Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Blog Going Dark

Okay guys, I'm off to Roswell tomorrow so there'll be no blog updates until Tuesday, at least. Feel free to post but understand I won't moderating the comments until at then.

Everybody have a nice holiday weekend!



The Running Man said...

New to the blogs here. I have a few questions:
Is there any serious discussion about nibiru, and is there evidence it is Planet V?
A close friend of mine is a postdoc from MIT and has worked at JPL and NASA and has friends in a classified company called "the aero corporation". They can't tell me what type of work they do . They seem pretty normal, is there anything I can tell them that would help them out?

david nineteenpointfive said...

You lucky dog. What a great gig - enjoy!

nyceddie said...

Monday, July 7, 2008 - 11:30 PM Post

Another "nail" in Hoagland's "coffin"!, Hoagland makes HUGE mistake in assumption.

This is for the record to confirm my discovery.

I'm reading Richard C. Hoagland's and Mike Bara's book "DARK MISSION: THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA" which I borrowed from the public library. I'm presently on Chapter Four, page 171, and Hoagland has been talking about his alleged discoveries/findings of crystalline structures above the surface of the Moon and which, he alleges, appear in photos taken by Orbiters and astronauts. He particularly mentions astronaut Alan Bean who after retiring from NASA has become an acclaimed artist. Hoagland says that Bean paints real events and "imagined depictions" of his fellow astronauts doing things they didn't get to do on the "real" Moon. Hoagland points out that Bean paints a black lunar sky when imagining and when he paints memories of his own visit to the Moon he paints the sky in an odd bluish tone "we have come to expect from all the 'shattered, geometric glass' in the un-retouched surface images to which we've now had access."

Hoagland continues on page 162: "Of all Bean's fascinating paintings, one in particular stands out above the others. Titled 'Rock 'n Roll om the Ocean of Storms,' [sic] it depicts Bean and the Mission Commander, Pete Conrad, horse-playing on the surface of the Moon. Not only does it display the bright, refractive color scheme which has become the hallmark of the Bean-interpretation of the lunar surface - the sky above the astronauts unmistakably depicts not only Hoagland's 'battered lunar dome' but its specifically 'inclined buttresses' as well." The painting is shown in the color photo section as Color Fig. 12 with this caption: "'Rock and Roll on the Ocean of Storms' [sic] by astronaut Alan Bean (left). Note pink lunar regolith and 'structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses seen in Apollo 14 frame AS14-66-9301 from Ken Johnston collection (right)."

Well folks, when I saw the painting and what Hoagland calls "structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses" the "buttresses" triggered something in my memory and I searched my sources (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazines I was looking at this afternoon and my NASA lunar books yesterday) and I realized that I had caught Hoagland in a big blunder. You see, those "buttresses" in the painting are NOT "structured reflecting slanted, inclined buttresses" but an astronaut's lunar footprint! Alan Bean painted the iconic image as a "transparent" (no pun intended) background to the main images of the astronauts on the lunar surface. As you will see in the photos below there is no doubt of my discovery. The only difference I can see is that the photo of the footprint should be rotated to match the painting's image of the footprint, or right side up.

I will bring this to Hoagland's and Bara's attention so that they can get ready to eat crow [Eating crow is an English idiom meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position].

I love debunking!

Skeptical Ed

[2 photos: painting by Alan Bean: "Rock 'N' Roll on the Ocean of Storms" and astronaut lunar footprint]

Mike Bara said...

It's always nice when another blithering idiot such as yourself can come into the blog so I can chew you up and spit you out.

Please tell me where in Dark Mission it says that the diagonal stripes on the Bean painting are NOT the astronauts footprint? In fact, on Bean's own web site it says that's what the diagonal textures are supposed to be.

Our point is that they are an exact match for the diagonal structures that are seen in the Apollo 12 and 14 photography. Bean would have certainly seen this during his time on the Moon. We freely speculate that either Bean is deliberately placing the footprint so the banding matches the diagonal structures in the sky above the landing site, or it was done subconsciously by a man struggling to remember what he really saw there.

The point is, the placement of the “footprint” in the sky above, combined with the multicolored surface is way too much of a coincidence for us to ignore.

