New Episode of Uncovering Aliens Wednesday, January 22nd on Science Channel



A new episode of my new reality show "Uncovering Aliens" will be shown in prime time on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 on the Science Channel. The episode, entitled "Alien Invasion" will air at 10PM right after a repeat of the "Abductions & bright Lights" episode. That's 2 solid hours of Uncovering Aliens on Wednesday night! Don't miss it!

As always, check your local listings for times in your area.

2 New Episodes of Uncovering Aliens to Air on Discovery Science Channel Wednesday





2 new episodes of my new reality show "Uncovering Aliens" will air during a 6-hour Uncovering Aliens marathon this Wednesday night, January 15th, in prime time on the Discovery Science channel. The marathon will start at 8PM with the new episode "Abductions & Bright Lights," followed by another all new episode "Alien Harvesting" at 9PM. At 10, the pilot episode "Black Ops Conspiracy" will re-air. It has previously aired 4 times on the Animal Planet network.

At 11PM, the cycle will repeat and all three episodes will re-air in the same sequence from 11PM until 2AM. Since some cable and satellite providers carry the East coast feed of the Discovery Science channel, this 6-hour marathon will guarantee that the episodes will be seen in prime time in both the Eastern and Pacific time zones. Check your local cable or satellite provider for show times in your area.

The schedule for Discovery Science channel can be found here.



Uncovering Aliens also stars Maureen Elsberry, Derrell Sims and Steven Jones.

Uncovering Aliens Debuts Tonight in Special Sneak Preview on Animal Planet!

Post by Mike Bara.

"Uncovering Aliens" to Debut on Animal Planet Next Sunday!



Next Sunday, December 15th, 2013 catch a special "sneak preview" of my new TV show "Uncovering Aliens" on Animal Planet! The show will air at 11PM Eastern and Pacific time right after a new episode of Finding Bigfoot. Check your local listings because it's showing twice on my local cable system.



http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/tv-schedule.htm

If you like the show, be sure to email the network and let them know!

Who Really Killed JFK? - Part II

This is the 2nd in a two-part series about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22nd, 1963. It contains excerpts from the book I co-authored with Richard C. Hoagland, Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA.

 

 

Part II - The Third Rail of Conspiracy Theories

Whenever anyone brings up that fateful day in Dallas, November 22, 1963, and includes it in any dialog on any other subject, then that subject immediately comes under scorn and ridicule. Numerous documentaries and dramatizations like the recent "Killing Kennedy" will discuss some aspects of the conspiracy theories, but rarely do they present the whole picture or even the best evidence that there was a 2nd shooter that morning in Dealey Plaza. If you bring the Kennedy assassination into the conversation, you’d better be ready to have half the audience throw the rest of your ideas on to the trash heap of history. The Kennedy assassination is—to use a common political axiom—the “third rail” of conspiracy theories.

It is for this reason that we reluctantly began to look at the specific events of that  November morning in Dealey Plaza. But we also felt compelled to review the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy’s murder because so much of what we had already uncovered pointed to a conspiracy to remove him from office.

 

 

Who Really Killed JFK? - Part I of II

This is the first in a 2 part series about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22nd, 1963. It contains excerpts from the book I co-authored with Richard C. Hoagland, Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA.



Who's the Giant Chair For?

In the course of researching some new posts for this week on the Kennedy assassination, I found this image of John F. Kennedy's address to the U.N. on September 20th, 1963. What struck me was the bizarre sight of a hugely oversized empty chair next to the podium. If you look at it and compare the scale to Kennedy himself (who is standing on an elevated lectern) it is obvious that the chair is about twice the normal size and far too big for an average height human to sit in comfortably. It looks in fact like it was made for someone at least 8-10 feet tall, if not taller.

Unless Wilt Chamberlin was planning to attend Kennedy's speech on U.S./Soviet space cooperation, who was this empty chair symbolically for? And who sits in it under normal circumstances? The U.N. delegate from Nibiru?

