Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The New Edition Hits the Stores!

I was out with my friend Alyssa the other day and we stopped by the local Borders to look for some items. We found 7 copies of the new edition of Dark Mission, one of which you see here. That's quite a few for an updated 2-year old title in one store, and they were also face out, which likely means they were expecting to sell them all. This is a good sign.

I put most of them on the front table next to Dan Brown's new book. This one I stuck in front of Carl Sagan's books in the astronomy section.


  1. Yay! Good idea, I love your social engineering idea of "author control".

  2. "This one I stuck in front of Carl Sagan's books in the astronomy section."

    How very appropriate of you! Rock on!!!



  3. Mike

    I loved the new content and the improved cover.

    Concerning the LCROSS mission, did you notice that if you lay the letter "L" down 4 times as a cross you get a nazi swastik? An "L"-CROSS!

  4. I note that Ken Johnston is no longer described as a Marine jet fighter pilot. Correcting errors is easier if people don't fight over who gets the credit, so attaboy.

  5. I love the new edition! Also can't wait for part II.

    The title also has the word "history" in there so don't forget to do some strategic book placement in that section! As long as we're at it "Mission" could qualify it for the religion section too! :-)
    Are you guys thinking of doing an audio version? I think it would be a hit!

  6. Was the content of the missing Von Braun chapter essentially the same as this page?

    If so, it's perhaps our good fortune that it was never published. The mathematical calculation underlying "Von Braun's Secret" is grossly in error. When the calculation is done correctly, and separately for each of the three solid rocket stages of Juno, the total delta-V is 14,189 ft/sec, not 3,520 ft/sec. Therefore the on-orbit velocity represents just a 4.2% overperformance, not 20% as the Enterprise Mission page proposes (still less 30%, as Richard Hoagland stated on the overnight radio show Coast to Coast AM.) There is absolutely no need to resort to exotic explanations to account for this margin of error in solid rocket fuel of the 1950s.

  7. Mike Bara! This is the ghost of Carl Sagan, and you've dissed me for the last time, brother! You and your wrestling partner Hoaglund are gonna pay the piper, brother, next Thursday at the Civic Arena, when you and that pipsqueek take on me and Isaac "Muttonchop" Asimov! Three rounds in a coal miners glove cage match! The last one standing wins, and it ain't gonna be you, brother! You and your giant crystal structures on the moon are gonna come tumblin' down, baby, in front of a live paying audience, as mentioned at the Civic Arena. If i could take physical form right now, i'd hit you in the back with metal folding chair whilst Muttonchop put Richard in a sleeper hold! Tickets are on sale now, and bring the kids!

  8. Nice try Expat, but 4.2% is still well beyond the margin of error, and Hoagy and I will correct it in the the next book.

  9. Yeah, the "Jet Stream" argument is laughable.

  10. Greetings All,

    Linoln overlooks one simple fact
    that negates all his arguments:

    Von Braun was surprised by what happened.

    FACT: Von Braun was not known for his technical
    incompetence, neither for should I put


    Hathor -- Hammering the last nail firmly into the
    coffin...or sarcophagus....


  11. T'Zairis writes: "They want, rather, to study the chemical composition of supposedly-nonexistent lunar domes... "


  12. Mike,
    As you and Richard covered JFK in the book, I thought you might like to see the new article at, if you haven't already.

  13. Well, Mike...

    He *could* have pointed out
    that I missed the "c" key....


    Hathor -- One last hammer blow to that nail...


  14. "'Von Braun was surprised by what happened.'

    And this proves that a 4.2% aggregate over-performance by a total of 15 Baby Sergeant solid rockets was due to an anti-gravity phenomenon???"

    No. There are other explanations; like our theories of the mechanism behind gravity being ignorant. The fact, though, that so many of the Ranger probes missed the Moon after being fired at it with as much Newtonian precision as possible convinces me that we don't understand what's really happening in this solar system. There's something else going on besides what we call "gravitational attraction."