Perhaps we didn’t make that clear enough in the text.

Or maybe you’re just another idiot, like expat.

I’m going with the latter.

nyceddie said...

"Mike": In your "creative" and vitriolic response you twist the truth to save face.

I googled "Alan Bean website" and none came up except a website featuring Bean's paintings with Bean's comments about some of his paintings.

The painting in question has nothing in the comments about Bean using his boot imprint on the painting. If you have a source for YOUR info, please provide it in a reply, I'd love to read it.

It is kind of silly for you and Hoagland to claim that YOU know what the astronauts forgot because you both theorize that the astronauts were hypnotized within NASA to forget what they saw on the Moon. THAT, Mike, is unbelievable and until you or Hoagland can provide evidence to substantiate your claim, it is simply HOGWASH!

You say in your reply: "Please tell me where in Dark Mission it says that the diagonal stripes on the Bean painting are NOT the astronauts footprint? In fact, on Bean's own web site it says that's what the diagonal textures are supposed to be."

Please tell ME where in the book it says the opposite and where on the non-existent Bean website it says what you claim it says.

You say: "Perhaps we didn’t make that clear enough in the text." Not only did you NOT make that clear enough in the text, you didn't mention it at all! But if I'm wrong, please tell me on what page I can find it.

Let's face it, Mike, you don't fare so well either with your website on lunar anomalies. Why should it be different now that you have teamed up with another fantasist.

We all would love to know the truth but I don't think it can found in "DARK MISSION: THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA".

Mike Bara said...

Well genius, try googling "Alan Bean paintings" or "Alan Bean gallery" and the first links you'll get are to this page:

Which shows the bootprints in question, labeled as such.

But thanks for proving my original contention: you're a moron.

nyceddie said...

To repeat what you have not addressed.

You say: "Perhaps we didn’t make that clear enough in the text." Not only did you NOT make that clear enough in the text, you didn't mention it at all! But if I'm wrong, please tell me on what page I can find it.

So, again, where in the book does one find any mention of Alan Bean using his boot to imprint his painting?

david nineteenpointfive said...

Exactly, Mike. Cheers.

It takes courage to offer opinions and hypotheses on these subjects, but Hoagland (& now also Bara) has always done his homework thoroughly. It is easy to write another book that simply calls astronauts heroes and
sip a drink of Tang. Hoagland has thankfully never been afraid to give a hypothesis of what he sees, which more often makes sense.

Mike Bara said...

I knew your next response would fail to address the fact that you don’t even know how to use Google.

You come into my blog acting like you have some big revelation about the diagonal marks being the astronaut’s bootprint, when we never said in Dark Mission – anywhere – that it wasn’t. All we were pointing out was that the marks bore a strong resemblance to the diagonal structures we see on two different datasets from two different missions using two different film mediums. To quote:

“Of all Bean’s fascinating paintings, one in particular stands out above the others. Titled “Rock ’n Roll on the Ocean of Storms,” it depicts Bean and his Mission Commander, Pete Conrad, horse-playing on the surface of the Moon. Not only does it display the bright, refractive color scheme which has become the hallmark of the Bean-interpretation of the lunar surface—the sky above the astronauts unmistakably depicts not only Hoagland’s “battered lunar dome” but its specifically “inclined buttresses” as well.”


“The only question remaining in our minds is whether this was some kind of intentional, but oblique “disclosure” on Bean’s part—as a way of legally getting around his responsibilities to stay silent under “Brookings”—or, if this is a sign that his unconscious mind has been “remembering things” his conscious mind had been trained to effectively forget.”

So where in there did we say that the diagonal marks WERE NOT, according to Bean’s own website, a stylized bootprint? Again, our point was that regardless of what it was supposed to be, it’s placement and depiction matched the actual ruins with incredible accuracy. Not only did we not try to “hide” this fact, as you imply, but in the footnotes to the book we actually gave you the Alan Bean gallery website where you could go and see the painting, and where it says that the marks are supposedly a bootprint.

You know, the website you are not competent enough to even find with Google?

So basically you accuse us of hiding something we never hid, of making a claim about a website that you say didn’t exist, and of saying things we never said.

So how do you want your crow? I hear it’s not too bad with a little salt.

