Wednesday, October 30, 2013

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 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.

Monday, October 28, 2013

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

Thursday, October 17, 2013

There is no Such Thing as Pareidolia

In recent years, as better and better images of the Face on Mars and other anomalies on the Red Planet have become increasingly recognized as artificial, NASA and NASA backed debunkers have retrenched and attempted to hide behind a non-existent limitation of human perception they call "pareidolia." According to the debunker crowd, pareidolia is a supposed human tendency to recognize facial patterns where none actually exist. This mythical, made-up tendency has no basis in fact, has never been written up or published in any scientific or medical journal, and has failed to meet even the most basic standards of a true medical or psychological disorder.

Original, unprocessed image of the Face on Mars (L) and the infamous "Catbox" fraud (R)
This does not stop it from being cited on a regular basis by the debunker crowd, who hail it as the be-all end-all answer to the question of whether the Face is artificial. In articles on the subject, they invariably show unprocessed or outright fabricated images of the Face -- like the infamous Catbox "enhancement" of the 1998 Mars Global Surveyor Face image. Never do they use the far more accurate and more directly overhead views, of which there are now many.

The Face on Mars as seen by Viking (L) Mars Odyssey 2001 (C) and ESA's Mars Express (R) 
The reason for this is simply that in the debate about the Face and other anomalies at Cydonia, they haven't a leg to stand on. As my next book Ancient Aliens on Mars will reveal, the evidence that the Face and other pyramidal objects at Cydonia are artificial is overwhelming. Given this, in recent years it has now become de rigueur to redefine "pareidolia" to be a perceptual disorder whereby humans supposedly simply see patterns where none exist. This is akin to the man-made Global Warming alarmist crowd no longer using that term but instead  citing the generic "climate change" as the basis for their socialist environmental proposals. After 15 years of cooling and several studies that link global temperatures to solar activity (duh) their whole premise has been falsified. The same applies to "pareidolia."
In fact, the depth of the lie that is "pareidolia" can easily be found by simply tracing the word's origins. It is nothing but  a phony, pseudo-scientific term invented in 1994 by a UFO debunker named Steven Goldstein in the June 22nd, 1994 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. This alone should tell you all you need to know about its credibility in the realm of ideas. Despite a complete lack of any valid scientific studies on the supposed “phenomenon,” it is still commonly cited by debunkers like James Oberg and Phil “Dr. Phil” Plait to give an academic air to their knee-jerk dismissal of the Cydonia anomalies. Some of these debunkers even resort to claiming that articles written about "pareidolia" by other debunkers are some sort of paper trail proving the phenomenon has a publishing pedigree. But the simple fact is no such human tendency exists.
At all.

There is however another very real human tendency that unlike the mythical “pareidolia,” is actually an extremely well-documented and medically established disorder— Prosopagnosia. Simply put, Prosopagnosia is a brain disorder that renders the poor souls that have it completely unable to recognize faces when they see them. According to some medical studies, as much as 2.5% of the human population may suffer from this disorder, and apparently a disproportionate number of those afflicted have found jobs in the NASA planetary science community.
So the next time some NASA loving troll tries to tell you the Face on Mars is just all in your head, ask him to show you one medical paper -- even one -- which has studied the supposed phenomena of "pareidolia." Then hit them back with Prosopagnosia.
Within the next sentence or two I guarantee you they will call you a "conspiracy theorist" or cite their academic credentials.

UPDATE 10/22/2013:

Some of my more obsessive critics have sent me emails indicating that Stuart Robbins has responded by pointing to a reference in a journal from 1867. I happen to know this reference was fed to Robbins by the Village Idiot, because he sent it to me months ago. It is nothing but a single word in a 600 page document from 1867 and contains no information about any medical studies which establish the existence of "pareidolia," since there never have been any. In any event, if this reference is genuine, then their problem is with the Wordspy web site, and I'd suggest they send them a note to correct their page. All other references seem to point to the Steven Goldstein quote as the origin for the word's use in the common language. It is also clear from reading the two descriptions that the word may even have had a different meaning in the 1867 reference than it does as used by Goldstein the debunker.

They've also attempted to claim that 3 obscure papers they mined on the internet use the word “pareidolia,” in their abstracts, and that this somehow proves me wrong, and that “pareidolia.” is a real, established medical condition. In a comment authored by "James Concannon" (who I think is actually the Village Idiot working under a pseudonym, a practice he has admitted to) they claim that I said that "no scientific or medical literature exists authenticating pareidolia."

First of all, "James Concannon," if he even exists, has sexually harassed numerous female Facebook friends of mine in the last several years, sending them harassing message after harassing message. At least 5 women had to block him to get it to stop. This is par for the course for both the Village Idiot and the distinguished Dr. Robbins, both of whom have proven time and again what complete creeps they are by pretending to be other people. They do this to keep people from realizing how mentally disordered they are, and to make their numbers look far greater than they actually are.

But I digress. What I said above about “pareidolia” is crystal clear. "This mythical, made-up tendency has no basis in fact, has never been written up or published in any scientific or medical journal, and has failed to meet even the most basic standards of a true medical or psychological disorder."

