Monday, November 26, 2012
I don't know about you guys, but classified programs don't mean
that American citizens shouldn't pay any attention to them. It's not as
if Russian and China don't know more about US classified programs than
US tax payers. I supposed if Expat is just a visitor here, than it's
none of his business, and if he isn't the least bit curious about
something as high tech as the X-37B and in Space related topics, then
his axe to grind with Hoagland and Bara is simply petty, personal
bullshit.
NASA is sloppy, corrupt and needs much more peer review. All the public can do is just accept what ever it is they hand us about Mars. Since there is obviously no practical way to independently duplicate Curiosity's activities, then it really isn't science. NASA abuses it's power of agency over the information and is not honestly accountable to the tax payers who enable an elite group of assholes the privilege of hoarding knowledge. NASA has been getting a free pass, based on sentiment and bullshit. Fuck NASA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"A corrected edition of 'AA ot M'?"
30 Comments - Hide Original Post
Isn't it time for a corrected edition? Your readers surely deserve better than fuzzy pictures of Proclus, Asada and Picard when LROC strips of these craters exist at 100x better resolution.
It would give you an opportunity, too, to retract the Italian scan of East Massif -- given that Davide De Martin, who did the scan, has said the "spar" is a scanning fault.
I hope you'd also eliminate your excruciatingly wrong paragraph about the appearance of Earth from space.
On the other hand, I guess the down side is that, if you corrected the book, there wouldn't be much left of it. New readers can decode the text by referring back to these bloggeries:
Proclus and Asada
Picard
Italian scan of East Massif
Earth from Space (error #15)
Any bets on whether he'll allow the comment to appear?
Now that Bad Astronomy has moved to Slate, the quality of the comments has gone straight to the gutter.
I just went to the page about the exciting discovery on Mars that NASA is supposedly covering up, scrolled down to the comments until I found this (copied and pasted with all spelling errors intact).
Thomas Turk
Why would nasa tell you anything now. They altered the color phots of previous Mars photos to show red instead of blue atmosphere. They degraded the Mars 'Face' to make it look like a natural piece of rock, wheres early shots showed symmetry, teeth, eyes etc. They ignored the geometric structures, mechanicak parts etc that the airbrushers omitted to airbrush out, so why expect anyjthing now, apart from maybe... microbes.
If you open www.theyfly.com you will need to re-organise your thinking and, you will defintiely stop waiting for snippets of info/misinfo from nasa. After all it was agreed at Brookings in 1958 that should there be any discoveries of past civilizations in our solar system in the upcoming space programs, they would not be disseminated.
The question is, is this Hoagie or one of his sheep/followers?
And that's not the worst of them. Trouble is, Slate gets a different audience from Discovery so Donald Trump's hair and Obama's birth cert get brought up quite a bit. Not to mention Tea partiers complaining about NASA wasting their precious tax dollars.
If anything, they manufacture a Brookings friendly veneer to cover the fact that the supposed ETs are actually inter dimensional; the Watchers.
If man is descended from Martians, or vice versa, who perhaps came from Orion, or even if they are Space NAZIS, then at least we are all the same species.
The next step would be for our cousins to share their high technology in benevolent fashion, and support our system of government.
Of course some new fangled religion must also be established, because otherwise people might not be so willing to submit their sovereignty to the New World Order under control of demonic forces.
I just looked at the 5-part rebuttal by Bara about the Lunar Ziggurat and one thing that jumped out at me when he tried to reduce the noise in the pic (or even before, for that matter) is how it looks like a very poorly-produced FAKE. From memory, it looks like it has a higher sun-angle than other parts of the pic, but even more, there are very clearly defined edges, where, if we're talking about back-scatter, wouldn't its effects be more pronounced higher on the wall than at the bottom, which would have next to none?
WTF? Enough said.
I agree with you but I think it was done rather well -- in other words, not too obviously.
I don't know if any such thing is out there or not, Bioillogical Eunuch, but the bullshit that I posted here, is Hoagland's as much as NASASS'. I thought that this page was supposed to be about such hokum.
It's even current news. Isn't it fair to speculate what sort of bullshit that Hoagland is likely to excrete next?
Or is NASA just somebody's sacred cow?
>>Or is NASA just somebody's sacred cow? <<
I REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT: YOU COULD HAVE READ THE GFAJ-1 TAKE-DOWN RIGHT HERE.
I have read all of Robbin's argument about the Ziggurat, but have yet to finish Bara's original claim and parts of his rebuttal (most of the way through). To my mind, he has the burden of proof thing completely backwards. Robbins does not have to prove anything, Bara does. Someone might think that's a strange statement, but from my experience, it is the person who is making the affirmative case in a debate that needs to establish their argument. He makes extraordinary claims (ie, there is an ancient artifact on the moon) and he needs to have demonstrated that the best evidence shows that it is there. And that has not been demonstrated. He can't even provide real evidence that the photo is genuine. Oh well.
What NASA would say if you asked them if they like butter milk?
then NASA is going to say: Ay Caramba Dick..... How did they find out about the damned butter milk?
NASA is just another kind of modern religion using the old brain washing methods! At the time when people start to losing faith in that religion the ruling elite will send false prophets to state that there is something which is sacred and hidden from them and it's so holy that cannot be told! Then the people regain their faith waiting for that missing part to come and so the cow becomes holy but also her milk and shit as well!
to Mike Bara
6 hours ago
How did you first meet Dr Hoagland, Mike, and get the gig as co-writer? Is it true that Preston Nicols actually ghost wrote Monuments of Mars?
Mike Bara
That is not true. Richard wrote every word of Monuments. I started writing web articles for Richard's site in the mid-90's and we put the book together in 2007 out of a selection of them.
4 hours ago
Frank Schweinefleisch
Who is the crazy hacker that keeps jamming Dr Hoagland's FB page? Is it Preston Nicols? Why does he have such a big grudge against the good captain? I figured it must be like some ghost that didn't get paid. Did you and Dr Hoagland split 50/50?
a few seconds ago
With Hoagland's big interest in the Space Shuttle, I find it utterly amazing and curious as hell, that he deletes all questions from his facebutt page about the X-37B, unless his is under a sworn oath of secrecy.
After all, he was a big promoter of nuclear powered Project Prometheus before the X-37B came into play, and now he won't talk about that either, anymore.
Even more curiously ironic, is that nobody here want's to criticize Hoagland's hypocrisy on these issues.