But you’ll have to ask James Oberg about that.

nyceddie said...

You know you are lying and you don't have what it takes to admit it.

"You come into my blog acting like you have some big revelation about the diagonal marks being the astronaut’s bootprint, when we never said in Dark Mission – anywhere – that it wasn’t."

You never said anywhere in the book that IT WAS! Talk about copping a plea!

"All we were pointing out was that the marks bore a strong resemblance to the diagonal structures we see on two different datasets from two different missions using two different film mediums."

You didn't say anything about the marks bearing anything. What you say here is what you should have said in the book and it's a little too late for that.

You are playing with words and you are not a good player. Next time, mean what you say and say what you mean.

The book stands with your and Hoagland's words and you can't unring a bell.

david nineteenpointfive said...

I seriously doubt the "debunkers" grew up in the 70's, bearing witness to the space craze moon landings abruptly ending for now apparent reason.

I also doubt they've spent time in the military, much less with security clearance responsibilities.

Mike Bara said...

My god, you are like dealing with a juvenile version of expat.

I never said in the book that it was (claimed) to be a representation of a bootprint?

Yeah, because it's completely irrelevant to the fact that in my opinion, it's meant to represent the diagonal structures, no matter what it says on the Bean website or what he believes consciously.

As I've repeated how many times?

So let's see, because I didn't bother to include a sentence about what it says on the website (even though I included a direct reference to the website in a footnote) I'm a "liar?"

Seriously? You've got to be kidding.

Admit it, you're expat's nephew, right? The one that "proved" that Data's Head was a "fraud?"

david nineteenpointfive said...

Targeting one issue (and unsuccessfully I might add) does not prove Hoagland & Bora wrong. I seem to recall a string of post-moon astronaut behavior and comments that were publicly available, all gathering a consistency leading to some insights that the Dark Mission authors provided.

Seriously, I think the book + footnotes if presented in such a format would stand up in a court of law. But as they mentioned, the power of subpoena is quite elusive in this realm.

T'Zairis said...

After reading the original 'Bean Moon Art' article on TEM a few years back, I scoured the web looking for large versions of Bean's paintings, because I wanted to see texture, color palette, and so on. There were at that time-- and still are-- multiple websites which feature galleries of his paintings, complete with the explanation that the texture in his Moon works comes from both boot and suit-fabric impressions, so it is common knowledge that this is how he texturizes his art.

What Dark Mission points out is that the fact that there is angular texture in his paintings (especially that which is in the 'sky' portions) is perhaps his tacit way of saying he saw angular things in the sky on the Moon. It doesn't matter what he made the texture with-- his boot, a palette-knife or an old cat-food can. It is the fact that the angular texture is there in the first place that is important. Interestingly enough, he doesn't do the texturizing with any of his other paintings-- I know, because I checked out his other stuff in the online galleries as well-- it seems to be just the Moon ones that get this treatment.

My favorite painting of his is one called 'That's What It Felt Like To Walk On The Moon'. It manages to be both technically accurate and ethereal at the same time, and is filled with pastel rainbows everywhere-- it must be really something to stand underneath whatever that reflective stuff is and see color all over the place!

There are also a couple of Moon paintings that Bean has done multiple versions of, each in a different color scheme, which makes me wonder if he is referencing how colors change under the ruins as the Sun moves.

The bottom line is that Dark Mission didn't misrepresent anything-- what is discussed in the book is the presence of angular texture in the skies of Bean's Moon-pix, not the mechanics by which the texture was achieved, and anyone with a good grasp of basic English will understand what was under discussion, because the language is quite clear.



Gort said...

T'Zairis, good call on the "cat-food can" LOL


Gort said...

Speaking of cats, feast your eyes on this picture, especially to the right of the "pup tent" in the middle of the pic.:

It is from Phoenix Lander Sol 37


Sphinx said...

Hi Mike!
I found some interesting things in a photo on the European Space Agency website. Here is the link:

Download the photo in Hi-Res Jpeg, lower the brightness a little bit, increase the contrast and you will find too many geometrical objects, parallel lines, square, cross and circular shapes, connected by roads.


marsandro said...


I assume you mean "above and to the right."