The 3 papers cited, which I was aware of when I wrote this post, do nothing to make me change or retract this claim. None of them is a medical study that establishes that there is an actual medical condition which causes people to see things that aren't there or don't exist. All they do is make reference to the word.

The first paper, published in 2009, assumes that “pareidolia” exists and specifically links it to facial recognition only. In reality, the paper is not about “pareidolia" at all, but only measures the speed of cognitive responses to visual stimuli, and nothing more. If the study had been done prior to Goldstein's 1994 reference and the debunkers community repeated use of it with regards to the Face on Mars, the word probably wouldn't even appear in the abstract. In any event, the paper is not a study of “pareidolia,” but merely the speed of brain function. The paper itself only uses the word "pareidolia" twice, and CANNOT EVEN CITE A SINGLE MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC STUDY pointing to its existence.

The second paper, a tiny Japanese study published in 2012, tests patients with a specific kind of dementia -- who already hallucinate -- for hallucinations. It again uses the word “pareidolia,” but likewise cannot cite a single study verifying the existence of such a condition. In essence all it does is substitute the word “pareidolia” for "hallucination."

The third paper, published in 2009 in Brazil is available only in abstract form and like the other two, assumes that “pareidolia” exists, but once again does not cite even  a single study confirming that.

It's obvious that the Village Idiot simply went to the website and searched for the term “pareidolia.” All he could find were a pathetic 3 results, none of which is a study of the actual alleged "phenomenon." There is a 4th result, but the paper is in Spanish and the abstract is so off the wall that they must have decided not to cite for fear of embarrassment.

What this reinforces is that as I have asserted, there is no medically established disorder called “pareidolia.” If there were, there would be dozens of studies pointing to it and identifying its origins, causes, and treatment. Legitimate medical/psychological conditions like Prosopagnosia have such medical pedigrees. In fact, Prosopagnosia turns up an impressive 686 papers and studies from the same web site. The fact that all of the “pareidolia”papers were written after Steven Goldstein coined (or re-coined) the phrase in 1994 indicates they wouldn't even be using the term if it hadn't found its way into the debunkers vernacular in the first place.

So all they have done in reality is to further prove my original point: The supposed phenomenon of “pareidolia” is an Urban Myth perpetrated if not created by the debunkers, and nothing more.



Sunday, October 6, 2013

NASA's Dr. Stuart Robbins - The Gift That Keeps on Giving - Part V

In the final section of his attack piece, Stuart comes to a claim that is so idiotic, so devoid of fact or even a semblance of reality that it has actually left me speechless for years. He claims that -- based on upon the following factually correct statement -- that I somehow don't know what an ellipse is:

"On page 34 of The Choice, Bara states: 'Many of the planet’s orbits, which … should be perfectly circular by now, are highly elliptical. In fact, Mars’s orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest.'”

This simple and factually correct statement has been distorted for years by my critics and touted as an "error" in The Choice. How anyone can somehow derive from this that I don't know what an ellipse is, how it's calculated or how it relates to Mars' orbital eccentricity is beyond comprehension.

Stuart puts it thusly: "It seems fitting that the section after I talk about Bara’s claim that is summarized as “scientists don’t know anything,” that I should come to this last one about ellipses that shows Bara knows less than the average middle school geometry student. It’s really simply incredibly stupid of Mike to claim that Mars’ orbit is highly eccentric because it comes as close as about 0.38 A.U. (“astronomical unit” is the distance between the sun and Earth) but goes as far as 2.67 A.U. (Actually, in fairness, the numbers that he gives equate to 0.37 A.U. and 2.68 A.U.; he and I rounded slightly differently.) Therefore it’s an eccentric orbit that’s evidence for his fission model of solar system formation."

For the record, the word "ellipse" doesn't even appear in my book The Choice, so how that statement can be distorted into a debate about ellipses is beyond me. Maybe I need a Ph.D. from Costco like yours to understand, Stuart. Second, the statement "Mars’s orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest” is FACTUALLY CORRECT. (This page has lots of pictures. Maybe they can help you understand how all this orbital mechanics stuff works.) Third, I have NEVER claimed--on Coast to Coast AM that night or at any other time-- that Mars' orbital eccentricity is "evidence for his (sic) fission model of solar system formation." As I have stated repeatedly, the Solar Fission theory of planetary formation is Dr. Van Flandern's (Ph.D., Astronomy, Yale) theory, not mine. The eccentricity of Mars' orbit is cited in The Choice and elsewhere as evidence that Mars was once in orbit around a "super Earth" Van Flandern named Planet V, which was destroyed sometime in the past. It has nothing to do with the Solar fission theory. Fourth, there is nothing -- NOTHING -- in the statement "Mars’s orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest" that implies, in the most tortuous, ancillary way, that I am somehow calculating orbital eccentricity from Earth rather than the Sun. you have to be a complete moron to claim that it does.

So congratulations on once again getting your argument completely wrong, Stuwie. I guess getting facts straight is low priority for you, since you never seem to be able to do it.

