• 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
vesvehighfolk said:
Expat...Maybe you can answer this what is the whole 19.1 thing all about? where did hogland dream that up? Also was hogland REALLY working forNASA at one point in time? was Hogland REALLY sciance advisor to walter cronkite?
Click to expand...

I've always been interested in Hoagland's educational background. The father of hyper-dimensional physics must have an impressive educational record, but I've never heard him mention it.
 
Apocalypto said:
One last thing then I'm going to stay away from this thread forever. On the subject of "Pareidolia"...

I was busy stalking Mr. Bara - oops, I mean, searching the web for more information on his fascinating work - when I found a YouTube video called "Bara Bara Bere Bere - Alex Ferrari". I'll be damned if at times you can't see a man's face in these women's underwear. ;)

Click to expand...
OK BOYS>>> SETTLE DOWN! ROTFLMAO I got to get undies like that!
 
What a fine cinematic feature! Sure to be an instant classic. However, I find that subsequent viewings are improved by hitting the mute button.
 
I personally enjoyed Mike's interview. I felt that he handled himself well when "poked", without being to defensive. Whether everything he said can be proven as fact is clearly debatable... I don't feel as though the motives behind his research are purely money or notoriety. He brings up very good questions, and thoughtful, clear and concise way. I'd love to hear in on the Paracast again.
 
In respect of the "off-camera time" at EVA-2, Geology Station 2, Apollo 17 that Mike referred to -- I invite you to look at the lunar surface journal for that station:

Geology Station 2

The time period is approximately from MET 142:51:30 to 143:21:05. You can either read the transcript, or view the video fragments, or preferably both. In view of the fact that Cernan & Schmitt are continuously sampling, describing what they are doing (and the sample numbers correspond with the known Apollo 17 inventory), would you agree with Mike Bara's comment "We have no idea what they are doing"?
 
I definitely do not believe all of his claims. But the general overview that we are not being told everything about the moon, and what is up there, absolutely. Mike's views on Neil Armstrong, point in case. Something happen to Neil up there. And whatever it was effected him forever. From what I gather, Mike catches a lot of flack from his Richard Hoagland associations. Which I understand. I am no fan of R.H., as I feel he is to certain in his claims. Which then leads to no room for debate. But many of Mike's claims do seem plausible, and well worth debate.
 
Expat said:
Lenny: In respect of Mike Bara's contention that "at one time there must have been a meteor shield over the entire surface of the Moon", you might be interested in this:

The Emoluments of Mars: The "spar" on East Massif: Mike Bara makes a right Charlie of himself
Click to expand...

Time and again, claims are made that rely wholly on the information contained in a particular print or copy of a particular photograph. When cross checked against other prints, they are absent, suggesting processing errors or damage as the culprit. I have reviewed other claims of artificial structures showing up in photographs and have found these are usually low resolution photographs mistaken as high resolution ones and/or photographs being blown up past any real "resolution" possible.
 
Bara states that he's frustrated that they didn't use color film cameras on the moon. But wouldn't NASA have been aware that there wasn't much going on up there in terms of color? We can easily see that the moon is basically a gray throughout.

Surely NASA would have chosen to use a higher quality B&W film rather than spend more time and money using color film that wouldn't even yield much in the way of anything colorful up there? Photographers know that a good quality B&W film more easily yields higher speeds, contrast ratios and resolutions.
 
This dude is a total putz. Does Bara think we're all stupid? I love how he just makes stuff up and presents it as proven truth. If you find yourself agreeing with or believing him, it's time for you to conduct a reality check for yourself.
 
Oh I get it.."Bara made a Charlie of himself"...Charlie Brown....Brown rhymes with clown...Bara is a clown...I love that Old Cockney speak...
 
Back
Top