  15. I think the combination of Hoaglands Physical model mixed with the Electric Universe model may go extremely far towards being a GUT.

    Massive Birkeland currents moving through the universe produce massive magnetic fields which in turn create electrostatic forces capable of accounting for the structure we see in the universe. No "missing mass" no
    dark matter" no "Black holes" simply massive electric currents flowing through plasma can explain most of what we see in space.

    But on a quantum level Hoagland's model could account for a lot of quantum behavior including the Origin of the electric flows that power the universe

  16. Hi Zakhur,

    Again, I stated *specifically*
    that this fact "negated lincoln's
    arguments," such as they were.

    A "4.2% aggregate over-performance by a total
    of 15 Baby Sergeant solid rockets" would have
    resulted not merely in an erroneous final altitude,
    but in serious thrust asymmetries that would
    have produced a significant gound flight path
    error as well.

    Unless I'm missing something here, except for
    the altitude, the rocket was otherwise on course.
    Does anyone care to correct me?

    That fact ALONE suggests that there was no such
    "4.2% aggregate over-performance by a total of
    15 Baby Sergeant solid rockets" as lincoln claimed.

    In other words...

    Just precisely *which* of the 15 Baby Sergeant
    solid rockets "overperformed"?

    And would said "overperformance" necessarily be
    in any wise uniform? (I mean, if there was so
    little quality control in the manufacturing....)

    IT MATTERS....


    Don't forget I'm an engineer.

    No wonder Von Braun was surprised.

    He, too, realised this.


    Hathor -- Reviewing Engineering Mechanics...


  17. Marsandro,

    I have read Hoagland's essay on Explorer. You are absolutely right. Von Braun's surprise is NOT negligible.

    I should have specified that I was agreeing with Lincoln ONLY in the fact that none of it proves that Explorer's altitude was increased by an "anti-gravity effect" induced by its rotation; because we are so in the dark about the mechanism behind what we call "gravity" that we cannot be sure what "anti" gravity even means.

  18. Hi T'Zairis,

    As usual, you've nailed it.

    'Nuff said.

    Hi Val,

    I have indeed heard of the Black Light Power
    process, and discussed it with my CEO. We are
    looking at...well, I can't say anything about
    that!! :-))

    I've heard of the Gravion Kasimir Well ZPE device,
    but I hadn't had time to check it out as of yet.

    From your description, it sounds like a variant
    on the Correa device, which uses Argon.

    I have experimented with a version of the Correa
    device. Using plain air, it was producing outputs
    of negligible current, but voltages headed for
    the teravolt range, reading off a 1K ohm output

    It kept blowing meters, no matter how many steps
    I put in the divider network.

    When it went over 100 GV, I gave up. I had run
    out of 1 & 10 megohm resistors for the divider....


    Hathor -- Watching for static cling...


  19. Hello Aiwass,


    "What kind of engineer did you say you were?"

    The kind who realizes that the point was---:

    that an "aggregate" deviation from performance
    of some FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL rockets mounted
    "en circum" of the main rocket VERY LIKELY would
    produce an off-vector net thrust not necessarily confined to one particular plane, to wit, the
    vertical only.

    THAT kind.

    Same kind as Von Braun.

    One with AN EYE FOR DETAILS---the details that
    certain "other" kinds tend to MISS.

    (So you are dealing not only with an "over thrust"
    situation, but an off-vector thrust that is not
    to any particular plane---and for which
    the on-board guidance might not have been able
    to compensate, seeing as it missed the altitude


    Hathor -- Nails on chalkboard to see who's awake


  20. teravolts hummm.

    If I remember my reading on the Befield-Brown lifters the higher the voltage the better they worked.