Maybe Enki was busy that day.

Anyway, if anybody has any further information on the symbolic meaning of the empty Annunaki-sized chair, I'd be interested in seeing it. For now, it's just plain weird.

UPDATE: This video shows that the chair isn't quite as outsized as I first thought. Does look like the arms and back are quite high though. Still don't know what the symbolism of the empty chair is supposed to be though.



No Virgina, It's Not an Alien Base on the Moon...

Screen capture from Disney's "Man and the Moon," first broadcast in 1956.

Over the past few weeks I've come across the image above numerous times with the caption "Alien Base Discovered on the Moon!" or something similar attached to it. This has amused me a great deal, because it is NOT a picture of an alien base on the Moon -- it's a screen capture from a 1956 Disney TV film called "Man and the Moon." How do I know this? Well, for starters, it usually has the Disney Channel watermark in the lower right-hand corner, and  beyond that, I know for one simple reason: It's my screen capture.

Originally published in a piece I wrote for Richard Hoagland's Enterprise Mission web site called "Tetrahedrons, Faces on Mars, Exploding Planets, Hyperdimensional Physics -- and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet?!", it was captured with a crude device called a "Snappy" back in 2000, when the story was first published.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. There are gobs of alien bases on the Moon, many of which I document in my recent book Ancient Aliens on the Moon, but this is isn't one of them.



The Village Idiot Gets it Wrong Again...

For the last several years, a person Richard C. Hoagland and I not so affectionately refer to as the "Village Idiot" has tried to gain attention for himself by attacking literally everything we do. No matter what the source or medium, he tries to take issue with what we say or propose, usually by arguing some obscure or immaterial point, or even redefining what we say and then trying to make us defend statements we never made.

Every so often, just for the sake of accuracy, I find it necessary to respond to these idiotic claims in some public way. Not to give him and his sycophants the attention they crave, but just for the record. His recent assertions about a passage in Dark Mission are just the latest in a long line of absurdities that he has raised.

In that volume, we asserted that the Apollo 10 Lunar Module, nicknamed Snoopy, was fully capable of landing on the lunar surface, and that the only reason it did not was because NASA short fueled the vehicle to prevent it from doing so. Obviously, if the real reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Soviets, as is publically claimed by NASA historians, there is no logical reason why the first mission capable of making the landing should not have done so. As we put it in Dark Mission:

"With all of the primary technical and mission planning components having been tested and proven out, the next mission was a full-up dress rehearsal for Apollo 11. Launched on May 18, 1969, Apollo 10 acted as a pathfinder for Apollo 11’s “Eagle,” following the same descent path that Apollo 11 would two months later. Eventually, Thomas P. Stafford piloted Snoopy to within 8.4 miles of the lunar surface (about 44,000 feet), prompting Lunar Module Pilot Gene Cernan to comment ominously; “Man, we’s getting down among them.”

Given that their altitude was nearly 50,000 feet above the lunar surface, we can’t help but wonder what Cernan was talking about. At that altitude, lunar surface features, even mountains, would be obscure and far away. However, given where Stafford and Cernan were at that moment, passing through Sinus Medii and heading on toward Mare Smythii, the only thing they could have been “down among” – at 50,000 feet – would be Hoagland’s theorized miles-high glass domes. Undeniably, the location and the altitude would be correct for that to be what Cernan was talking about.

This bizarre comment also raises the other strangely incongruent aspect of Apollo10; while the spacecraft was theoretically fully capable of landing on the Moon, inexplicably, it was not given the capability to do so.

Not only was the Mission denied the fuel to make a safe lunar landing (the tanks on-board were literally only half-filled), but the LM “Snoopy” was a crippled version of the “real” vehicle, unable to physically land on the lunar surface.

Politically, this really makes no sense.

