Sunday, April 13, 2008

Updated Dark Mission.net

Just a note to let you know that I updated Dark Mission.net today. I added the books endnotes (which a lot of people have requested since they were printed so small in the the book) and updated the errata page.

Go to www.darkmission.net to see the changes.

45 comments:

expat said...

In the intro you write that Apollo crews brought back from the moon "not just rocks, but actual _samples_ of the ancient technologies they found--for highly classified efforts at "back engineering".

Surely that should be added to errata, now that you've acknowledged that you have no evidence for that assertion?

Mike Bara said...

No, the only thing I'll acknowledge is that I allow you to keep posting here because I have so much fun watching you hang yourself with your own stupidity.

Gort said...

Mike:
"No Joy" on the end notes.
I've looked all over the web site. Where did you hide them?
I give up. :)

Gort

Mike Bara said...

The link is right on the front page. You might have to hit F5 to clear your cache. Here's a direct link anyway.

http://www.darkmission.net/endnotes.htm

Carol Maltby said...

Are there any plans for an index in the revised edition?

Mike Bara said...

"Are there any plans for an index in the revised edition?"

It's a priority Carol. The problem is that it needs to be generated by the guy who did our book layout because otherwise the page numbers might not match.

jjrakman said...

One of the things I think people have a rpoblem with in regarsds to this work, is that alot of the photographs, just tend to look like grainy blurry pictures of panetary landscapes.

In my own opinion, I've seen things that make me raise an eyebrow for a moment or two, but nothing that I would say qualifies as a smoking gun. For myself, I need to hold either a rock or a raygun in my hand to be convinced either way at this point.

Having said that, there's a wonderful 2-hour documentary running on the History Channel, about what would happen to the Earth, to nature and to our structures, if Mankind vanished.

And it showed how after only 1000 years nearly every trace of construction is obliterated, certainly from an orbital viewpoint at least. It made me think that if the purported structures are far older than 1000 years, that could go a long way in explaining why alot of the structures that laymen like myself view as nothing more than a pile of rocks, could by a trained eye be spotted out as millenia old ruins.

If our structures here on Earth would essentially vanish after only a thousand years without Man's presence, what would be left of structures on other planets after many thousands of years?

Check out the documentary, it's pretty good.

Life After People
http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-People-History-Channel/dp/B0012IV3PU

Adrian said...

in regard to jjrakman:

Must be a "very scientific" and down to earth documetary then???

If the key element that you so mention namely, "If our structures here on Earth would essentially vanish after only a thousand years without Man's presence, what would be left of structures on other planets after many thousands of years?"

Maybe it is time to take a look at "real documentaries" in which you can see and observe monuments that are far..far older then a mere thousands years...hint..the pyramids on the Gizah plateau for instance

expat said...

As long as you're dealing with errata, don't forget to delete the utterly false allegation that NASA concealed the Viking biology Labeled Release data. Refer to:
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/vlander/lr.html

Thanks.

Mike Bara said...

http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/Reprint88.htm

http://mars.spherix.com/R89VikingLR.htm

http://mars.spherix.com/search/Schnonbx.htm

http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/92scan.htm

http://mars.spherix.com/NewhouseNews.PDF

http://mars.spherix.com/spie/SPIE2005HVD.pdf

Idiot.

BTW, Cuban Pete, you can send me an email at the address on Dark Mission.net.

lincoln said...

A repeat pattern here -- a reasonable inquiry from "expat" is met with immediate adolescent-style insult from Mike Bara.

I have to ask, Mr Bara, have you no debating skills whatsoever?

Mike Bara said...

There is nothing at all reasonable about expat or his inquiries. In fact there is no question in his postings at all -- just one insipid accusation after another.

Most (if not all of them) are addressed already in the book.

jjrakman said...

In regard to Adrian,

I don't know about highly scientific, but it's certainly the first documentary I've seen that tackles such a subject.

As far as the Pyramids, the documentary does in fact touch upon megalithic structures, and instrestingly enough, talks about how the sands would cover them and then shows "pyramidal" (I can't believe I'm saying that word) sand dunes that eventually would cover them up.

Regardless, the degredation of megalithic structures vs. modern structures would be an entirely different process.

The Blog owners are free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the thrust of their argument is that the Monuments of Mars are modern stuctures, or structures made with iron girders and such, as opposed to megalithic stone structures.

The two would have entirely different and seperate erosion and degredation processes as far as I know.

