Thursday, June 26, 2014

One FINAL Showing of "Uncovering Aliens" on Animal Planet Sunday, June 29th

The stars of "Uncovering Aliens" in Myrtle Beach, SC. Derrell Sims, Steven Jones, Maureen Elsberry and me.

There will be one FINAL screening of my new reality show "Uncovering Aliens" this coming Sunday, June 29th, 2014. The "Black Ops Conspiracy" episode will air at 11PM Eastern, 8PM Pacific (prime time) right after Finding Bigfoot.

Animal Planet will be watching the ratings closely for this showing as they near a final decision on new episodes for later this year, so even if you've already seen the episode or can't watch it, please DVR it and then play it back, because that counts as a "viewing" as well. If you can, also contact Animal Planet and let them know you liked the show and want more.

Animal Planet Schedule

Uncovering Aliens Official Website

Animal Planet on Twitter

Animal Planet Facebook Site

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

My New Book Ancient Aliens on Mars II is Now Shipping From Adventures Unlimited!

http://www.adventuresunlimitedpress.com/proddetail.php?prod=AAM2&cat=36
Ancient Aliens on Mars II

My New Book,  Ancient Aliens on Mars II is Now Shipping Directly From Adventures Unlimited Press. Get it now weeks before Amazon.com or the brick and mortar bookstores!


http://contactinthedesert.com/


Be sure to join me in August at Contact in the Desert where I will present the stunning new images from this book for the first time in public!

Monday, June 23, 2014

Join Me at Contact in the Desert, August 8-11, 2014

www.contactinthedesert.com
www.contactinthedesert.com
 
I'll be previewing all the incredible new images from latest book, "Ancient Aliens on Mars II," so you don't want to miss it! CITD is really a great conference with a All-Star list of speakers from the UFO community, including George Noory, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, Erich von D√§niken, David Wilcock, Jason Martell, Jim Marrs, Linda Moulton Howe, Stephen Bassett and many more! This promises to be the best UFO conference in the world!

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Yet More Research Supports Key Prediction of Hypersimensional Physics Model

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601631448?ie=UTF8&creativeASIN=1601631448&tag=darkmissinet-20
The Choice

As you'll recall in my second book The Choice, I discussed the theory of multi-dimensional or Hyper-dimensional physics. One of the key aspects of the theory was the assertion that spin energy, or total system angular momentum, to use the astronomical term, had a direct linkage to a bodies total luminosity. In other words, the more energetically an object and it's satellites spun, the brighter it was in all ranges of the light spectrum (not just visible light). This rule, adopted from Schuster's hypothesis, seemed to fit quite well with all of the observable planets (and their moons) in the solar system.



Luminosity vs. spin energy. One or two undiscovered planets beyond the orbit of Neptune would move the Sun to the right and place it on the predicted curve along with all the major planets.

Except for one problem. The Sun itself, which is the centerpiece of the solar system, was far off the graph, meaning it was much too bright to fit the model. This then led to a key implication and prediction of the Hyperdimensional Physics model: i.e., there is at least one Jupiter mass planet or two smaller planets in far distant orbits that have yet to be discovered. Fulfillment of this prediction is important to this aspect of the Hyperdimensional theory, and would help show that conventional models of the solar system in which the only linking force between the planets is gravity are wrong.

Successful prediction is also a key element of the scientific method. Without it, you cannot truly say that you follow the scientific method. Since The Choice came out in 2010, there have been a number of discoveries that have thrown the question of whether there are large and far away bodies in the solar system into a issue of considerable debate. But as far back as 1982, NASA seemed convinced these objects existed, and was actively searching for them.

Illustration from 1982 Science Digest article showing how Pioneer's 10 and 11 could be used to search for "Planet X."


In a 1982 Science Digest Magazine article, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a well-respected astronomer and sometimes UFO investigator, wrote about the search for "Planet X" and how Pioneers 10 and 11 could be used to search for them. In the article, he included a diagram that showed the two suspected planet's positions relative to the Pioneers’ paths and the known solar system. The first body was shown to be 4-7 billion miles out, and was labeled the “Tenth planet” (or "Planet X)." The second object was labeled “Brown Dwarf?” The brown dwarf was listed as being 50 billion miles out, or about 550 Astronomical Units, an astonishing distance which was considered so far out that gravitational tethering to the sun was widely regarded as impossible.

