• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Mike Bara :P

Forums New posts
Thanks for asking my question Chris. It played out exactly as I had suspected it would. After telling us they've had flying saucer technology since the 1950s or 60s and there are ancient ruins on Mars and implying they don't want us to know anything about that because that's why they're really sending probes up there, we have no reason to think they used the sky crane to investigate any of that because there might be some "fuel limitations". Let's think about that for a minute. They flew Curiosity some 200 million miles through space to another freaking planet where it went into its atmosphere at 21,243 kilometers per hour ( 17 times the speed of sound ), jettisoned it's heat shield, deployed parachutes, fired retro rockets and slowed to hover at exactly the right height over the surface while lowering a nuclear powered land rover perfectly to the ground ... and we're supposed to believe the people who did that couldn't figure out how to include a couple more cameras and some fuel? This is from a guy who says his claims aren't , "disputed by anybody who knows what they're looking at or anybody who has a brain". How ironic. Add to that that he doesn't know what the clandestine mission would be? Wait a minute, what happened to the conspiracy? Now to be clear, I'm not making any claim that there is a clandestine Sky Crane recon mission, I just wanted to hear this guest's completely self serving logic in action.
 
I can't wrap my head around the theory that we had this advanced technology 50 years ago, and we still have to use conventional weapons in war, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, or wherever the military/industrial complex sends us next. How many people have died because we restrict alleged flying saucer technology to improbable flyovers and secret tests? If we had this technology, we'd take over the world virtually overnight. And if some of those other countries had similar technology -- well you see what I'm getting at.

Why do we assume that only the U.S. could have gained this technology anyway? We know there have been UFO crashes outside the U.S., but that doesn't mean alien technology has been recovered or even that scientists can figure out any of it.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I can't wrap my head around the theory that we had this advanced technology 50 years ago, and we still have to use conventional weapons in war, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, or wherever the military/industrial complex sends us next. How many people have died because we restrict alleged flying saucer technology to improbable flyovers and secret tests? If we had this technology, we'd take over the world virtually overnight. And if some of those other countries had similar technology -- well you see what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

The only explanation I can think of is the Back to the Future explanation: Dr. Brown had a time machine in 1985 running on Plutonium to produce the 1.21 gigawatts to make the flux capacitor work.

1-21-gigawatts.png


Great Scott!

So in 1955 you need a literal act of God —a lightning strike— to secure that much energy. So, getting back to teh saucerz, maybe the US has a few of those lying around, but taking them for a quick spin costs 1 billion dollars each time, making them prohibitively expensive to operate —at our current technological rate.
 
ufology said:
Let's think about that for a minute. They flew Curiosity some 200 million miles through space to another freaking planet where it went into its atmosphere at 21,243 kilometers per hour ( 17 times the speed of sound ), jettisoned it's heat shield, deployed parachutes, fired retro rockets and slowed to hover at exactly the right height over the surface while lowering a nuclear powered land rover perfectly to the ground ... and we're supposed to believe the people who did that couldn't figure out how to include a couple more cameras and some fuel? This is from a guy who says his claims aren't , "disputed by anybody who knows what they're looking at or anybody who has a brain". How ironic. Add to that that he doesn't know what the clandestine mission would be? Wait a minute, what happened to the conspiracy? Now to be clear, I'm not making any claim that there is a clandestine Sky Crane recon mission, I just wanted to hear this guest's completely self serving logic in action.
Click to expand...

The design constraints for the sky-crane probably only included enough fuel to land the rover and get safely away from it. Remember Apollo 11's LEM was running on fumes when they finally put down after discovering their LZ was populated by car size boulders. There was no real "wiggle" room. When asked what kind of personal item he would take to the moon if he could, Neil Armstrong responded with, "More fuel." I have no experience in aero-space, but I do have experience in manufacturing and R&D environments. Features don't just slip into projects like that, a separate sky-crane camera mission would be a major design consideration that would impact every other device and phase of the mission from design to execution. You really have to ask yourself, "Why?" They have the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) if they want to take pictures of the ground. I would have slammed it into something interesting and had the rover check it out later. I bet the thing dug at least a small hole where it hit exposing a layer or two underneath or cracked open a boulder or two. Just our luck we tool over to the crash site and see that the last living thing on Mars was crushed by the sky-crane when it crashed. Hey, it would be just like us to find life only to promptly screw up and kill it. You know, that's why the rover beeps when it goes in reverse.
 
been a bit behind with my shows so just listened to this. Based on the getting called by Trained and then quoted directly by Chris with a catastrophic wriggle out of maneuavre and then they mystic bs.. i'm sorry i cannot invest and so ..

"I'm out"
DuncanBannatyne07.jpg
 
trainedobserver said:
The design constraints for the sky-crane probably only included enough fuel to land the rover and get safely away from it. Remember Apollo 11's LEM was running on fumes when they finally put down after discovering their LZ was populated by car size boulders. There was no real "wiggle" room ...
Click to expand...

