Thursday, January 15, 2015

New Paper Adds Even More Confirmation to Prediction Made in "The Choice"

Artists conception of a Trans-Neptunian world.
 
In my second book The Choice, I made several predictions about future events and discoveries that promised to back up many of the claims made in that volume. Foremost among them was the prediction, based on the Hyperdimensional Physics theory of Richard C, Hoagland and Erol Torun, that one or more planets of near Jupiter mass would be found beyond the orbit of Pluto.
 
A few months ago, I reported that a new paper would argue strongly that perturbations in the orbits of observed trans-Neptunian objects indicated the presence of at least one (but more likely two) massive objects well beyond the orbit of Pluto. Now, the paper has appeared in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. It confirms my original prediction, including one that states that at least one of the objects could be as far out as 550 AU (about 51 billion miles).
 
These latest findings also indicate that data from NASA's WISE telescope is far from the final word on the existence of Planet X or even Planet Y, since, at least according to the data released so far, WISE failed to find these two objects.
 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601631448?ie=UTF8&creativeASIN=1601631448&tag=darkmissinet-20

 
Stay tuned for more as this continues to develop.


Saturday, January 3, 2015

New Satellite Temperature Data Proves That NASA/NOAA Claim that 2014 is "The Hottest Year on Record" is a Lie

Updated RSS Data from December, 2014 shows it was just an average year temperature wise, and the short term 18-year trend is near zero.

Is the Earth getting warmer? Is Carbon Dioxide build-up due human industrial activities making the ice caps melt and driving polar bears to extinction? Is, as NASA and NOAA claim, 2014 the "hottest year on record?"

The proof is in the satellite temperature data from the Remote Sensing System database. And the answer to all of those questions is "No." NASA is just lying again, as they always do.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/rss-data-rubbishes-hottest-year-claims/



Analysis Shows Claim That “CO2 Concentration Is Highest In 600,000 Years” Is Highly Dubious At Best

More proof that Carbon Dioxide does not cause warming: It's actually the other way around.

Ice core samples show that spike in Co2 is related to Younger Dryas Nanodiamond event.


Analysis Shows Claim That “CO2 Concentration Is Highest In 600,000 Years” Is Highly Dubious At Best

The key points:

– A large sudden rise in CO2 decays away in 100 years or less.
– A large sudden rise in CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature.
– A large rise in temperature causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.

- All the rises in CO2, including in modern times, came after temperature increases.

– The delay between temperature rise and CO2 rise is somewhere between zero and 150 years. We can see that delay in modern times. The rise in temperature after the little ice age began in the late 19th century, accelerating after 1910. The rise in CO2 began about the time Keeling started measuring it in 1959, accelerating after that, a delay of about 50 years. Is the rise in CO2 all due to temperature rise? No. It is a combination of temperature change and increased fossil carbon emissions. Will those emissions cause temperature to rise further? No. The large rise at the ND event caused NO temperature rise in either of the data sets above.

 - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/03/analysis-shows-claim-that-co2-concentration-is-highest-in-600000-years-is-highly-dubious-at-best/#sthash.b8tOgxgU.dpuf

Thursday, November 13, 2014

The Science of "Interstellar" isn't Science at All




The new SciFi film Interstellar, brought to you by the Nolan brothers Christopher and Jonathon, who also brought you the "Dark Night" Batman movies, is an ambitious attempt to tell a "big" science fiction story in the mold of 2001, but from a much more human perspective. While a beautiful and emotional work of art, the film relies on a number of conventions of modern mainstream physics and cosmology to tell its story. A great deal has been made of the "science" contributions of physicist Kip Thorne to the movie (he even wrote a book about it), with praise from the media about how Interstellar sticks to "real" science and is therefore a more accurate depiction of space exploration than say, Star Trek or Star Wars.

There's only one problem with that take on the film: It isn't true.

"The Lid": A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can't...

"The Lid": A Dozen Facts Debunking Global Warming Obama Can't...: The news was announced early Wednesday November 12, a pseudo climate agreement between the U.S. and China. Under the deal, the Unit...

Thursday, November 6, 2014

A Valve Mechanism on Mars -- Or How "Aliens Caused Global Warming."

Recently, a new video surfaced showing what appears to be one of the clearest examples of a mechanical implement on Mars. A set of images from the microscopic camera on the rover Opportunity, which landed on Mars in 2004 and is still operating 10 years later, show an object that is quite clearly a fossilized valve mechanism of some kind.

Video:



Source Image: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/3720/1M458433044EFFCEQKP2955M2M1.HTML

In fact, it looks exactly like a common water shut-off valve, the kind which might be found in any house hold on Earth. So what's it doing on Mars?