Maybe not a pussycat, but it sure looks like
an armadillo!

I tried enlarging in MS Paint (but all I could
get was about 200% magnification without
losing image integrity), and it appears to be
possibly a young Rodabear emerging from a
hiding place in the box-like debris behind it.

So---now we have three good closeup pics of
adult Rodabears, and possibly a distant pic
of one of their young---assuming it's not
some other Martian species.

Cute little guy. Looks curious, too.

Great find, Gort!


Hathor - Patron Goddess of Martian Creatures


Shamus said...

Bara is right Expat, or Nyceddie depending on who he signs in as... wants naked revenge for being punked. They both cant admit anything point after point. It seems stange to focus on the Bean painting, when the bulk of the data relating to Dark Mission is Real photographic evidence. Seems somebody just wanted a lame talking point..I seem to find just fine. Maybe Google dosent like him and is out to get him

Mike Bara said...


The point is that in a 550 page book, anybody can say "they should have said more about this or that." When you have word limits and page limits, sometimes points get dropped. I specifically remember talking with Richard about this very point, and he said we should include something about Bean's webiste saying it was a boot print. As I recall, I had no desire to add to that section, since it was a tertiary point at best, and since IMO the assertion that the textures were a bootprint didn't change the fact that they looked exactly like the diagonal structures. I also argued that since we included the web link, it wasn't worth mentioning.

How this bozo can claim this editorial decision was deceptive when WE INLUDED A REFERENCE TO THE WEBSITE is beyond me.

Actually, it's not beyond me. These people, expat and nyeddie and their ilk, are deeply frightened by the data we present, so they have to make us out to be deceptive or insincere. The alternative, that everything they think they know is a lie, is just too scary for them.

But that doesn't make me feel any compassion for them. They are d******s. The whole lot of them.

david nineteenpointfive said...

I've noticed that the official photos on a JPL or NASA website that I think I linked from showed blurred out (edited) areas of what are clearly rectangular structures. Like Mike said, their references are there if you want to see stuff with your own eyes.

KS15 said...

Hello Mike.

A quote;

“Actually, it's not beyond me. These people, expat and nyeddie and their ilk, are deeply frightened by the data we present, so they have to make us out to be deceptive or insincere. The alternative, that everything they think they know is a lie, is just too scary for them.”

For people to accept the possibility of ruins on Mars or the Moon, A fundamental change in their world view must take place. This change is scary for most people. It is a paradigm shift thing.

The debunking crowd is a becoming divided into two camps….The increasingly silent camp and the desperately silly camp. Some of the debunking is down right funny.

For me, I am ready for the truth about Mars or the Moon. In reality, We will be discovering the truth of our forgotten history.

Starborne said...

Folks like the individuals mentioned above appear to me what Brookings were thinking of 50 years ago. We could have every living person who has ever been a part of NASA or any research dept known or unknown, hold a massive press conference tomorrow to "disclose" (for lack of a better term) everything that has been proven by folks such as yourself and Hoagy, and there will still be some idiot trying to debunk the cold hard facts. As a matter of fact it's like the program I was just watching about the first proof of the solar wind. There was basicly one person who studied all the data and knew that it had to exsist to account for certain phenomena in the solar system. Even after a probe was sent up with a plasma detector and found the solar wind to exsist, (at a much higher consentration that anticipated) it was still debated heavily for a few years.

It's amazing how long some of us can clutch on to wrong information or out right lies. ;)

nyceddie said...

When you present bullshit and then try to explain it as something else, the bullshit will still smell. Phew!

Mike Bara said...

Then it must smell pretty bad where you're sitting right now...

Shamus said...

Hey Mike whats your take on idea of various life forms said to be seen on mars? Are we talking about life that has might have adapted to finding the mostly underground water, or is there more water then just a few pools and that relates to why NASA was fooling with the color of the Mars atmosphere> seems they want us to think there is a weak atmosphere and no water to make it the most uninviting place ever... Reminds me in a sense of the reason why thy called the country of "Iceland" something to forbidding,when it is so very beautiful and green in many places. Is this a case of us being the unwanted settlers?
P.S Nyceddie sounds like his meds are off... Or needs a stay at A__Holes Anonymous ... I think somebody needs to share with his community.