Now, let's examine your statement that "It’s really simply incredibly stupid of Mike to claim that Mars’ orbit is highly eccentric."
Oh really?
Like most debunkers, Stuart uses numbers deceptively to try and make his point. Several of his sycophants have tried to make the same claim that Mars's orbit really isn't so eccentric. But when you graph the numbers, it becomes obvious just how out of a nominal range Mars' orbit really is. 

Excluding Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, Mars orbit is the 2nd most elliptical of all the "planets." You can see from the graph that it is far more eccentric than Earth's, exactly as I characterized it. Put another way, Earth’s relative distance to the Sun varies by only about 3.1 million miles in the course of one orbit (year). Mars' orbit, by contrast, varies by as much as 26.5 million miles over the course of a Martian year. Obviously, Mars' orbit is more eccentric by an order of magnitude. How Stuart fails to grasp this I do not know. Maybe he's just stupid.

Not satisfied with getting all of that wrong, Stuart goes on to chastise me for something I never said, and an argument I never made:

"The problem here, for those who didn’t listen to the podcast or don’t remember their middle school geometry is that you measure the long and short axis of an ellipse from the center of the ellipse. Not some crackpot arbitrary point inside or outside of it. In this case, the sun is one of the foci of the ellipse that is Mars’ orbit. The sun is one of the foci of ALL solar system objects that are in orbit. Earth is not. Measuring your axes from Earth is just stupid. It’s made up. It makes no sense. It has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever talked about on this blog, and that’s saying a lot."

First, I agree that measuring orbital eccentricity from Earth would be stupid. About as stupid as claiming that a 2 kilometer wide Ziggurat on the Moon appears on an MRO image strip that actually misses it by a mile or so or using Wikipedia to attack the research of a Nobel prize winner. But I digress. Please show me where, at any time, I have EVER claimed that orbital eccentricity is calculated from Earth. Ever. In any forum. The factually correct statement you cite ("Mars’s orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest") as the basis for your absurd claim says nothing of the kind. Only a retard would conclude that it did.
It takes a special kind of stupid to even make such a claim, completely without evidence. But you have to be even more "special" to compound your fantasy by creating a fake graphic to illustrate your point.
But Stuart did it.
NOT Bara's explanation of Eccentricity
Also lost in all of this nonsense is that fact that even if he were right, and this was an "error" on my part, or that I was the one who was "incredibly stupid" as opposed to him, it still wouldn't matter. the fact is, this whole question of eccentricity is completely immaterial to the arguments, conclusions or deductions in The Choice. It was merely a little factoid I was tossing out to make a minor, off-camber point. Even if Stuart was right, which he isn't, it would not change one single thing about the books' conclusions.
That's what debunkers, as opposed to true skeptics, do. They ignore the big stuff and try to argue the minutiae. And Stuart, as I've continually demonstrated, can't even do that right. 
But if that wasn't enough, just to prove what a complete creep he is, Stuart was actually dumb enough to try and "catch" me at making an incorrect statement about ellipses and orbital eccentricity.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM, I got an email from an anonymous address from somebody claiming to be "Shawn."
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Nho Buddy <> wrote:
Dear Michael,

I found out about you after being referred by someone to a post of yours on Richard Hoagland's website.  I was looking for some information about you and found a blog post by an astrophysicist who critiqued some of your claims (

Without going into everything else because I'm not sure I really understand all of his arguments, I do understand geometry, and I'm trying to determine if his claim about what you said about Mars' eccentricity is correct.  You can find what he says about it in his next-to-last section on "Ellipses in Planetary Orbits," or by going to versus .

If you really claimed that Mars' eccentricity is around 0.75, could you please explain why, and how you justify using arbitrary points from which to measure your ellipse major and minor axes in spite of the fundamental definition of an ellipse?

I of course did not take the bait, and replied to "Shawn" with the following:

On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Mike Bara <> wrote:

I have no idea if his claim is correct, since I've never read his post
nor do I intend to. Nor do I believe you aren't him. Nor did I use
anything "arbitrary" in my book. If you want to know whether my claim
about Mars' orbit being the 2nd most eccentric in the solar system is

correct, I suggest you look it up on Google.

On the off chance you aren't really [XXXXX] or some other plant, I'd
suggest you take anything they may say about my "claims" with a grain
of salt the size of Pluto. They even seem to be claiming I predicted
the end of the world in 2012, or something along those lines, which of
course I did not. However, everything I did predict in The Choice has
come true so far, and in pretty much exactly the timing I said it

Have a nice day. I'm sorry I don't have more time to address false
claims from morons, but I have another book to finish. By all means
look for me on Ancient Aliens this week tho!

 "Shawn" then replied to me with the following:

Nho Buddy <>

to me

I do not know who [XXXXX] is, nor am I the owner of that blog.  I use a pseudonym email account because I work in a law office and cannot risk having my name "out there" affiliated with non-business work.  Could you possibly explain to me how you define eccentricity of an ellipse, and how you measure major and minor axes?  You don't have to read that post to tell me that.