Apparently, pretty much the same thing it would have done on Earth.

Original NASA source image

 
Although the image was taken with the microscopic imager camera, which can resolve objects as small as 0.1mm across, this shut off valve is significantly larger than that, probably a couple of inches long. NASA critics, just as they did with the Martian figurine a few years ago, will probably argue that this is too small to be what it clearly is; a fossilized valve mechanism. But that argument is as invalid here as it was then.
 
The Martian Figurine (L) and an Egyptian statue of the Pharaoh Khufu, to scale.

 
The truth is, size is not relevant in determining the artificiality of a given object on Mars. As our own development of nano-technology grows, such arguments (excuses) get lamer and lamer. The truth is, a mechanical object is a mechanical object, regardless of scale. And this is unquestionably a mechanical object, as you can see from the close-up.
 
Close-up
 
A side-by side comparison is also useful in this case.
 
Side-by-side with a terrestrial water shut off valve

It also bears more than a passing resemblance to other mechanical objects on Mars, and even to well known Earth artifacts like the Antikythera mechanism.

 

And it's not as if this fossilized valve is in any way unique. In doing research for my books Ancient Aliens on Mars and Ancient Aliens on Mars II, I found dozens of similar examples to include in those books. Discovered by numerous researchers who spend a lot of time looking at the rover images, the truth is that this new discovery is just one of hundreds of mechanical implements that have been found on Mars by the rovers.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935487892?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1935487892&linkCode=xm2&tag=darkmissinet-20 http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Aliens-Mars-Mike-Bara/dp/1939149312/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=darkmissinet-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=&creativeASIN=1939149312


What I've found is that when making these comparisons, the object most probably is exactly what it looks like, in this case a small flow valve of some kind. It appears to have been buried and fossilized long ago, but there is no doubt it is of mechanical origin.

NASA's arguments against these objects being artifacts from a ruined civilization on Mars basically come down to "it doesn't look like that," (see the Face on Mars) or "it isn't what it looks like, no matter how much it looks like (fill in the blank)." Of course, besides the discredited "size" argument, they never provide any kind of example or rational reason as to why it cannot be what it obviously appears to be. All they can do is go back to what I like to call the "Jedi mind trick defense."

"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."

 

Unfortunately, "these aren't the droids you're looking for" isn't a scientific argument, or even science. It's just a political debating point that lacks any kind of scientific validity. The simple Truth is that the only scientifically neutral position on Mars is that it is just as likely that there was a highly advanced civilization on Mars as that there wasn't. The fact that there is a "consensus" against the idea within the NASA funded planetary science community means nothing. What matters is the evidence, and that we have in ever increasing abundance. As author Michael Crichton pointed out so eloquently in an address given at Caltech entitled "Aliens Caused Global Warming": "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."
 
So as a veritable army of independent, sharp-eyed researchers continues to scour the images being returned from Mars, the odds are that we will continue to find new evidence that a vast and highly advanced civilization once flourished there. If our opponents truly cared about science, they would move on from the currently unprovable but increasingly unlikely position that it didn't exist to studying what in fact happened to it, as that question has far more critical implications to our own survival.
 
And whatever destroyed that civilization on Mars, I'm betting big bucks that it wasn't Global Warming.
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
UPDATE:
 
My Ancient Aliens buddy Jason Martell has suggested this could be a Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) mark left over from Opportunity drilling on the rock. I initially considered this but dismissed it for several reasons, although I should have probably brought it up in my initial post.
 
RAT
 
The RAT is a circular saw that has been used hundreds of times on rocks (and fossils) on Mars since the twin rovers landed in 2004. It leaves a very distinctive circular cut on rocks characterized by a powdery residue around the edges and occasionally a second concentric circle inside the wider circle. It does not, under any circumstances, leave a cut with 4 equally spaced "spokes" inside the circular cut, which is what we see on the valve feature. Typical RAT cuts are seen below.
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition, as is plainly obvious from the images presented, the RAT leaves not only the powdery residue, but a clearly recessed cut on the rock. The circular portion of the "valve wheel" feature is clearly not recessed, but actually sticking slightly out of the surrounding rock.
 

 
Just like we'd expect from a fossilized mechanical implement.
 
--MB
 



Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Did Apollo 12 Conduct a Secret "Standup EVA?"

Yes, they did. But not for the reasons the narrator believes. This is an excellently researched piece on NASA's deceptions. The truth is, they were looking for something, and it wasn't "digital noise"...