Sure, I realize that, but it doesn't negate the possibility that that it all could have been taken into account in the first place. Mars has only 38% of Earth gravity so fuel would go farther and a couple of cameras wouldn't weigh all that much. So one might imagine being an engineer and thinking ... well ... gee ... since I'm sending this thing all the way to Mars anyway, why crash it uselessly when it's done dropping the off the rover? Why not give it a some more fuel, a couple of cameras and some sensors and make a low level pass over some areas of interest, then land it intact where it could sit and continue to monitor the area from the ground? No big deal really.

That last part of your post is really funny. Someone should do a cartoon of that ... great visual there :D
 
ufology said:
So one might imagine being an engineer and thinking ... well ... gee ... since I'm sending this thing all the way to Mars anyway, why crash it uselessly when it's done dropping the off the rover? Why not give it a some more fuel, a couple of cameras and some sensors and make a low level pass over some areas of interest, then land it intact where it could sit and continue to monitor the area from the ground? No big deal really.
Click to expand...

I've worked with every kind of engineer you can think of, other than a train engineer, and I can tell you right now, that is very hard for me to imagine. I think you are being extremely unrealistic. In the real world of budgets, schedules, and resource limitations, such things are really, really big deals ...really.

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
 
trainedobserver said:
I've worked with every kind of engineer you can think of, other than a train engineer, and I can tell you right now, that is very hard for me to imagine. I think you are being extremely unrealistic. In the real world of budgets, schedules, and resource limitations, such things are really, really big deals ...really.
Click to expand...

Ya sure, another 5% on top of the budget may not have been available. It just seems like such a wasted opportunity. Once when I was just a kid I seem to recall someone making a speech that went something like ...

"But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold."​
 
Seems like so many of these puffed up prattlers are also the only ones with access to their own special evidence--evidence that gets unfortunately lost, destroyed or damaged only after they have had a look. Pity. I guess we can all just be real, real grateful that Mr. Bara has the eyes of an engineer and can see things that the rest of us just can't.
 
I'm listening to Bara's appearance on Coast to Coast now. The icing on the cake is Bara proclaiming that the reason why people are critical of his work is because he has become "important." Wow.

The caller, Bob from Florida, makes some excellent points and is right on. Listening to Bob and listening to Bara you can tell the incredible difference in maturity in everything from thinking, outlook, and personal conduct. To Bara, anyone critical of his assertions isn't worth listening to or considering apparently.
 
This guy lost me when he made the claim that Sitchin and Lloyd Pye had it "most right" when it came to human origins. Gag.
 
I just want to say this to anyone who might think I'm a "debunker" or a someone with an agenda. If somebody were to ask, "Why do you care?" or "What are you trying to do looking into claims made about lunar or UFO photographs?" All I want to do is find something real. I've been in love with the subject of UFOs, Flying Saucers, and life in space since I was a very small child. I'm looking for something denoting an artificial object that isn't based on more assumptions than verifiable facts. I'm not out to piss in someone's corn flakes. I'm just looking for the real deal. If someone wants to spin stories around these things and sell them to an ill informed bunch who ironically enjoys talking about being "awake and aware" then fine. More power to you. Sell it to the rubes. I'm not a rube. Or should I say, I strive not to be one. Treat your audience with respect and embrace the healthy skepticism of informed enthusiasts. I have a feeling the caller "Bob from Florida" could teach Mike Bara and George Noorey a great deal about astronomy and the moon. Will they listen? No, they have no motivation to get the story "right", they just have to make it palatable to their targeted "awake and aware" audience. And you ask, "What drives you to drink and smoke to excess?"
 
I disagree with Mike Bara on conservatives supporting the space program. I cannot debate that many of his fellow engineers may vote for conservative republicans. However conservatives have been hijacked by the creationist crowd and young earth theorists. Over the past 32 years they have gotten socially and politically savvy to the point that a Yale and Harvard educated conservative such as former U.S. President George W. Bush was quoted that there is room for many theories on how our Earth was made. So the scientists have been thrown under the bus by both liberals and conservatives. As
Gene typed conservatives have used the space shuttle as a holding pattern until someone decides to dream as big as John F. Kennedy.
 
The only explanation I can think of is the Back to the Future explanation: Dr. Brown had a time machine in 1985 running on Plutonium to produce the 1.21 gigawatts to make the flux capacitor work.

So in 1955 you need a literal act of God —a lightning strike— to secure that much energy. So, getting back to teh saucerz, maybe the US has a few of those lying around, but taking them for a quick spin costs 1 billion dollars each time, making them prohibitively expensive to operate —at our current technological rate.

I agree with Red Pill Junkie on the we have the saucers but not the infrastructure to support them theory. A real life example would be. My car can go from New York City to
L.A. but I need infrastructure, Gas stations, auto repair shops, for my car. Restaurants, and grocery stores, and hospitals for me. A high paying job with time off to help finance the trip and other considerations. We still haven't learned that there is no free lunch somehow.:(
 
Back
Top