- Stuart
Now, at the time, I had no idea who Stuart Robbins was, but it's now completely obvious what happened. He had a signature with his real name in this email address, which he changed to "Shawn" in the initial email so I wouldn't know who he was. Of course, even if he had used his real name, I wouldn't have known who he was, nor would I have cared. But when he hit "reply," he forgot to redact his real name and insert "Shawn."
What a dunce. For future reference, Stuwie, when lurking creepily on the internet it's a good idea to think before you send off an email that proves you're both stupid and creepy.

Before I could even respond, he sent me the following panicky email trying to cover his tracks:
Nho Buddy <>

to me
P.S.  I actually have a few different pseudonyms I commonly use.  Thought I'd go with "Stuart" on that one as a little joke, don't take it to mean anything else.  I have a weird sense of humor, similar to you if I've read your material correctly.
See what a creep he is? First, he lied about who he was, then he lied about working in a law office, and then when he fucked up he compounded his first lie by lying about using pseudonyms. Anybody who takes this smarmy coward seriously at this point is off my Christmas card list. He's creepier than Pee Wee Herman at peep show.

I sent him one last retort:

Or you fucked up and realized you pretended to be "Shawn" on the first
email and put "Stuart" on the second.

Pass this on to {XXXXX} and your other friends; If you always tell the
truth, you never have to remember what you said.

To sum this all up, let's look at the facts first and foremost.

Stuart Robbins has made numerous claims about me and my research over the years, pretty much all of which I have proven to be false, misleading or just plain stupid. I have time after time exposed him as the sloppy, venal, jealous, petty, lying creep that he is. I'm sorry if you don't have the talent to get as much attention as I do Stuart, but that's not my problem. If you continue to attack me with your silly, mistake-filled rants I guess I will from time to time respond, but don't count on it. The simple fact is that your behavior shows you are a person with demonstrable emotional problems. I can't do anything about that. I'd suggest therapy.
My final conclusion after reading several of the items that he has posted about me is that Stuart has about as much knowledge of the subjects he attacks me on as he does about kissing girls – i.e. none.

Maybe you should lay off the blog and try and get laid once in a while buddy. If I ever come to Boulder, I'll wingman 'ya...

Saturday, October 5, 2013

NASA's Dr. Stuart Robbins - The Gift That Keeps on Giving - Part IV

In the next section, Stuart then goes on to get even more things wrong:

Planets: Burped at Birth, Exploded at Death

"So yeah, back to pendulums with a really really wonky idea of solar system / planetary formation, including the completely fallacious idea that the asteroid belt was once a planet and Mars was somehow its moon (“Mars itself which was absolutely devastated by … Planet V, the signatures are all over Mars” (18:20)). I actually do plan to go into the whole “exploding planet ‘hypothesis’” in some future blog post and likely in some future podcast episode, as well. For now, I hope that most people recognize that this is very hard to make happen by any known process, and the onus is on Mike Bara to really provide VERY convincing theory and evidence for why it’s the case. Yeah, I’m punting, but this is a LONG post."

First of all, the Exploded Planet Hypothesis is not my idea, but the idea of the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, as I have discussed in many forums and even in Part 1 of this post. Stuart (Ph. D. Costco)can claim that the idea of the asteroid belt being the remnant of an exploded planet is "completely fallacious" all he wants, but that's just his completely uninformed opinion, and he cites no data to back it up.  Dr. Van Flandern (Ph.D., astronomy, Yale) lays out dozens of reasons why it is anything but "completely fallacious" in his excellent book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated.

Recommended reading for the truly curious.

Second, Stuart is so dumb he can't even get the simplest facts straight. Nowhere in The Choice or anywhere else for that matter have I EVER claimed that "the asteroid belt was once a planet and Mars was somehow its moon." The planet that Mars orbited was in an orbit very near where Mars is today, and the planet that created the asteroid belt was in an orbit that was -- wait for it -- WHERE THE ASTEROID BELT IS TODAY! For reference purposes, Dr. Van Flandern has called these 2 planets "Planet V" and "Planet K," while I refer to them as Maldek and Phaeton, respectively. So it's no wonder Stuart can't get his head around these concepts or out of whatever orifice he's got it in. He doesn't even listen, much less read, before he shoots his mouth off about things he knows nothing about.

Stuart then demands that I provide "proof" that planets can explode: "the onus is on Mike Bara to really provide VERY convincing theory and evidence for why it’s the case."

Again Stuart, the evidence is cited in my book The Choice, but since you are criticizing it without having read it and making yourself look like a buffoon in the process, I'll help you out. Dr. Van Flandern, in his book, provides the theory and evidence behind the idea. He also cites the evidence on his web site here. For our readers, I'll reprint Van Flandern's summaries:

"The earliest and simplest theoretical mechanism is that of Ramsey [W.H. Ramsey (1950), “On the instability of small planetary cores (I)”, Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 110, 325-338], who noted that planets must evolve through a wide range of pressures and temperatures. This is true whether they are born cold and heat up under gravitational accretion, or born hot and cool down by radiation of heat into space. During the course of this evolution, temperatures and pressures in the cores must occasionally reach a critical point, at which a phase change (like water to ice) occurs. This will be accompanied by a volume discontinuity, which must then cause an Earth-sized or smaller planet to implode or explode, depending on whether the volume decreases or increases.
The second explosion mechanism, natural fission reactors, is currently generating some excitement in the field of geology. [(1998), EOS 79 (9/22), 451 & 456. See also <]    A uranium mine at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon is deficient in U-235 and is accompanied by fission-produced isotopes of Nd and Sm, apparently caused by self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions about 1.8 Gyr ago. Later, other natural fission chain reactors were discovered in the region. Today, uranium ore does not have this capability because the proportion of U-235 in natural uranium is too low. But 1.8 Gyr ago, the proportion was more than four times greater, allowing the self-sustaining neutron chain reactions. Additionally, these areas also functioned as fast neutron breeder reactors, producing additional fissile material in the form of plutonium and other trans-uranic elements. Breeding fissile material results in possible reactor operation continuing long after the U-235 proportion in natural uranium would have become too low to sustain neutron chain reactions. This proves the existence of an energy source in nature able to produce more than an order of magnitude more energy than radioactive decay alone. Excess planetary heat radiation is said to be gravitational in origin because all other proposed energy sources (e.g., radioactivity, accretion, and thermonuclear fusion) fall short by at least two orders of magnitude. But these natural reactors may be able to supply the needed energy. Indeed, nuclear fission chain reactions may provide the ignition temperature to set off thermonuclear reactions in stars (analogous to ignition of thermonuclear bombs).
The third planetary explosion mechanism relies on one other hypothesis not yet widely accepted, but holds out the potential for an indefinitely large reservoir of energy for exploding even massive planets and stars. If gravitational fields are continually regenerated, as in LeSage particle models of gravity [T. Van Flandern (1996), “Possible new properties of gravity”, Astrophys.&SpaceSci. 244, 249-261], then all masses are continually absorbing energy from this universal flux. Normally, bodies would reach a thermodynamic equilibrium, where at they radiate as much heat away as they continually absorb from the graviton flux. But something could block this heat flow and disrupt the equilibrium. For example, changes of state in a planet’s core might set up an insulating layer. In that case, heat would continue to be accumulated from graviton impacts, but could not freely radiate away. This is obviously an unstable situation. The energy excess in the interior of such a planet would build indefinitely until either the insulating layer was breached or the planet blew itself apart

So that makes three (3) planetary explosion mechanisms, all of which are published in Stuart's precious peer-reviewed journals. Maybe if he had actually looked them up he wouldn't keep embarrassing himself.

So now, Stuart, the onus is on you. I'll wait with baited breath for you to address it. But please try to get the actual theory right before you open you mouth or put finger to keyboard, OK?

On second thought, don't. It's more fun for me this way...

Bara/Science-4, Stuart/Debunkery-0

In the next section, Stuart rambles about Dark Matter, Lloyd Pye and then tells me "Bara needs to provide evidence at least as convincing as the conventional explanation for his ideas to be even considered."

Well first off Stuwie, I have. In my book,
The Choice. Second, I couldn't care less about whether clowns like you who can't even get basic facts right, find 2 kilometer wide structures on MRO images or depend on Wikipedia for their research "consider" my ideas. You are simply not important enough for me to care about, and even if you were, your non-stop comedy of errors on your blog  pretty much puts you out of the conversation in any event. I don't want your consideration. You are a joke.

But like all big disasters, Stuart saves the best for last...


W.H. Ramsey (1950), “On the instability of small planetary cores (I)”, Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 110, 325-338

[(1998), EOS 79 (9/22), 451 & 456. See also <

T. Van Flandern (1996), “Possible new properties of gravity”, Astrophys.&SpaceSci. 244, 249-261


Friday, October 4, 2013

NASA's Dr. Stuart Robbins - The Gift That Keeps on Giving - Part III

In section 3 of his attack post, Stuart (PS4NASA) goes after me for statements made about the 2012 galactic alignment and challenges me to provide “proof.” Naturally, his challenge is intellectually weak and he could have easily found the proof he claims to want simply by reading The Choice:

2012 Galactic Alignment

It’s nice when one’s research involves going back into their own blog archives. In this case, for background in why the 2012 purported galactic alignment is not worth the electrons its printed on, I’ll refer you to this post of mine.

With that out of the way, Bara stated during the second hour at 27:48 into the hour: “We do get hit by a pulse of energy from the center of the galaxy right around this December 21[, 2012] period, in fact it goes for about a month before and a month after that where we’re really in this energetic pulse from the center of the galaxy at this time.” Then he went on to say that the energy is neutral and we can choose whatever we want to come out of it and it’ll happen. (Did I mention that the tagline for his book, The Choice, is, “You’ve heard of The Secret, now you can make The Choice”?) He also states around 10 minutes into the third hour, “We are aligned with the center of the galaxy [around the winter solstice].” Again, see my post linked in the paragraph above. And he brings in astrology. See the section before this one.