Still in a fierce race with the Soviet Union to be the first to land a man on the Moon, Apollo 10 had everything necessary to accomplish this long sought after political goal – except the tools to do so. The Saturn V, the LM and the CSM had all been tested on previous missions, and the NASA long-distance (lunar) communications network was tested on Apollo 8. There was no practical, canonical reason not to land Apollo 10. With only two more shots at making the goal before Kennedy’s “end of the decade,” the question is, why wait?

As he delved ever deeper into the arcane, Egyptian mysteries surrounding these supposedly secular, “scientific and engineering” NASA missions, Hoagland finally found his answer:

Because it wasn’t “time” yet.

It finally occurred to Hoagland that there had to be a “hidden reason”—a ceremonial reason quite likely—why Apollo 10 was prevented from carrying out the Mission it was so capable of accomplishing, and thus achieving Kennedy’s Goal with plenty of margin for error if something went wrong.

Perhaps it had something to do with the date of July 20th, or the project patch, the odd “communion ceremony,” or maybe (as he found out with Alan Shepard and America’s first manned sub-orbital flight, back in 1961 …) the men themselves -- Armstrong and Aldrin – had, for some reason, been pre-selected.

Or maybe, it was all of those things."

In an email to me last summer, the Village Idiot made the following assertion:
 
"On p. 280 of your book Dark Mission, discussing the Apollo 10 mission, you write of the Apollo 10 Lunar Module "while the spacecraft was theoretically fully capable of landing on the moon, inexplicably, it was not given the capability to do so."

There is, in fact, nothing inexplicable about this. Snoopy was too heavy -- or, to be strictly accurate, would have been too heavy if it had been fully fueled. Please see the Apollo 10 Press Kit p. 44.

Will you be able to issue a retraction?"

Again, I get something like this from him or his fellow idiots at least once a week. As always, it is simply wrong on a whole series of levels.
 
First of all, there is nothing on page 44 of the Apollo 10 press kit that says anything about the Lunar Module Snoopy being "too heavy" to either land on or take off from the lunar surface. This is a complete fabrication of the Village Idiot.



Second, the only weight that matters in determining the capability of Snoopy to land safely on the lunar surface is the dry weight of the ASCENT STAGE, as that is the only relevant factor (in terms of weight) in determining the safety of a successful liftoff from the lunar surface. As you can see from the charts below, "Snoopy's" Ascent Stage was actually LIGHTER than "Eagle's," putting the lie to his whole idiotic thesis and meaning that there was no reason that "Snoopy" could not have successfully landed and lifted off again from the lunar surface, just as "Eagle" did. All of the excess weight was in the descent stage, which if anything, probably makes for a lower center of gravity and a more stable vehicle. But I digress.

The 2nd chart shows that "Snoopy's" weight was not excessive in any way, shape or form. While overall with the Ascent/Descent stages joined for the landing it was slightly heavier than "Eagle" by a meager 197 pounds (2%), it was still lighter than the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 LM's. In fact, the Apollo 17 LM, "Challenger," outweighed "Snoopy" by over 1,400 pounds, mostly due to the Lunar Rover.

 

 

What this means is that Snoopy was easily within every design\performance parameter necessary for a successful landing on the Moon and return to orbit. The only reason that didn't happen was because NASA short fueled it on purpose. This makes no sense if the real reason for going to the Moon was the political race with the Soviets. Apollo 10 could have easily landed and returned safely. But as we know, and as Mr. Hoagland and I put in the book, "It wasn't time yet."

If these simple facts aren't enough, let's just go to the source, shall we? Apollo 10 Lunar Module pilot Gene Cernan is unequivocal in stating that NASA took special precautions to assure that Apollo 10 did not land on the lunar surface:

Apollo 10 Lunar Module pilot Gene Cernan

“A lot of people thought about the kind of people we were: 'Don't give those guys an opportunity to land, 'cause they might!' So the ascent module, the part we lifted off the lunar surface with, was short-fueled. The fuel tanks weren't full. So had we literally tried to land on the Moon, we couldn't have gotten off.”