As Pioneers 10 and 11 reached the outer limits of the solar system, NASA's idea was to use them to search for the "Planet X's" (I like to call them Nemesis and Nibiru) by looking for the subtle gravitational tug these theoretical bodies would exert upon the spacecraft. They found exactly that.

As early as 1980, when the twin spacecraft were at a distance of about 20 AU's (1.859 billion miles), NASA technicians noted a significant deceleration of both spacecraft which they could not account for by known physical forces. Over the years, various explanations for the "Pioneer Effect" were touted, but none of them completely held up under scrutiny. The gravitational tug of an unseen body (or bodies) remained a viable explanation for the anomalous deceleration. Other spacecraft, like the Voyagers 1 and 2, and the Galileo and Ulysses probes, have shown the same effect but the accuracy of these observations is debated.  

The question of the existence of Nemesis and Nibiru was brought into sharper focus with the launch of NASA's WISE spacecraft which was designed to search for deep objects (like Brown Dwarfs) in the outer reaches of the solar system. As I documented in an earlier post, the initial results were claimed by NASA to show there were no "Planet X's" out there. However, two separate teams of researchers had inconsistent results with the same database, calling into question whether or not NASA had simply missed one or more large solar system objects in their study.

A new study using the so-called "Dark Energy Camera" controlled by the Carnegie Institution for Science discovered a new dwarf planet, "2012 VP113," at the far reaches of the solar system. Like Sedna before it, 2012 VP113 has a very exotic orbit that implies it is being "shepherded" by another, far more massive object. Taken together, the orbits of Sedna and 2012 VP113 indicate that Planet X (or multiple "Planet X's") are in fact out there, but are just not detectable by instruments like WISE.

Now, there are even more studies that indicate the same thing. A new paper recently submitted to Cornell University Press argues that not only is the previous work by the Carnegie scientists correct, but there is a second and probably far more massive body lurking even deeper in the outer solar system.

The paper, by Carlos and Raul de la Fuente Marcos at the Complutense University of Madrid, is entitled "Extreme trans-Neptunian objects and the Kozai mechanism: signalling the presence of trans-Plutonian planets." It shows that there is at least one "Super Earth" sized planet at about 200 AUs (18.5 billion miles) distance from the sun, exerting a pull on dozens of smaller "Trans Neptunian Objects" like Sedna and 2012 VP113. This planet, with a mass as great as Saturn, is also locked in a resonant orbit with another even larger and more massive object at 250 AUs (23.2 billion miles). Both of these objects fit the description of Nemesis and Nibiru in the Hyperdimensional model very well, even though the distances fall between the 5-50 billion mile range NASA had predicted. Only when these objects are actually found can their angular momentum be established and their impact on the prediction be determined. According to Carlos de la Fuente Marcos, that will not be an easy task, since the bodies are large, dim, cold and very slow moving.  In fact, given the current state of technology, "It's not at all surprising that they haven't been found yet," he said.

Clearly, these two new papers show that not only is data from WISE not entirely reliable, but that NASA's declaration to the effect that "there is no Planet X" was not only premature, but flatly wrong.

Just like the harping critics of the Hyperdimensional Physics theory...

Articles:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25711-two-giant-planets-may-cruise-unseen-beyond-pluto.html#.U5j6mpPn-Ul

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0715

http://contactinthedesert.com/

Join me at Contact in the Desert in August!

Monday, June 9, 2014

The Glass Tubes of Mars Revisited

A couple of days ago I stirred up a bit of a pot by suggesting I'd mop up the floor with the Great Neil deGrasse Tyson in a debate. This all came from a simple meme posting to my Facebook page, responding to one of his latest silly quotes.



The meme was only meant to point out that something isn't true just because people like Neil deGrasse Tyson say it is. In fact, most of what "scientists" have believed to be true at any given snapshot in time has eventually been proven to be false as more information has developed and new discoveries and observations have been made. Somewhere along the line, I guess this got passed around Facebook and some other social media sites and this led some people to respond by attacking me, and saying that I'd get creamed in a debate with the Great NDGT because, well, I'm just that dumb. I responded to one them thusly:

"Trust me, neither you nor NDGT would like to see me debate him. He'd get beat worse than the Broncos in the Super Bowl. And BTW, science is not Truth. Scientific materialism is simply another worldview no different than the religious dogmas it and people like him seek to ridicule."