Just to amuse myself, I skimmed Stuart’s postings on the great 2012 Galactic Alignment, and as in most circumstances he manages to get most of it wrong. Although he does agree with John Major Jenkins interpretation to some degree:  Jenkins’ premise is actually somewhat correct in the sense that, yes, the sun will be somewhat near the plane of the galaxy as seen from Earth around the winter solstice in 2012.”

Just how close it is to that plane depends on where you draw the line, and the simple fact is that Stuart’s interpretation of that plane is no more valid than Jenkins’. He then goes on to agree with Jenkins on another point: “…in fact, the sun passes “through” it [the Galactic Plane] as seen from Earth once a year. It just so happens that for the last ~300 years through the next ~300 years, this will happen to coincide with mid-December – winter solstice in the Northern hemisphere and summer in the Southern.”

Stuart states this as if the ancient Maya didn’t know this, and could not possibly have planned their calendar around it. He simply dismisses it all as “New-Age woo and mysticism.” That's real scientific there, Stuwie...

Just for reference, the “galactic center” is thought to be within 1-3 light years of a supermassive black hole that is generally considered the to be at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. The nearest visible star is thought to be Sagittarius A*, a bright radio source that is part of the much larger structure known as Sagittarius A (without the asterisk).

The best bet location of Sagittarius A* is Right ascension 17h 45m 40.0409s Declination −29° 0′ 28.118. But, the truth is. No one knows exactly where the assumed supermassive black hole is relative to Sagittarius A*. This is important because he makes quite the stink in his galactic alignment post about the fact that while the Sun maybe be crossing the galactic plane, it isn’t directly aligned with the Galactic center. But again, that’s only where scientists currently guess the supermassive black hole is, and it may or may not be the actual “center of the galaxy” since no one knows exactly where that is either.

Further, as I outlined in The Choice and as Hoagland has commented on many times, the energetic effect is actually more powerful when the planetary bodies are not perfectly aligned. So it is disingenuous at best for Stuart to attack those discussing the 2012 alignment based on the location of an object that no one knows for certain. Further, the evident misalignment with the (assumed) location of the black hole may have no significance whatever, as it may not be at the “center of the galaxy” as it’s assumed to be. Finally, the tests done by Hoagland in 2004 and 2006 indicate that an off-center alignment is actually better than a perfect alignment for measuring the "energy."

In any event, arguing over the exact location of the center of the galaxy has nothing to do with what I published in The Choice or what I said on Coast to Coast AM in November, 2011.

Comparison of the location of the Sun (as seen from Earth) and the assumed galactic center on December 21st 2012.

But OK, I really wouldn’t expect much else from a semi-professional debunker like Stuart, so it really doesn’t mean much. He then goes on to criticize several of the alignment theories based on the idea that “gravity waves” were supposed to cause some kind of calamity on December 21st 2012. Since this has nothing to do with what I wrote in The Choice or what I spoke about on the radio that night, it has no relevance whatsoever to my work. The kind of alignments I’m talking about and the energies involved have nothing to do with gravity, so we can simply dismiss this entire part of the post. He then once again demands that I prove something stated in a radio program interview.

“I’m not even going to go into detail on this. For this claim, it’s up to him to provide the evidence for this energy blast. What it is, what it’s made of (since “energy” is not a nebulous thing that just passes through stuff like new-agers think), why we need to go through an alignment that isn’t actually happening, etc. Otherwise …”

Of course, once again, all of the “proof” Stuart claims he’s looking for is provided in my book “The Choice,” which is what I was promoting that night on Coast to Coast AM. Unless he has read my book, which he obviously hasn't, I'm not even going to address his silly demands. You want proof pal? Read my book.

Bara/Science -3, Stuart/Debunkery-0

Thursday, October 3, 2013

NASA's Stuart Robbins: The Gift That Keeps on Giving - Part II

In Part II of his attack post on my appearance on Coast to Coast AM, Stuart next turns his attention to my alleged belief in “Astrology and auras and crystals and consciousness.” But mostly, he focuses on Astrology and my discussion of the work of John Nelson for RCA in the mid-1950’s:

Chart by john Nelson showing a typical "negative configuration" of the planets from his study.

“Anyway, there are several short quips about astrology in the C2C interview, so it’s a bit hard to pull out a true gem. I’ve chosen the one at 37:55 in hour 2:
George Noory: “I mean, you’re even a believer in astrology now, aren’t you?”

Mike Bara: “Yeah. well you know again, that goes back – that goes back to the Hyperdimensional physics because the idea is that the planets are generating energy, which is traveling through these higher dimensions, and it is like this wave after wave of energy affecting us here on this planet. And, uh, there’s lots of, uh, interesting cases, there’s lots of experiments that show that-that this is really the case. That the planets and their positions relative to the Earth do have an effect, not just on physical instruments here, but actually on the way we think. And our consciousness.”