Mike Bara said...

I think there's a lot more liquid water on Mars than NASA will admit, and life is abundant, including microorganisms, lichens, simple plants and maybe even some bushes and trees. The higher forms were all killed off in the explosion of Planet V tho...

marsandro said...

Hey Mike,

The higher forms were all killed off in the explosion of Planet V tho...

I presume you have heard of The Galapagos?
On the north side of the Bikini Atoll?

Today, it is teeming with all manner of new
and previously unrecorded life forms. It is
home to the world's largest tortoise. Etc.

Perhaps you were not quite old enough to
have known that---

This was ground zero for US Navy nuclear
tests (i.e., above-ground nuclear detonations
up to 10 megatons) from 1945 to 1960, when
the first nuclear test ban treaty was signed
(covering above-ground tests). The US Navy
conducted these tests as frequently as twice
a month for those fifteen years, but at least
once a month.

The tests were conducted on the north side
of the atoll, right between the main islands
and the island of Galapagos. It was in the
direct blast effects zone for each and every

Yet it teems with life today. And this, despite
having been nuked over 200 times during a
fifteen year period, and in recent history.

So...what are these animals doing on Mars?


Either that, or you must think Keith Laney
faked the "Ratfinder" pics...?

And Gort didn't find a picture of a baby

(It's either that or a young armadillo. Or
maybe an opossum.)

And I've been watching some marvellously
faked videos? Made with Pathfinder images?

Including one with A TOMCAT?

"The first duty of science is OBSERVATION."

I observe that Mars has animal life. Three
species for sure thus far, and possibly two more:

1 - The Rodabear, as I've dubbed it.
2 - Cats---just like the ones here.
3 - Flying dragons.
4 - A sort of tortoise-like reptile.
5 - A sort of little "Mars mole", seen near the
aforementioned tortoise-like reptile.

I should also point out that the video pan of
the flying dragon's bones showed the bones
basically on the surface, suggesting that they
had not been there very long, at least in
geological terms.

And I would beg a technical question, if I may:

What happened to the life forms on the side
of Mars opposite the exploding Planet V?

Badly shaken, I would imagine, but killed off?

There is hard, cold, evidence that Mars has a
substantial atmosphere, even yet. No animal
life need be invoked for that. So then, some
catastrophic loss of atmosphere does not hold
as a "life killer" in your Planet V scenario, at
least where Mars is concerned. Else, you must
explain the origin of Mars' present substantial

(Not that you have invoked this argument, but
I would anticipate it, possibly. Then again, I
seriously doubt that you would want suddenly
to start agreeing with NASA that the Martian
atmosphere is a mere 0.01 Tor.)

And could not these life forms have "evolved"
since the detonation of Planet V?

No animal life on Mars?

Sorry to say, but the burden of proof is on you
for that one.

And the available evidence weighs heavily
against you.


Hathor - Judging the judges


P.S.: Of course, there is perhaps one slightly
"uncomfortable" possibility--

All life on Mars was indeed wiped out by the
explosion of Planet V exactly as you say, and
then "The Aliens" came along and settled
some new critters on the planet to get the
recovery started. (And they planted a few
groves, just for garnish. Make the place look
nice. Feed the new animals. Etc.)

Either that, or they just wanted to see the
looks on our faces....

"DUH?!?...where did THOSE come from?!?..."


Starborne said...

This may be redundant considering what has been said on this blog but...

If the atmosphere is as weak as NASA says, then parachuttes shouldn't work, or have little effect if they even managed to open in the first place.

Going back to Pheonix, the trench dug by the scoop that revealed whatever ice they claimed it to be, it would make sense if it were carbon dioxide sublimating the way it did, but I'm still unsure if water ice would sublimate like that.

Shamus said...

So when we look at the life span of planet V it seems fair to conclude that it must have been mature enough to evolve complex life before its loss. Planet V's explotion leaves me with the question of if this was the result of the loss of its orbit and impact with Mars... naturality? Or was the impact the result of its fracture; and a large portion hurled at Mars by means of a "Death star" strike that Dark mission knows about sleeping near Saturn as understand it. Whatever the case dosent Mars have to be placed in its orbit or can it drift to its spot naturaly thus here we are today? Seems like a lot of luck if it wasnt placed.

nyceddie said...