Like I said, I'm an open minded skeptic fence sitter. At this point for myself, I think there's compelling arguments on both sides. But for myself, I won't fall on either side until I go to Mars myself, and sit inside of either a cave, or some ruined apartment. I'm very much a show me and I'll believe it kind of guy.

I just hope until that happens, that dialogue on both sides continue.

Even if it turns out to be just rocks, I think something invauable will be learned by TEM's process in extraterrestrial archaeology, since I think that is something Mankind will eventually need to learn anyway, even if the stuff they show in our own Solar System turns out to be just rocks.

Even if they're wrong, we can still look to what they've done, and what mistakes they may have made, to improve the science of extraterrestrial archaeology for future generations. Eventually, Mankind will have to confront E.T. ruins, even if it's not the ones that TEM is writing about.

jjrakman said...

By the way Adrian, about highly scientific documentary, you'd have to contact History Channel for commentary on that.

But the things they were showing in it, made me immediately think about TEM. The first thing I thought while watching it, was that these were the things TEM has been talking about.

Interesting stuff anyway. Check it out.

TV Digital said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV Digital, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-digital-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

lincoln said...

I see. Your six URLs appear to confirm that the LR data is being openly discussed, rather than concealed. I guess that's what in the world of soccer they call an "own goal".

Mike Bara said...

No. What they show is that Dr. Levin was right all along, and that NASA clearly knew this very early on, but continues to cling to their absurd "chemical reaction" explanation.

marsandro said...

It seems what we all need is for the following
scenario to actually occur:

A UFO appears out of the blue and lands at a
TV station. They go to network for the event.

The Alien says, "It's a Face, and we built it.
So there." (The Alien sticks out his tongue.)

The Alien returns to his UFO and flies away.

Moments later, the UFO returns and lands again.

The Alien re-emerges and says, "And we also
built all the Moon stuff. So there." (The Alien
sticks out his tongue again.)

The Alien once again departs.

The news crew gives the camera dumb looks.

The network goes to commercials....

:-)

Mike Bara said...

That would probably help sales for sure...

marsandro said...

Especially if the commercial was for Dark Mission!

:-))

Dave Bara said...

jjrakman,

Something you also need to consider is the diferences of structures eroding in a biosphere like Earth with its atmosphere density, sea salt, etc, etc, vs. the much different conditions on Mars, the moon, etc.

db

expat said...

>>Most (if not all of them) are addressed already in the book.<<

No, it's the inaccuracies that are in the book. Please cite an example of an error I've brought to your attention that is "addressed already".

Cheers.

Mike Bara said...

I'm not aware of any "errors" you've brought to my attention.

Ever.

Adrian said...

jjrakman,

interesting reply on the subject. In relation to that I then would pose the following question in general;

what then would be the (phases) of presumed degradation of buildingmaterials exotic, materials commonly known to us or otherwise in a zero atmosphere environment?

Next to that and more on a personal level it never seizes to amaze me that, when people like Hoagland, Bara and others bring scientific (and thus veriviable data to the fore, that some people instantly try to debunk, deny or ridicule it without analizing the content of it. A kind of Pavlov reflex in order to lead away from the essence and subject of the story, article or book.

take expat for instance...it's almost like it is his lifelong ambition to divert the attention away from any presented data..and then start arguing in a manner like "...well, oke so you think you have found an apple...but since there's no appletree in the picture...it can't be an apple".

Every out of place artifact or anomaly albeit a structure or artifact of which it can't be proven to be of natural origin....must have and deserve our fullest attention for further reserch. Otherwise it may turn out that we simply are..monkeys with a few trick's up our sleeve

jjrakman said...

what then would be the (phases) of presumed degradation of buildingmaterials exotic, materials commonly known to us or otherwise in a zero atmosphere environment?

Adrian, that's a really good question.

Unfortunately, in my opinion all we can do is speculate, since Mankind doesn't really have extended experience with manmade strucutres in a Zero Atmosphere environment yet.

But in terms of speculation, I wouls say that there has to be some kind of degredation involved, otherwise the Moon itself would look as pristine as it was immediately after its creation.

Certainly there are meteors, micrometers and the like that could compromise structures.

In addition if there was a supposed civilization that colonized the Moon, I think it would be safe to say that they may have had their own artificial satellite system much like Earth's. It certainly wouldn't have remained in orbit forever so I imagine there could be an argument for the presence of space junk falling to the surface potenitally causing damage to structures.