 As an example – “the best example” – he tells a story of John Nelson in the 1950s who tried to find out why short-wave radio signals went wonky sometimes. Bara claims that he (Nelson) found a correlation with planetary positions and activity on the sun which Bara says is evidence for this: When the astrology for the planets said good things should happen, the sun was quiet, and then the opposite was the case. If you do a Google search for this (as I just did), you will find this study reported on astrology sites and … yeah, Richard Hoagland’s site in an article written by Bara. A bit more digging and you can actually find a PDF of the article Nelson wrote which was NOT in a peer-reviewed journal, but it was in a technical memo for RCA. The abstract clearly does state that Bara is not misrepresenting the basic findings from Nelson:

 “An examination of shortwave radio propagation conditions over the North Atlantic for a five-year period, and the relative position of the planets in the solar system, discloses some very interesting correlations. As a result of such correlations, certain planetary relationships are deduced to have specific effect on radio propagation through their influence upon the sun. Further investigation is required to fully explore the effect of planet positions on radio propagation in order that the highly important field of radio weather forecasting may be properly developed.”
First off, I’d like to congratulate Stuart on admitting that I did NOT misrepresent the facts of the Nelson paper, considering how many times he’s accused me of that before. But then he goes on to make his usual errors of fact in the form of four points:
 “There are several important things to note here. First, this was not peer-reviewed meaning that there was no external unbiased rigorous check of his work.”

OK #1, the idea that the peer review publication process is an “unbiased rigorous check” of published research results is laughable. Ask any scientist (Van Flandern, Halton Arp, Pons and Fleischmann, Alfred Wegener and Luis Alvarez come to mind) who has ever published anything controversial about the “impartiality” of the peer review process. It is a joke. The peer review process is used primarily to exclude Ideas and test results which challenge the established scientific orthodoxy, of which Stuart is a stalwart defender. That is why papers about the artificiality hypothesis of Cydonia have had to be published in technical journals rather than mainstream physics journals. The possibility is simply excluded from consideration by the NASA crowd, without even a cursory review of the evidence.

Second, “peer review” is not and never has been a requirement of the scientific method. There’s nothing in any accepted definition of the scientific method which says anything about it. It is an invention of the tenured scientific-materialist class, designed to keep anyone and any idea which is outside their accepted canon from being considered or studied by mainstream science or seen by the public in general.

So, given that, it is safe to say that Stuart is admitting that Nelson’s conclusions – that the positions of the planets have an effect on solar output and that these “configurations” correlate with astrological “aspects” – remains un-refuted more than 50 years after his study was published. If Nelson was wrong, Stuart, then why haven’t any of your vaunted “peer reviewed” journals shown him to be wrong?

“Second, correlation does not equal causation.”

Again this is standard stuff from the Debunkers Handbook 101. The causation is the unacknowledged “fifth force” in the universe, which is known as dynamic torsion. I write about it extensively in The Choice. Had you actually read that book Stuart, rather than simply attack the idea as presented in a promotional radio interview, you’d know that. Unsurprisingly, you don’t. Do some research.

Further, Nelson’s study consisted of hundreds of observations over 5 years. Please enlighten me as to how many times an observation has to be made before it moves from “correlation” to “causation?” All he is doing here is setting a personal and undefined standard, which allows him to dismiss the observations, no matter how many times they’ve been made. “Correlation does not equal causation” isn’t a scientific argument, it’s a t-shirt slogan.

Third, this was a single study, and even if 100% true and valid, it has not been replicated by anyone else that I have been able to find (I searched for about a half hour).

As usual, this 3rd point is also incorrect. As I pointed out in The Choice (a book Stuart hasn’t actually read but feels justified in criticizing), there is in fact at least one paper that supports the Nelson data quite solidly:

“In 2008, the Astronomical Society of Australia published a paper by three astronomers titled “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?  The paper claimed that they had found a link between the rotation of the equatorial region of the Sun and the Sun’s orbital rotation around the barycenter of the solar system (think of it as the center of gravity). They went on to state that “this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun.” In plain English that means that there was some kind of synchronization or symbiotic relationship between the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn which was actually driving the sunspot cycles.”
Now again, there is absolutely nothing in the conventional view of physics which can account for such a relationship. They even acknowledge as much in in the abstract (summary) of their paper:  “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling…”

In other words, this paper, published in 2008, agreed 100% with Nelson that the positions of the planets effected the Sun’s energetic output (reflected in the sunspot cycle). The authors went on to say “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling…” That of course is because in order to be published in the “peer review” world, they are restricted to the politically acceptable “laws of physics,” and certainly can’t suggest anything exotic like dynamic torsion and Hyperdimensional physics.

So the fact is there is at least one paper out there (which I easily found in waaaaaay less than 30 minutes) which confirms Nelson’s basic premise: That the Sun’s energetic output is dictated by the astronomical (if not astrological) configurations of the planets.
And just for fun, you might want to read up on this confirmation as well, from a HAM radio operator:
As to Nelson, he was pretty much unequivocal in his statement about his own findings in 1974:
"In summation, after more than 25 years of research in this field of solar system science, I can say without equivocation that there is very strong evidence that the planets, when in certain predictable arrangements, do cause changes to take place in those solar radiations that control our ionosphere.  I have no solid theory to explain what I have observed, but the similarity between an electric generator with its carefully placed magnets and the sun with its ever-changing planets is intriguing.  In the generator, the magnets are fixed and produce a constant electrical current.  If we consider that the planets are magnets and the sun is the armature, we have a considerable similarity to the generator.  However, in this case, the magnets are moving.  For this reason, the electrical-magnetic stability of the solar system varies widely.  This is what one would expect."
John H. Nelson, Cosmic Patterns, 1974

Wrong again, Stuart.