On page 222 you say: "That Dr. Farhouk El-Baz" Being familiar with the name I had never seen the first name spelled with an "h" and wondered if you knew something the rest of the world didn't.

When you google Farhouk El-Baz the next page says: Did you mean: Farouk El-Baz

How could you misspell the name?! Who came up with that "h" in the first name?

"THE MOON AS VIEWED BY LUNAR ORBITER", NASA SP-200, 1980, is by L.J. Kosofsky and Farouk El-Baz. In "APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT", NASA SP-362, 1978, the Editors include Farouk El-Baz.

Mike Bara said...

Well okay but...

A) Radiation dissipates
B) The Bikini Atoll was surrounded by a thriving biosphere. I doubt that if the entire planet had been subjected to a cataclysm that ripped away half the atmosphere and reduced tempertures to 40 below zero on average that tortises and such would have survived. I don't think it's a reasonable comparision.

Mike Bara said...


I think we can conlcude that something dramatic happened with Planet V - It did not collide with Mars. The orbital eccentricity of Mars indicates to me that it was fairly recently expelled from it's former position as a moon of PV. Mercury is another example, as it used to be the moon of Venus, IMO. The same for Pluto, which I think is an ejected moon of Neptune.

Mike Bara said...

OH MY GOD NYCEDDIE YOU'RE RIGHT! There is an actual typo in Dark Mission!

Well this just proves we're trying to be deceptive, doesn't it?!

I can't believe you caught us trying to decieve our readers by putting an "h" in Farouk El Baz' name!

What a tool you are.

Mike Bara said...

By the way Eddie, until you publically admit in this blog that your accusation that there isn't an Alan Bean Gallery web page that states that the diagonal marks on RNROTOOS are the astronauts boot print, and also that you don't know how to use Google, you can't post here.

Unless I want to make fun of you, of course.

marsandro said...

Hi Mike,


Well okay but...
A) Radiation dissipates

And dust settles. Gravitation (in the guise
of motivity) re-levels the terrain.

In this case, the two scenarios actually are
quite similar.


The Bikini Atoll was surrounded by a thriving biosphere.

---ALL of which was in the direct blast effects
zone. There are movies available, in which
you can see the entire atoll take the hit.

The stricken test-target vessels were parked
squarely in the middle of said biosphere. That
was Ground Zero. (Or, perhaps, "Sea Zero" if
you wish.)


I doubt that if the entire planet had been
subjected to a cataclysm that ripped away
half the atmosphere and reduced tempertures
to 40 below zero on average that tortises and
such would have survived.

On the surface, probably not. However, some
of these animals are seen to "dig in" and
apparently live "in the soil." They would
be shielded, however poorly, from much that
might happen. (A bit like U.S. troops in a
ditch in Nevada [or was it New Mexico?]
watching a 50 kT blast from only a mile away.
Some of them survive to this day.)

We've also seen NUMEROUS places where
animals could have been deep underground
when the cataclysm occured.

And this does not account for possibility of
the voluntary protection of animals by any of
the possible intelligent higher species that
might have been there at the time---aliens

I don't think it's a reasonable comparision.

And if not, then---CONGRATULATIONS!

You've just made the case for ALIEN INTERVENTION...

...because the animals ARE THERE.

No animal life on Mars?

I say, "Prove it." (One can begin by proving
that the following evidence is all b.s. Here
are the URLs for some of it.)

NOTE: URLs below must be "assembled."

Adult Rodabear - Closeups

Baby Rodabear - Semi-Distant
(Thanks to Gort)

Tortoise Head and "Mars Mole"
(The first three pics)
Note the small creature just to
the right of the "tortoise head."
Movement is shown in the sequence.

More To Come.

Cats and flying dragons!


Hathor - Presenting the evidence


P.S.: Oops...uh, Mike...have you realized that
you're proposing to prove a negative?

Literally, "Ain't no such animal!"...?