We know that the ultraviolet rays of the sun cause damage to materials on Earth, imagine what they might do to strcutures on the Moon with no O-Zone ove many thousands of years.

Someone else will have to verify this, but if there was any past seismic or volcanic activity on the Moon, that could certainly aid in degradation.

And of course the lack of presence of Man (whoever) means the lack of regular maintenance, which all artifical systems need to prevent degredation.

Once degredation began by any one of these factors or a combination of them, the one sixth gravity of the Moon could be enough to pull down large enough compromised structures over a long period of time.

But as I said, all this is pure speculation on my part.

jjrakman said...

Something you also need to consider is the diferences of structures eroding in a biosphere like Earth with its atmosphere density, sea salt, etc, etc, vs. the much different conditions on Mars, the moon, etc.

The processes may be different, definitely. But I would think that the end result, at least visually from an orbital point of view, but be strikingly similar.

In other words, it doesn't matter how you get from Point A to Point B, only that you eventally arrive at Point B.

But I could be wrong.

JimO said...

Adrian: "...it never seizes to amaze me that, when people like Hoagland, Bara and others bring scientific (and thus verifiable) data to the fore, that some people instantly try to debunk, deny or ridicule it without analizing the content of it. A kind of Pavlov reflex in order to lead away from the essence and subject of the story, article or book."

Some people do. Not all critics.

Pay attention to those who bring their own expertise and logic -- and verifiable data -- to the debate. Don't use the clowns as an excuse to shut your eyes to all criticism.

Carol Maltby said...

There was, BTW, another TV documentary in the past month or so on another channel that also covered the same concept of what would happen if humans vanished from the earth. I can't remember the channel (maybe National Geographic?), but I recall it being somewhat better than the first one.

I've always found Lan Fleming's article "On Mounds, Mesas, and Martians" to be an interesting perspective on how we would go about determining the difference between long-term degradation of a natural, geological feature, compared to a artificially constructed one.

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/structcmp/structcmp.htm

Those who reject the exploration of the idea that the Face on Mars or other features could be artificial have never managed to present any useful criteria for distinguishing the two states. If the Face is possibly an eroded sculpture, you've got to be able to use the vocabulary and tools of art and archeology to discuss it, not just geology. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Biological_Unit said...

There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower.

Mike Bara said...

More proof that you're an abject moron Unit...

Adrian said...

to jimo on his remark

"Don't use the clowns as an excuse to shut your eyes to all criticism"

where or when did I mention that I shut my eyes to all criticism? I'll help you in answering that...I did'nt :-)

I simply mentioned my amazement towards "some" people and their clownlike behaviour, as you so eloquently phrased it. Sure thing, criticism is good. For instance the critical data on the workings and behavior of NASA.

jjrakman said...

Biological Unit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Another aspect regarding degredation of artificial strcutures on the Moon,

If these are arcologies, or contained environments as I believe TEM argues, then there would be a contained atmosphere inside the strucutres. Which means somekind of humidity level, which means moisture. That could cause degredation from the inside.

Just a thought.

marsandro said...

Hey Unit,

Unless you are suggesting that possibly an
alien ship crashed into the Face at some
point in the distant past, I don't quite see
the relevance.

Of course, RCH has plenty of very interesting
pictures of some...shall we say, "candidate
vessels"...

But none of them are anywhere near the Face.

Bounced off and crashed elswhere, maybe?
;-))

(Kind of like those little guys in the movie
"Spaced Invaders" trying to take off?)

:-))))

marsandro said...

Hi jjrakman,

Re:
Like I said, I'm an open minded skeptic fence
sitter. I'm very much a show me and I'll
believe it kind of guy.


First of all, I'd like to say that as "skeptics"
go (at least in my own experience), you are
a breath of fresh air.

Secondly, do you happen to live anywhere near
Southern California?

The reason I ask is that I have been to a
place in the high desert there where there
are ET ruins---a crashed "rod" ship which is
now petrified, and a very obvious bunker
facility, which appears to have been destroyed
in some sort of fire fight, apparently with
the crashed ship.

I wish I could remember the name of the man
who took us (myself and two others) on a
"tour" of the bunker site (from which you
could see the crashed rod ship, lying in a
"saddle" between two peaks on the opposite
side of the valley).

He was studying some vortex or other
together with some people from one of
the local colleges, I think. It's been years
ago, and I regret that I've forgotten many
details.