Monday, September 22, 2014

Monday, September 8, 2014

Refacing the Face on Mars - NOT

For some reason last week, Phil "Dr. Phil" Plait, that grotesque little toad of a man, decided to bring up the Face on Mars in his blog on Slate.com. As we all know, Slate is popular destination for political liberals, who love it for it's dysentery-like stream of attacks on anyone who believes in God or actually seeks the truth, as opposed to groveling at the altar of scientific materialism.

I'm not clear exactly why Plait chose to attack the Face again. Maybe it's because he ran out of things to lie to his readers about (like man-made Global Warming), or maybe it's just because my Mars books are selling too well....

 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935487892?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1935487892&linkCode=xm2&tag=darkmissinet-20 http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Aliens-Mars-Mike-Bara/dp/1939149312/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=darkmissinet-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=&creativeASIN=1939149312
 

In any event, the end result of his latest bit of tripe on the subject will not be to discourage anyone from looking into the Face or the mysteries of Mars in general, but rather to reinforce just how unscientific and weak the case against the Face really is. At this point, after almost 35 years of debate, their only argument comes down to one incredibly feeble entreaty: "It's NOT a Face."

Or, as I put in my recent tome, Ancient Aliens on Mars:

"It’s not a Face, in spite of the fact it rests on a bi-laterally symmetrical platform, it has two aligned eye sockets, the tip of the nose is the tallest point on the structure, there are two clearly defined nostrils in the nose, the west eye socket is shaped like a human eye including a tear duct, there is a spherical pupil in the eye, there are geometric, cell-like structures around the eye, the two halves of the Face make up two distinct visages when mirrored, one human, one feline, it is placed nearby a series of pyramidal mountains which have rectilinear cells visible in their interiors at high-resolution, it is in close proximity to an isolated pentagonal “mountain” which is bi-laterally symmetrical about two different axes, it has anomalous reflective properties under pre-dawn conditions, it is surrounded by a series of tetrahedral mounds which are placed according to tetrahedral geometry and in high-resolution it displays features identical to ruined artificial structures here on Earth…”

Well, I could literally go on and on. But you get the point. Their argument is really weak.
Whether you look at the Face from far away, like the early Viking images, or in ultra-close-up, as in the MRO image, you still see one thing clearly— someone built it. It is not an example of the mythical “pareidolia” that the NASA sycophants are always asserting. It is a rather an elegant and enduring example of something far more: Ancient Alien extraterrestrial monumental architecture."

Yep.
 
Of course, contrary to what Plait states in his article and what the dingbat narrator claims in an accompanying video, the Face is also not dependent on "low resolution images" to appear Face-like or artificial. High resolution images show the Face is covered in artificial features, including one area that is an exact visual match for a collapsed sports arena...

Collapsed area on the Face on Mars compared with a sports arena with a collapsed roof.


Nor do they ever address the fact that the Face is far from an isolated object on Mars. There are simply so many obviously artificial structures on Mars besides the Face that you can't even cover it in one book. I had to write two, and I could easily write many more if I were so inclined.

Chinese Pyramid and a pyramid in Elysium on Mars

The D&M Pyramid on Mars, just over the hill from the Face.
 

But no matter how many examples of correct predictions and structural components we find on the Face, the debunkers will never back down from their simple denials, which are not based on data or logic but rather their pre-conceived political stances. There simply is no scientific basis for their stance. It's just an opinion.

And we all know what opinions are like, don't we?

Opinion...



None of this should really come as a surprise to anybody who knows anything about Plait or his tactics. He's a well established, inveterate liar who never argues science, logic or facts, but rather prefers to use the time honored debunking techniques of character assassination and personal attack. In my new book Ancient Aliens on Mars II, I cover how he deliberately lied to his readers about the THEMIS thermal infrared images of Cydonia, and he has been caught flat out lying about Global Warming by climate scientists on several occasions.

 
Image artifacts? Nope.

I will leave it readers to consider my arguments and the arguments of the long standing independent Mars research community. I'd encourage you to weigh them against Plait's counter arguments, but the simple reality is that Plait doesn't present any factual counter arguments at all. All he does is deceive his readers and attack those who disagree with him. He never actually takes any kind of scientific stance on any aspect of the Mars debate. Yet he calls himself a scientist.

At least he's not a comedian, which is something of an upgrade over the usual suspects who attack those that do real planetary or climate science.

Links:
Plait's Slate.com post
Really Bad Astronomy
Phil Plait Lying About Ice Today
Plait's article making false claims about THEMIS thermal infrared images

Monday, September 1, 2014

Debunking the Debunkers

Some useful reading for your day off. How to spot a Troll when you read one (see my reviews on Amazon).

http://www.thrivemovement.com/debunking-debunkers.blog