    I've been noticing with interest the recent Mach Effect lifters which seem to be the current versions of the BB work from the 50s (right about when UFO began being common and the research on electrogravitics suddenly disappeared)

    The BLP device seems to work well enough to have been sold to 8 different power companies, and even though it was by a small college, it's research has been duplicated. Supposedly all the info to replicate everything but the loop back process is available to all on the BLP site. I would be very interested in the results of further attempts to duplicate, but so far all I keep seeing is "it's impossible so why bother to try and duplicate the research" from all the naysayers

    I don't know enough physics to tell if Mill's "Classical Quantum Dynamics" is simply a restating of Hoagland's and Bearden's extrapolations of Maxwell's original equations. I am a rather poor mathematician though my language comprehension and abstract thinking is quite good. I can visualize anything put in written form, but not math formulas.

    Still it should be quite interesting to see how things develop of the next few years and if BLP (which as it currently stands looks like it can replace EVERY sort of fossil fuel using system from cars to powerplants) will indeed fulfill it's promise or be crushed under big oil interests.

  21. Max--

    "If this is true, then why is NASA's official explanation the Jet Stream?"

    More gate-keeping. If they admit to an anomalous effect, that opens the door to the higher dimensional physics (in an electromagnetically driven Universe), which in turn, opens the door to 'exotic' technology (like the Motionless Mag Motor and the Priore Devices that are explained on Tom Bearden's site) that flows from the physics.

    I personally think that is one of the main reasons they buried Tesla's stuff so darned fast (via FBI confiscation) after his death. Yeah, they ( and by 'they', I mean greed-heads both corporate and political) did want the technology, but mainly, they wanted to bury the physics around Tesla's inventions, because if people understood the physics, then they too could create Tesla-type devices that *the greed-heads can't put a meter on*. We should have been tapping the zero-point energy field since the early 1900's, because the basic physics was there, as were the inventions, via Tesla. The whole situation is beyond disgusting...



  22. Why Val!

    I'm surprised at you!

    Don't you realize that these people OBVIOUSLY are
    crack observers?

    After all, like I always say---:

    "The First Duty of Science is OBSERVATION."

    (...wink - wink...)


    Hathor -- Speeding up the clock...


    P.S.: And as I said before...

    ...when the theory and observations don't agree... knowwwwww what must be done....


  23. Valkyrie--

    When they start trotting out the 'junk science' and ad hominem attacks, it is because they have *nothing* with which to refute your actual data. Standard Cosmology has been in serious trouble for decades-- black holes and dark matter are simply mathematical ad hocs to get the right numbers for a gravity-only model of the Universe. When the ad hocs are accompanied by 'data adjustments' to make everything fit the preconceived theory, that's a major sign that said theory has the equivalent of a sucking chest-wound and is about to expire.

    So I'd say, pity those who resort to ad hominem nonsense-- they are trying to hide the unpleasant fact that their own data bolsters your position, which in turn means they have completely misunderstood what the heck is going on. Plus I am sure that they are massively displeased to find out that, at the end of the day, they are every bit as wrong and as hidebound as the church fathers who castigated Copernicus for daring to propose that the Earth orbited the Sun. Since their reputation for erudition and expertise in their chosen field(s) is crashing down around them as we speak, it's natural to think that some of them might be a wee bit peeved and cranky...



  24. Marsandro--

    I am making a batch of refrigerator tea (organic Green Jasmine) as we speak, so that I can sip something both fragrant and refreshing as I keep tabs on the latest NASA nonsense...



  25. I've been doing a lot of laughing at the naysayers and denyers of reality lately, especially the republican party.

    What most people don't realize is that until this year, I had never heard of EU or plasma cosmology. I have been an avid follower of most science for my whole life and as a amateur futurist, I have followed Physics and Astrophysics as closely as a non mathematician self trained in the fields avid reader can.

    But I am also a very firm believer in EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE trumps THEORY at every turn.

    I am not convinced of the Electro machining of planetary surfaces section of the theory, nor 100% certain of the Saturn myth (earth once having orbited the sun with saturn in a polar stack as part of a system slowly mergeing into this one) but the Plasma cosmology parts are pretty sound, and contain better explanations for observed data than the "official" ones do.

    I'm a computer repair tech. I understand electricity. electricity in plasma works in vacuum tubes and CRTs why would it not work in space?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.