Point being, that you can see ET "ruins"
right here on Earth.

These were reportedly some 80,000 years old.

:-)

Mike Bara said...

Okaaaay... take me there.

jjrakman said...

marsandro,

Well for me being a skeptic means being a skeptic of all sides, not just one side. At least until one side proves beyond the shadow of a doubt their case. At the same time, I find it fun to speculate on possibilities.

No, I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Here, we have what some who have followed this work, as a hyperdimensional ruin.

There's an archaeological site halfway between Milwaukee and Madison, called Aztalan which is supposedly the remains of a civilization that descended from the Chahokia tribe in St. Louis.

Funny thing about the site, is that there are Earthen pyramids in the former native american village. In nearby Rock Lake, there are stone tent like structures at the bottom of the lake, which was formed at the end of the ice age, and provides hot archaeological debate here.

But nearby there's a small town called Lake Mills. The town has a Town Triangle instead of a Town Square. In this Town Triangle, is a triangular pedistal, with a sculpture of a granite tetrahedra inside of it.

Kind of interesting stuff.

marsandro said...

Hi jjrakman,

Well, I certainly appreciate your way of
looking at things.

I've heard of Lake Mills. Maybe someday I can
come see it. (I'm in Louisiana.)

Now---Mike,

Shucks! I forgot you live practically right on
top of this stuff.

Los Angeles, right? Well, duh! :-))

I can contact one of the other folks who
went on this foray and get you the name
of our "guide." You can contact him and
get the exact info.

All I recall is that we went west on I-10
(we were coming from Joshua Tree via #62)
to some exit I forget, took a new-looking
two-lane blacktop north, turned right on
some other blacktop with a name starting
with "K" (Kaitlin? Katy? I dunno) which went
eastward through some small town where
the "something-or-other-a-tron" was located,
but the vortex had shifted to a new location,
so we went there first, then to the site of
the bunker.

I can tell you that when I spun in the
vortex with my arms extended as I was
instructed, it gave me an instant migraine.
I didn't do THAT again....

But, apparently, there is *something* there,
albeit I couldn't tell you what it is....

And the bunker? It's impressive, that much
I can tell you. And it is indeed some sort
of bunker, alright. It's composition was that
of an obsydium-like substance that nonetheless
had been "worked" with some sort of trowel-like
tool to give it a "natural" appearance.

There is nothing "natural" about it.

The gloss-black composite, whatever it is,
is incredibly tough. Worth study, I'd say.

And the ship? We could see it, but we didn't
have time to go there. Come nightfall, the
area is dangerous for visitors.

Cult types that kill people frequent the area,
reportedly....

I'll see about getting you the info you'll need
to go check it out.

:-)

P.S.: The roads in the mountain valley are all
sand. You'll need a range truck or a Jeep with
mudgrip tires. I'd also carry as many spares
as possible. Someone may try to slash your tires
while you're up the hill from where you will have
to park to see either the bunker OR the ship.

And if you have a "Carry Permit"...you might
want to have it with you, as well as some
serious firepower, just in case.

marsandro said...

Speaking of things you can see in the way of
"ET ruins":

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iusq6j8cG1o

Unless I'm losing my mind, this thing is a downed
Sun Cruiser. I recognize it from other pictures
of these ships, including from SOHO photos.

Here's a video of one in flight. Note the aspect
ratio and coloration:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmdrzLZR2I

The color is that of either titanium or titanium
dioxide (likely the latter).

The Greenland object is 50 miles long by 12 miles
wide, and is in the precise location of what was
cataloged in the mid-1960s as a "gravitational
anomaly" by the US Geological Survey doing what
in international legal lingo is known as a "client
survey."

What is not commonly known is that the site was
cored, and the coring bits struck titanium.

At that time, the object was still under the glacier.

About two years ago, the thing uncovered itself
by somehow melting the ice.

This object can be seen on Google Maps. The
coordinates are in the first video.

If I had to guess, the US Air Force's "UFO Recovery
Team" is all over this thing by now.

I encountered the UFO Recovery Team at Altus
AFB in 1972 in the 4th MCGp chow hall. They were
wearing orange ascots and starched fatigues with
patent-leather combat boots, and had the UFORT
patch on their sleeves.

As I was leaving, I stopped and asked one of
them which unit they were, whereupon they all
turned towards me, and the senior airman said,
"Don't ask." At that point, I suddenly realized
the danger, and immediately said, "Oh. Right.
Sorry. Classified."