-- Source: Nelson, Craig (2009). Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02103-1.

So once again, the Village Idiot is proven completely wrong. Hopefully, we can all take his (and his associates) similar claims with the gigantic grain of salt they deserve from here on out.

 

 

Signed Copies of Ancient Aliens on Mars Now Available



If you would like a signed or personalized copy of any of my books, send $25.00 via Paypal to the email address mike.bara.mgmt@gmail.com for The Choice, Ancient Aliens on the Moon or Ancient Aliens on Mars.  Copies of Dark Mission are $35.

It will be shipped to you in a few days. Dark Mission takes a bit longer because of availability.

Excerpt From the Forward to My New Book Ancient Aliens on Mars

The following is an excerpt from the Forward to my new book "Ancient Aliens on Mars" in which I present new information about the controversial "Daedalus Ziggurat" from my previous book, Ancient Aliens on the Moon.



In June of 2013, one of Stuart Robbins' sycophants on the web went searching for the origin of as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg in a vain effort to prove that I had somehow lied about its origins. In the course of doing so, he convinced himself that he had “caught” me in a lie/mistake, and eagerly sent an email to my manager gloating over it. In fact, what he discovered only reinforced my arguments that as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg came from a scan of an analog print which had been in this person’s family for years, and in the process he managed to completely throw Stuart (PS4NASA) under the bus and prove him wrong. The whole thing was really quite amusing.

Using the internet archive tool, this troubled individual (he sends me emails on an almost daily basis accusing me of being a “liar” and various other things) went to an archived website of an early anomaly hunter named Terry James, aka “KK Samurai.” Now, I knew of “KK Samurai” from the late 90’s and frequently enjoyed his finds and articles. When I had first seen the Daedalus Ziggurat while doing research for Ancient Aliens on the Moon, I thought it looked familiar but couldn’t place it. It was suggested that the original source might have been “KK Samurai,” but I expressed doubts about this because he always watermarked his discoveries with a “KK” symbol in the lower right hand corner, and “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” did not have such a watermark.

This sycophant (and his sycophants) also mocked Terry James as a “known hoaxer” (which I knew he wasn’t), primarily because he was a Christian, according to them. But when they suddenly thought they “had” something on me, they withdrew these charges quickly.

What they found were some images on Terry James’ archived website that absolutely verified what “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” showed, and appeared to be made from the same source file. I went in and pulled down the images myself to make sure there was no funny business with altering of the images by the sycophant.
 

 

Image retrieved from the Internet Archive showing the Daedalus Ziggurat, first posted in 1999-2000 by Terry James, aka “KK Samurai.” Note “KK” watermark in lower right.

In looking over the archived website I saw that in addition to first posting the image, Terry James also had done some colorization work on it. He also posted images showing that author Richard Coombs had made an initial comparison to the Ziggurat at Ur in Iraq, identical to the comparison I made years later in Ancient Aliens on the Moon without even knowing about Terry’s pages or Richard’s analysis.

Comparison of the Daedalus Ziggurat with the Ziggurat at Ur by Richard Coombs.

But the most critical piece of information from the website came from 1999, where Terry James thanked “Frank,” for giving him the image.  In fact, in the email from the sycophant, he identified the source of the image as a man named Frank Gault:

“The actual source of the image was a scan done by Frank Gault, which is why in the original presentation you see ‘Thanks to Frank....’ Gault’s father was ex-NASA, and gave his son a large collection of Apollo-era 10x8 photo-prints, perhaps similar to Ken Johnston's collection…”

After a quick perusal of the archived KK Samurai website, I was able to confirm most of this information. This sycophant apparently thought he “got” me because of my previously expressed doubts that Terry James was the source of the image I had originally given to Richard Hoagland (as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg). In fact, what his digging actually does is to throw Stuart (PS4NASA) Robbins completely under the bus.