P.P.S.: About the dragon bones---

1 - They are at the surface, imbedded in the
"mud" or whatever.
2 - They've been there long enough to have
"bleached out" in the sunlight.
3 - They are reasonably intact, so they have
not been there long enough to have been
moved, buried, or otherwise disturbed by any
natural geological processes or predator
4 - Ergo, they've been there for perhaps as
long as a century or two.
5 - Ergo, there were flying dragons on Mars
as recently as about 200 years ago.
6 - Ergo, there COULD be flying dragons alive
on Mars TODAY, insofar as there is not any
"available" evidence that things have changed
drastically on Mars in the last 200 years or so.


marsandro said...

Hi Starborne,

Oh, man, you are EVER so right about the

And here's another tidbit (or a hint, if you
wish): look up the operating parameters for
solar cells, specifically temperature range,
and compare that to NASA's claims as to the
mean surface temperature.

And the rovers use solar cells....

Those suckers are lying about EVERYTHING!
(That's my personal opinion, of course.)


Hathor - Exposing The Lies


Shamus said...

I am worried about Nyceddie, the shock of being right abouta detail may be to much for his heart. I have a little advice for you Nyceddie take a hint and exsample for Mr. Bara, he knows how to implumint a correction.. it would be good for your group sharing as A.H.A I mean on the whole if you look at Dark mission its a profound undertaking to brake this kind of ground and not error as a point of fact.. rather a missing "H" is the best lame talking point your fearful position can take. which means what about the content of Dark mission? From my short time here enjoying Mikes Blog/site i have notices he lets zelots like you rattle on as long as it serves educate people about just how strong the data is.. as they wane and start to be worthless as a topic you he dosent need to post your S____ as it serves no purpose. If he cant bend over and kiss your "boots" then it seems this is good bye.

expat said...

>>..expat and nyeddie and their ilk, are deeply frightened by the data we present...<<

Oh dear. Such a tired old allegation. "Fright" is not the correct word to describe an attempt to correct many egregious factual errors in a widely-sold book that claims to be non-fiction.

I might just as well write that your tendency to answer detailed arguments with insult instead of rebuttal is a testimony to your own fright. Actually, that's not my opinion. I just think you have no debating skill whatsoever. Cheers.

Mike Bara said...

You have yet to cite a single "factual" error. All you do is substitue your ill-informed opinion for facts and then claim we are in error.

And all know what opinions are like, eh mate?


marsandro said...

There was mention on Coast To Coast AM
last night in the news segment concerning
methane on Mars, and the arguments over
what its presence there means.

At that moment, I recalled a line from the
movie, "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome."
It went something like this:

"Barter Town runneth on methane, and
methane cometh from pigs."

I can just see the book title now....


Sometimes this stuff can bust a gut....

The NASA people must be cringing....


Hathor - The Laughing Cat Mistress


Mystic-Creations said...

My first Blog! :)

Anyhoo, I would like to say that it has been an incredibly eye opening experience having read The Dark Mission. I have always somehow known that what we were being told.... didn't seem right.

I can appreciate people not wanting to believe in any of this, however there is substantial proof, clearly showing that there is a MUCH bigger picture here.

Most interesting is the photographic evidence itself, it's become a hobby of mine now to analize the photo's posted by Nasa and the European Space Agency. I was suprised to find that it doesn't take too much searching to find photo's that clearly require further investigating, with an acceptable answer......wind, weather related responses don't seem to add up either.

What I would like to say is that everyone should try to have an open mind. Be willing to accept that not everything we are told is truth.
That the Men and Women who specialize in the Sciences, Math, Physics, Biology, Astronomy etc. really do have an incredibly difficult job, with intense peer pressure when they come up with something that doesn't fit the mold of conventional Science. I wish we as a society could be more accepting of the possibilites and help build upon their findings, instead of dismissing them as being Wrong, before even analizing the data properly.

Other than the Monuments of MARS and The Dark Mission, is there any other books available that continue what Mike and Richard have written about. Anything in the works for either of them in the near future?

Thanks again and sorry for any mistakes, it's late.... Great job and looking forward to learning more about all of this. Any info would be greatly appreciated!

Also "The Running Man", there seems to be a fair bit of information on youtube with regards to "Planet X" apparently only actually visible currently from the south pole. There is a video on youtube that exposes an interesting misinformation campaign in light of the "actual" clips being posted. Very intesting, here's the link: