go back to 1993 to find some minor discrepancy in (alleged) public statements and then claim this somehow undermines our credibility. I’m sure Expat and Oberg (itchy and scratchy) will agree with you, but honestly, I don’t even see the logic behind your “thinking.”
"I’m sure Expat and Oberg (itchy and scratchy) will agree with you, but honestly, I don’t even see the logic behind your “thinking.”"
Mike, my favorite attack-gerbil: every time you try to imagine what I must be thinking, you make a bigger fool of yourself. You substitute your own wild (and nasty-minded) imagination for checkable reality and ratchet several more clicks towards zero credibility.
Richard's early-career charm and strength was his imagination and eloquence, modulated by his wide knowledge of and understanding of planetary science. The quoted passages (above) reflect those traits as they evolved, as in any rational person's life, based on subsequent theorizing and learning. I don't agree with the directions they evolved, but I still agree that the "Fool's" much-vaunted "gotcha" is empty.
Enjoy yourself on your media blitz today. Just try to control what you say about me (if you do at all)to what you can prove with checkable evidence, not what you are super super CERTAIN must be true to make you feel insightful and important and superior. Don't get over excited and wind up making your gracious host into an accessory after the fact to slander -- that's tacky.
So how did it go? Would anybody who listened please post a summary?
It's tonight, Jim.
It's welcome news that you're offering your processing and color enhancement of the object in Shorty as a repeatable experiment. You said "Anyone can order the same negative from NASA that we did, and arrive at the same result". I'd like to take you up on that, and attempt confirmation of your process. I'll need as much as possible of the following information:
- What photo product to order, from which of the NASA centers?
- Make/model of the scanner used
- Scan parameters
- Pixel dimensions of the whole scanned image
- Image format chosen for the processing
- Percent enlargement of the cropped image
- Detail information of adjustments to:
- RGB color
- Brightness
- Contrast
- Gamma
Thanks in anticipation.
A) I'm not doing your homework for you, and besides you already know the frame #'s.
B) Richard did the enhancement. Send him a fax if you want to know how he did it.
Nice job embarrassing yourself in the chatroom last night. It never gets old for you, does it?
Can anybody post their impressions of the content of the interview, please?
Bara: "I'm not doing your homework for you."
My impression of the way it's supposed to work is that somebody making an extraordinary claim is responsible for providing interested observers the entire sequence of steps needed to independently verify the announced conclusions. Just snapping, 'Do your own homework', is not IMHO conducive to generating interest in making the effort to try to validate published claims.
Jim,
I would agree, assuming that the person making the request is in any way open minded, fair, or truly interested in something other than playing NIGYYSOB.
Since expat is just trying to get me to waste my time with doing his homework, and is not in any way open minded or fair, I think I'll pass.
The interview went well. My observations are as follows:
Were I in the position to interview Mike, I would have read the entire book before the interview. Especially since we know some of the key conclusions and astonishing ideas do not come till late in the book. In this way I would have been well prepared to delve into some of the depth and richness available to be discussed as a result of the contrary ideas presented in this work.
Most of the interview was a rehash of known information if you have been following this journey for any length of time, history of face on Mars, how they got to compilation of book etc. It was a high level overview with a few additional tidbits thrown in here and there. The discussion on DNA being introduced to the human genetic code about 250,000 years ago and the line of reasoning that someone at a given point intervened in what was going on here on planet earth as one such example.
Mike is a good interview, not answering questions that are not known or not of his expertise as well as deferring to and giving large credit to Richard. His answers are honest and forthright. As in all of my experience in reviewing this information I found him to be frankly delivering information that he firmly believes.
As you recommended, one week ago I contacted your co-author Richard Hoagland, requesting the details I would need to reproduce the image that you call "Data's Head". I have had no reply. I suggest you now cease asserting that this process is repeatable, and accept that from a scientific point of view the image is fatally compromised. It may still have validity in the realm of Art Bell woo-woo -- I wouldn't know about that. I deal in facts.
Cheers
FACT: Apollo astronauts took a picture of
something on the Moon that looks an awful
lot like the head of a robot.
Question: What sort of details do you require?
Beyond those that are self-evident, I mean?
Just curious....
:-)
P.S.: I happen to LIKE "Art Bell woo-woo." It makes life interesting!
;-)
Post a Comment