As I established earlier in this forward, Stuart (PS4NASA) has unequivocally argued that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” was made from the digital NASA source file “5564.jpg.” I have counter-argued that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” was scanned from an analog original Apollo era print— a fact now confirmed by the sycophant. So this Village Idiot has now categorically confirmed that I was right all along and Dr. Stuart (PS4NASA) Robbins was and is categorically wrong. With friends like these, Stuart (PS4NASA)…

But wait, wasn’t I wrong about KK Samurai/Terry James not being the source of “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg?” Doesn’t that make me equally in error?

Well no. “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg”obviously didn’t come from Terry James’ website at all. If it did, it would have his “KK” watermark on it, just like ALL of the images of the Daedalus Ziggurat from his website do. Since “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” doesn’t have this watermark, that must mean it comes from another source, possibly Frank Gault himself or his father and his collection of original, first-generation NASA 8 x 10 prints. Either that, or it came from someone who had access to Gault’s scans or someone Terry had passed the image to in the past and maybe just forgotten about.

as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg (L) and the version from Terry James website (R). Note that the “KK” watermark does not appear on “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” and it is rotated and cropped differently.

So in one fell swoop, not only has Stuart’s (PS4NASA) sycophant failed to prove that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” came from Terry James website, he has by his own Plain Statement of Fact proven that it was not conjured up from NASA’s tampered digital image “5564.jpg,” as Stuart Robbins (PS4NASA) has categorically declared.

Thanks for the help there buddy. But I bet you’re off Stuart’s (PS4NASA) Christmas card list now.

“as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” and Terry James’ enhancement from the archived “KK Samurai” website. “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” rotated to match alignment.

But more important is what Terry’s version of the Ziggurat actually shows. First, in comparing “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” to Terry’s original work from his website in 1999, it is plain to see that all the same features appear in both. The left side and rear walls, the walled enclosure for the “temple,” the square temple itself along with the entrance ramp and the dome on top. The left wall may be brighter and more defined in “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg,” but that may simply be because whoever enhanced it used a different technique than Terry James did. This is reinforced by the fact that the photographic glue residue overlays the top of the left wall, an impossibility if the wall had been “drawn-in” after scanning, as Stuart (PS4NASA) and the sycophants have argued (see enhancement above).

Shortly after this exchange, Terry James himself showed up on the sycophant’s website and called me and Mr. Hoagland out for not giving him credit for the Ziggurat. I later learned that he had apparently not actually seen the “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” image when he made this declaration. Fortunately, he left his email on the blog post, so I wrote to him explaining the chain of custody of “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” and why he hadn’t been credited in Ancient Aliens on the Moon. I quickly got a reply, and we began a cordial email exchange. He made several major points in these emails:

“I can assure you I am neither a hoaxer or a Christian and yes I did find this pyramid on a very large scan of a photo sent to me by Frank Gault. I am also very certain that Frank did not mess with that scan or any of the many other scans he sent me… I also noticed that many of the lunar scans that Frank sent me were not found in the NASA public archive. I also noticed that some of the available images in the public archive had features removed or brushed out that were very clean in Franks scans.”

He also stated that he didn’t always watermark his images, although all of the Ziggurat images on the archived site do have one. So “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” could still have originated with him or Frank Gault:

“I should (also) point out that I didn't always put my watermark on my images. I often just signed them or didn't mark them at all. Sometimes I just inserted my name into the image file. And on occasion I would send someone a clip of my raw data provided they gave me credit for it. So it is probable that I sent out a clip of the pyramid to someone who renamed the file and used it. Also keep in mind that Frank may have also sent some of the data to someone else without my knowledge. After all he did have the scanned data on file.”

Then, a second critic/attack dog that frequently collaborates with sycophant #1 sent an email claiming that Terry James had in fact admitted to “faking” the Ziggurat image. “Oh and isn't it great that Terry James aka KKsamurai has shown up. You know..., the guy who faked the ziggurat. He admitted he created it, still has the original, and has called out you and Mike as thieves and liars. Mike even dedicated almost an entire chapter to this fake.” Knowing all of these statements to be false, I passed the email along to Terry, who quickly replied: “I've been there before. I did not fake that ziggurat. He’s basing his position on a public archive image whereas I have real first generation data from a NASA lunar scientist. It’s not worth arguing.  I should also say I've found a lot of very interesting data on more interesting stuff… I can't help but say I have a lot more data yet unrevealed and none of it is faked. In fact most of it proves that NASA has withheld. Worse, they've edited many lunar images to hide the truth from the general public.”

In other words, Terry James reinforced that not only are the public archives which Stuart (PS4NASA) and the sycophants are so dependent on not complete, he also agreed with me that they have been altered from their original form when compared to first generation photographic prints. When I informed Terry James that I was going to cover all this in the Forward to my new book, he kindly offered to send me his original scan sourced from Frank Gault, and also confirmed that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” is NOT an image from his site, as claimed by sycophant #1. “Mike. If you are putting this in a book you need data from the original scan… The original scan is darker. To lighten something for the sake of vision and perception is OK provided you give them the original data.”

About a week later, I received a thumb-drive with Terry’s original scan, a GIF file named “Apollo-AS11-38-5564.gif.” The image has pixel dimensions of 1500 x 1138 at 72 DPI, making for an on disk file size of 1.62MB and a document size of 20.833 inches in width and a height of 15.806 inches. In other words, there’s plenty of data well above the “limits of resolution” with which to determine the authenticity of the Ziggurat as an artificial structure. And that’s exactly what it does.

 

Ziggurat image “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” (L) alongside Terry James’ raw original (R).

In comparing “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” with Frank Gault/Terry James’ original scan, all the major features are again confirmed. The front wedge shaped buttresses, the left and rear walls, the entire walled enclosure, the square “temple” structure, the entrance ramp, the “windows” on the side, the dome on top— all of it. With a little enhancement work, it becomes even clearer.

What Terry’s original scan shows is that all of my original speculations about the origins of “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” are verified— it did in fact come from a first generation photographic print in the personal collection of a former NASA employee, whether that person is Frank Gault’s father or another source. It also confirms that the current NASA version “5564.jpg,” in total contrast to the claims of Stuart (PS4NASA) Robbins, is an overt fake that had the Ziggurat removed in a rather sloppy and obvious paint-over. Given this, it is now safe to assume that ALL NASA digital imagery is almost certainly compromised, as Terry has stated unequivocally in his emails.

 

Comparison of Frank Gault/Terry James scan of the Ziggurat, and NASA scan “5564.jpg,”— an obvious fake.

So, just to quickly recap:

1. There is not less noise in the NASA image “5564.jpg” than in the Ziggurat image “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg.” What Stuart (PS4NASA) thinks is "noise" is actually photo-album residue marks on the first-generation photographic print that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” was scanned from.

2. Stuart's (PS4NASA) assumption that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” was therefore modified after NASA's “5564.jpg” and by his faulty reasoning manufactured from it in Photoshop or a similar program is therefore falsified.

3. "as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg" shows every indication of being scanned from an early if not first-generation photographic print, and therefore has an earlier derivation than "5564.jpg." This is proven out by the research of Stuart’s (PS4NASA) own fans.

4. Terry James aka “KK Samurai” has now produced an original scan of a first-generation photographic print in the possession of Frank Gault, the son of a former NASA lunar scientist who obtained the photo directly from NASA. It shows that “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” is far closer if not identical to the original NASA photograph AS11-38-5564. “5564.jpg” is therefore proven to be a fake digital image, at least as far as the Ziggurat is concerned.

On Coast to Coast AM with George Noory Tonight



Just a quick reminder I will be appearing on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory tonight from 10PM-2AM Pacific. We will be discussing my new book, Ancient Aliens on Mars, wrapping up some loose ends from Ancient Aliens on the Moon, and I will have a special announcement in the first hour! Be sure to tune in!

Coast to Coast AM