I left the chow hall FAST.

That's as close to being arrested for a National
Security Violation as I cared to come.

I was just a little ol' double-ping-winger with
a "mere" Secret Clearance. (I qualified for a
Top Secret Class-Q/Crypto-17---same as the
President. However, a UFORT clearance is more
like Top Secret Class-T/Majic or even higher.
You do NOT mess with this stuff.)

Yes, ET ruins and wrecks are here. But not all
can be accessed, thanks to the Powers That Be.

"They" know about the California stuff, but our
"guide" backed them off. It's a long story....

:-)

jjrakman said...

Marsandro,

Yeah, it's really wierd. For a skeptic not wanting to fall on either side of the fence until someone puts a ray gun in my hand, I have to admit...

Seeing the whole Aztalan/Rock Lake/Lake Mills area in Wisconsin is really bizarre for someone who has read TEM's work.

It's almost as if the area were tailor made for their theories.

marsandro said...

Hi Mike,

Re:
All I recall is that we went west on I-10
(we were coming from Joshua Tree via #62)
to some exit I forget, took a new-looking
two-lane blacktop north, turned right on
some other blacktop with a name starting
with "K" (Kaitlin? Katy? I dunno) which went
eastward through some small town where
the "something-or-other-a-tron" was located,
but the vortex had shifted to a new location,
so we went there first, then to the site of
the bunker.


I've been trying to find this stuff on
Google Maps, and...

After some thought, I think the part about
going on I-10 was erroneous.

I think it was more like---

We went west on #62 out of Joshua Tree and
turned north on #247 in Yucca Valley, then
followed that to Lucerne Valley where you
pick up #18, then followed that to 165th St E,
which we followed to 170th St E (it changes),
then up to East Avenue K 8 (which is where
the "K" got into it, I think), then right
into (and through) Wilsona Gardens.

From there, you have to know the roads out
into the desert. I might be able to remember
the way, but I wouldn't trust my memory
quite that far these days.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this stuff is located
somewhere between Saddleback Butte State
Park and Shadow Mountain, out in the high
desert area east (or southeast) of Wilsona
Gardens.

I still haven't heard from either Loren or
Abbie (the other two parties on this little
"field trip"), but I'll give you a buzz if or
whenever I do.

And I'll get you our guide's name if only I
can think of it.

:-)

marsandro said...

Hi jjrakman,

I can understand. Then again, perhaps they
"were" tailor made for TEM's theories! :-)
(I just couldn't resist that one.)

As for myself, I may be somewhat less
"skeptical" than my fellows, but that is
only because I have been in the position
to know things that most people would
never dream could be.

The view is very different from "inside the
security curtain."

I've been there. And my father was there
before me.

Naturally, this tends to affect the way I
look at what TEM has to say.

:-)

marsandro said...

Hi Mike,

Here's another piece of the recollection puzzle:

The "something-or-other-atron" was the *Integratron*.

They were discussing it on Coast To Coast AM
last night, and I recognized the name.

Now...if I can just remember our guide's name...

Tom Valone?

I'm looking at the pictures on Google images
and I'm thinking, "...no...that's not the guy I
remember...."

...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

:-)

P.S.: You can go to images.google.com and put in
these coordinates:

* 34°17'39.29"N
* 116°24'13.51"W

That'll get you a satellite image (after you select
"Satellite" of course) of the Integratron.

Then you can "back away from it" and see the
surrounding area.

There's a complete article on WikiPedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integratron

Mike Bara said...

Yeah I've been to the Integratron. It's pretty cool.

marsandro said...

Since I see the Integratron is just off #247,
I guess my "corrected" recollection is a little
more on the accurate side.

But I still think we came out of Wilsona Gardens
to go see the bunker and stuff.

We must have gone by the Integratron on the way
out to the other locales, because we did stop by
there.

:-)

P.S.: Maybe it was Tom Valone...white hair, and
face a little more "full"...maybe....

This guy looked a little more "movie star" than
the pictures I see on Google. At least that's
how I remember him.

And while I know the name "Tom Valone," that
just doesn't ring any bells, like when I heard
the Coast guys mention the Integratron.

I'll think of it eventually....

:-)

marsandro said...

Mike---Correction!!!

When I said "images.google.com" in that
earlier post about the Integratron, I meant:

http://maps.google.com

Duh! Sorry about the error! :-\

:-)