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.
7 comments:
Mike,
I listened to the show and am glad I did. Even though I didn't expect to hear anything new, you surprised me and toward the end you said that you thought or were leaning toward thinking that the ancient civilization that was once on Mars were people that look like us or were possibly Elohim, Nephilim etc...
I'll admit I had never heard you and Hoagland say what your views were on that subject but I was glad to hear it as thats the same conclusion I have come to. I thought you two were in the "little green aliens were responsible for this" crowd.
During the show and after you had made the claim, you could tell the other guests were taken aback because they seemed to be still hoping for little green aliens to have been the creators of the relics up there, but yet they didn't have the guts to come right out and say it.
Maybe the biblical implications made them uncomfortable. Not sure why that would matter since an investigation for the truth would go where the evidence led.
I got the feeling they must have been wondering why/how you came to that conclusion and had the confidence to just come out and say it could have been the Elohim.
I am curious as to if you have recently come to that conclusion or if you were leaning that way for some time? If that was a recent conclusion then what was the deciding evidence that convinced you or caused you to lean that way?
.
"Elohim, Nephilim etc.."
Well, well. So you've abandoned any pretense that your "investigation" is in any sense scientific, then?
Well, well. So you've abandoned any pretense that your "investigation" is in any sense scientific, then?
What are you trying to say expat? If people research something and it starts leading toward conclusions that are biblical in nature that it is then unscientific?
That would mean it is you that goes into research with pre-concieved notions and thus tainted from the start. You should hang your head in shame and humiliation knowing you have some agenda you have to follow.
Makes it obvious why this Mars thing never seems to go anywhere with cowardly researchers not willing to look at everything.
I myself was a rock solid atheist before I was humbled by certain mars images. Seems I didn't have a clue about the history of man.
The thing is I appauld Hoagland and Bara if they have the guts to go where they are told they should not go. They understand the enormous resistance they are going to get.
That would mean they will have to use some of the images available that back this up. I think they are smart enough to know that the alien explaination for the Mars ruins is a dead end street. It remains to be seen just how serious they are about the truth. I for one am very excited about this.
.
I myself was a rock solid atheist before I was humbled by certain mars images.
Regular Polygons, such as the Mesa's seen at Cydonia, are predictions of the Electric Universe theory.
It suddenly dawns on me that perhaps
the most intersting thing to see about
all these structures on the Moon and Mars
is not so much the buildings themselves,
but rather if they happen to have
cornerstones with Masonic emblems
on them.
Hmmm...maybe THAT's why "The *Red* Lodge" is the "highest one"....
Can't wait to check THAT out....
:-)
Regular Polygons, such as the Mesa's seen at Cydonia, are predictions of the Electric Universe theory.
That is way over my head. Don’t get me wrong as I am not bashing on these scientific theories. I actually think like Hoagland and Bara that there are many advanced technologies to discover and study on Mars but I think it is putting the cart before the horse. I believe you have to follow an orderly reasonable method of research.
I’ll try to explain. When people say that there are ruins of ancient civilizations on Mars then 50% of the people are going to disagree and say you are crazy.
Then the 50% that agree with you are faced with the question of who built the ruins. The only two theories I know of are “Little green aliens” or “human people that look like us”. So if you say “Aliens” then 50% of the people who think there are ancient ruins on Mars will disagree and say you are crazy. If you say “human people” then 50% will disagree and say you are crazy. Now you are down to 25% of the original people interested in Mars, who agree with you. 75% say you are crazy.
What I think has happened is this whole thing got stuck after 50% decided that there were ruins of an ancient civilization on Mars. No one wants to go to the next level and give their theory and proof as to who built the stuff on Mars. Could be that losing the support of the alien or Human/Elohim crowd is too big of a step to take. That’s why I think what Bara said is a very big deal. If they split off from the alien crowd then they must be confident that they have enough evidence to make that decision
I recently came into this as an Atheist with no pre-conceived notions. I have yet to see any evidence of aliens but have seen plenty of evidence of humans/elohim or what you might say are people with faces that look just like us.
Anyway the purpose is to move this thing to the next level which I think is possible to do now if the proper evidence is provided.
Rota
Greetings admin,
People will call you/me/anybody crazy pretty
much regardless, especially in *THIS* Roman
arena.
Consider the following historical tidbit---
Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson) died
of apoplexy in 1907, bellowing that the
Wright Brothers' first flight was a hoax.
Evidence notwithstanding. Period.
The lesson?
One ignores the naysayers, and follows
the trail of evidence (being careful, of
course, to mind the *RULES* of evidence,
such as they are). That is all an inquiring
mind can do.
And now---
As to "God," well...God is what you make of
it/Him/Her/whatever. (In other words, just
what constitutes "God" for you personally?
What do you want to see on His resume?
And how does that apply here?)
We're here, so either we evolved or we were
created. If we were created, then God has
always existed. If we evolved, then "God"
probably did too, and likely from (if you'll
pardon the paraphrase) "a long time ago in a
galaxy WAY far away from here."
So, "God" exists, even if He turns out to be
nothing more than a "glorified Go'a'uld," so
to speak. (Check out "StarGate: SG1" if you
don't recognize the reference.)
And the relevance of God? That's just a
personal issue, I suppose, excepting,
naturally, for how that might impinge on
the matter(s) at hand.
Such as, for example, the Scripture declaring
that "He set the Moon in the heavens" to give
light to the Earth by night, etc. We then
must give some weight to ancient writings
that state that the Moon just showed up one
fine day around 14,500 years ago, and then
politely assumed orbit of the Earth, following
two close passes (which probably were to
"start" the proper rotational sync between
the Earth and Moon, since the "new" system
would have a "new" center of mass---just
my opinion, for what it's worth).
I'd say that certainly puts God, the Elohim,
etc., right in the middle of the discussion,
at least in SOME fashion....
No argument there....
Now---back to the (raw) Science....
:-)
P.S.: I saw some book at Barnes and Noble
a while back written by some guy purporting
to "prove scientifically" that God does not
exist. Funny thing is, I thought Science told us
that you can't prove a negative.
Where DO these guys come from....
;-)
Post a Comment