Quite to my surprise, this response actually stirred up something of a reaction. I guess some of my more psychopathic critics have nothing better to do than monitor my social media pages all day. Anyway, in one Facebook forum, another user sought to disparage me and my Dark Mission co-author Richard Hoagland by claiming that "we" had been proven wrong yet again. He provided a link to a blog by somebody named Lori Fenton, who I guess is some kind of low-level research scientist somewhere.

Anyway, the blog post is titled "Debunking Hoagland’s “Glass Worms” with HiRISE," and claims the following:

"Several years ago, a guy named Richard Hoagland claimed that some parallel linear features on Mars looked like the ridges of a transparent earthworm, calling these things “glass worms”. Phil Plait debunked it nicely, but Hoagland stood his ground. He hasn’t said much about them lately, has he? Here’s why. New images show that, as scientists originally thought, these are nothing more than windblown ripples in the floors of channels, just like the many thousands of ripples seen all over Mars. Go science!" (HiRISE ESP_035634_2160, NASA/JPL/Univ. of Arizona)

At first, I was excited, because it would be nice to get a good HiRISE look at the "Glass Tunnel" Hoagland had first noted on MGS image M0-400291. To my knowledge, there hasn't been another good image taken of the area since that one. Maybe that's got more to do with why he's had no more to say on the subject than her "new image."

"Glass Tubes"


Of course, in her haste to attack Hoagland, she manages to get pretty much all of it wrong. I was actually not surprised to discover that this dingbat's image not only didn't show Hoagland's Glass Tube, it was actually not taken anywhere near the image in question. Add to that the fact that Hoagland never referred to them as "Glass Worms" (it was Arthur C. Clarke who called them that) and you've pretty much got the trifecta of stupidity by the blogger in question. When a reader called her out on the fact that her image, which she claimed "proved" Hoagland wrong and which she led her readers to believe was the same object--was not even of the same area of Mars, she responded by saying "No, it’s not the same place. It wouldn’t change anything, though."

Not "Glass Tubes."


So I guess this is a good measure of how high the bar is set in the mainstream science community. Call out a NASA opponent using a false comparison and then claim you are the one employing the "scientific method."

Um, right.

Maybe 43-8 is a little less optimistic than I should be...

UPDATE:
After some prodding by a reader, Ms. Fenton finally looked up the MRO image for the (in)famous "Glass Tube." She found one, ESP_013137_2190, which it turns out is about the same resolution as Hoagland's original MGS image M0-400291. More importantly, contrary to what Phil "Dr. Phil" Plait claimed in his attack piece, the tubular impression is reinforced by the new image, rather than debunked. His argument comes down to one thing; the tube is not convex, it's concave. Unfortunately the images he presents in his hit piece to support this show it to be convex, as Hoagland has asserted. The new image shows the same thing.

 
Plait also attempts to explain -- without any supporting evidence -- the brilliant specular reflection now visible in both images as a "contrast artifact," which it most demonstrably is not. In both images, which are taken under almost identical lighting conditions, the bulbous structure at left side of the tube is brilliantly reflective. Simple rocks and sand cannot produce such a reflection. Only glass or possibly water ice can do so. Either way, the explanation of this as a simple dune train is falsified by the new image, which is clearly convex and supports Hoagland's original thesis.

Sand dunes with supports at 90 degree angles?
 
I'd also love to see the explanation for "sand dunes" that connect with support struts at 90 degree angles to the "dunes," but I kinda doubt I'll get satisfaction on that one either. At least, not from the mainstream crowd.
 
But I'm open. Send me the pictures anytime guys.

UPDATE-UPDATE:
Just FYI, here is the analysis done by the late Dr. Tom van Flandern on the Glass Tubes phenomenon:

"Glassy tubes" on Mars are sand dunes?

UPDATE-UPDATE-UPDATE:
I was just pointed to this posting by one "Johnny Danger" exposing the whole sordid history of the Glass Tubes debate with NASA. As usual, NASA's behavior is duplicitous, at the least:

http://palermoproject.com/lowell2004/legacy8.htm

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Another "Uncovering Aliens" Marathon today on Destination America!

Derrell Sims, Steven Jones, Maureen Elsberry and me from Uncovering Aliens
There will be yet ANOTHER marathon of my new reality show "Uncovering Aliens" today from 4-8PM eastern (1-5PM pacific) on the Destination America network. Tune in if you haven't seen them, or DVR them if you have. Every download/viewing counts in the ratings!

Link: Destination America TV Schedule