Fourth, it has not been used to actually make predictions, which all testable hypotheses must.”

Again, this is a laughably fallacious argument. The results of Nelson’s 5-year study contain an inherent set of predictions; specifically, the results themselves. The simple existence of the results and Nelson’s conclusions “…certain planetary relationships are deduced to have specific effect on radio propagation through their influence upon the sun,” are themselves predictions, making Nelson’s work easily testable. All that remains is for some intrepid astronomer or radio physicist – like say Stuart – to apply for a research grant to repeat Nelson’s work. After nearly 60 years, no one has except for the HAM radio operator noted above and the Australian team. And that speaks volumes about their confidence in overturning his results.
In short Stuart, your claim that Nelson’s work is not testable is false. If he’s wrong, then prove him wrong. I will wait with baited breath as you do so. Otherwise, the work, the results, the conclusions and the supporting Australian paper stand on their own merits, and I am completely justified in citing them in my book and on the radio.
So either prove Nelson wrong, or STFU.
Stuart then goes on to make a fifth point about astrology, but it has anything to do with Nelson’s study or my main point about it in The Choice. What we are left with is 4 main points by Stuart attacking Nelson’s work, all of which I have now shown to be false, misleading or simply his opinion.

And we all know what opinions are like, don’t we Stuart?
Bara/Science - 2, Stuart/Debunkery - 0

UPDATE 10/16/2013 - My colleague and co-author on Dark Mission, Richard C. Hoagland, has found yet another paper published in Stuart's precious peer-reviewed journals that supports Nelson and Hyperdimensional physics. The paper, submitted to the Cornell University Library on 16 Sep 2013, shows that there is a definite connection between the Sun's roughly 11-year sunspot cycle and the planets, most notably Jupiter, which has an 11.8 year orbit around the Sun.
The monthly average sunspot number reveals the existence of three peaks around 11 years (red) [11], which are all associated to planetary tides (blue). Tidal periods (P) of single and combined planets by Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Earth, Mercury fit to planetary frequencies around 11 years. Note, in this work tidal timing is a proxy for gravitational lensing by the same planet(s). Courtesy, Nicola Scafetta (2013).
As an article about the paper in the  put it:
"The Sun’s 11-year cycle is one of science’s greatest mysteries. Astronomers have watched in fascination for centuries as the number of sunspots increases and decreases over a regular cycle of almost exactly 11 years.
More recently, they’ve discovered that at the same time, the Sun’s visible light luminosity changes by about 10^-3 while its x-ray luminosity changes by a factor of hundred.
Nobody knows why this happens but various scientists have pointed to the remarkable correlation between the solar cycle and the orbital periods of the planets. In particular, Jupiter takes 11.8 years to orbit the Sun and there are a number of other tidal resonances of around 11 years associated with Saturn, Venus, Earth and Mercury.
The problem, of course, is that the tidal forces associated with the planets are tiny. Consequently, astronomers have concluded that they can have little or no effect on the Sun."
What the article means by "tidal forces" is of course gravity. Unlike the Australian paper cited above, the new paper then goes on to try and assign a cause to this effect. Unfortunately, because like all mainstream scientists they are stuck in the "closed system" Cosmological paradigm, the cause they chose to assign is the absurd concept of "Dark Matter." If they deviate from the Standard Model paradigm and venture into the Hyperdimensional realms, they won't get published. They simply invoked Dark Matter/Energy because it is the only politically acceptable mechanism in mainstream scientific circles.
But that does nothing to detract from the really groundbreaking part of the paper, which is the acknowledgement that the planets influence the energetic output of the Sun. This agrees with both Nelson and the Australian paper in acknowledging that such a link exists. The only remaining debate is exactly how they do this.
The authors -- again constricted by the rules of what is acceptable science in the mainstream circles Stuart inhabits -- argue that there must be some kind of never before observed "dark particle" flow between the planets and the Sun:
"...there is nothing else one could imagine beyond the assumed flows of dark particles, which may settle such an oscillatory behaviour for the Sun being identical with the combined planetary orbital rhythm," they state.
But even the article itself raises doubts about the "Dark Particle" explanation: "That’s an interesting but highly speculative idea and these guys will be acutely aware of its shortcomings. For example, nobody has conclusively seen dark matter let alone understood how it might interact with the Sun to change its luminosity."
Of course, readers of The Choice can easily imagine a such mechanism. It's called Dynamic Torsion, and has a long and well established experimental history in the papers of DePalma, Kozyrev and others. Dynamic Torsion is a spiraling, directional force that propagates through the Hyperdimensional Aether, the existence of which was recently reinforced by the supposed confirmation of the so-called Higgs Boson.
What this all means is the Nelson's study is further supported by new research papers, and Stuart's position is even weaker than I first asserted. But is that really a surprise to anyone?
-- MB