Mike Bara runs away from debating a scientist he insulted

(reposted with permish from the Emoluments of Mars blog)

Mike Bara, a former CAD-CAM technician in the aerospace industry, calls himself a "born-again conspiracy theorist." He has no knowledge of, or training in, astronomy.

On 28th October last year, Bara appeared as a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM, basically to plug his appalling error-filled book Ancient Aliens on Mars. George Noory was aware of the controversy Bara's previous book had stirred up over the so-called "Daedalus ziggurat" on the Moon, and asked about Dr Stuart Robbins' criticisms of Bara's deductions (Dr Robbins is a fully qualified planetary astronomer with very good knowledge of selenology). Bara said something to the effect that Robbins didn't know what he was talking about, and Noory said "He's a scientist, though, isn't he?" Bara snorted and replied "Yes, he's a scientist, but he sucks at it."

Robbins had already sent e-mail to Noory asking for a right of reply, something that had loosely been agreed to already after a previous Barathon. Noory replied actually during the Oct 28 show, saying that Mike Bara had agreed to an online debate but would not be available until February. February came and went, and Noory suggested April. April came and Noory stopped responding to Robbins' e-mails. Finally, this week, Derek Eunson ("binaryspellbook") urged Cost-to-Coast to get this debate set up and got the reply "It takes two to tango."

So Mike Bara insults a qualified planetary scientist, offers no justification for his daft opinion, then won't allow debate on the issue. Coward.

Nah, he had the chance to promote his "book" as I may call this pile of dead, flattened treematerial with incoherent words on it.

Why should he agree to a meeting to have his a** handed over to him?
Obviously, he would never come to meet a person who could pick up his theories, roll them into a ball and put them where you would need an experienced plumber and some good flashlights, because the sun never shines at that place! (And I am not speaking about that town in that valley, you know?).


No, his mission was accomplished: "book" mentioned as often as possible, critic denounced as a bad, bad scientist and then the priceless (and useless) offer to meet that scientist, so that his reputation is clean on the outside. Remember: people tend to forget far faster than the average goldfish, if it was in the MSM.

He should agree because he agreed. George Noory stated in e-mail that Mike had agreed to a debate. He has apparently backed out. The very least that should happen is that I should have the right to address Mike's accusations on-air, as promised.

a reply to: astrostu

Welcome to ATS Dr.Robbins!!!

Maybe you could share some of the material you were going to debate with, if it's not too much trouble!!!
I'm sure we'd all love to hear your side of the story!!!


Peace Astro!!!

U guys are kidding right?

Do any of you think that Noory has the testicular fortitude to moderate a debate like that?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: astrostu

Welcome to ATS Dr.Robbins!!!

Maybe you could share some of the material you were going to debate with, if it's not too much trouble!!!
I'm sure we'd all love to hear your side of the story!!!


Peace Astro!!!

Thankee. My goal in such a debate would have been to seem like the more rational one and to put in as many one-liners that show Mike is wrong as possible. For example, he maintains that pareidolia is a made-up thing that doesn't exist (he needs that to be true since the majority of his work is based on it). My one-liner would be, "Well, what do you call it when people see dogs in clouds, smiley faces in everything, and Jesus in toast and wood knots?"

Really, since it'd be impossible for me to really convince him (or Noory) that Mike is wrong, the point is to concentrate on convincing the fence-sitters to think twice, and for me to come off as not an ass, unlike Mike (if you've ever read any of his stuff, you know what I mean there).

originally posted by: solarstorm
U guys are kidding right?

Do any of you think that Noory has the testicular fortitude to moderate a debate like that?

I don't know how good of a job he'd do, but once you agree to do something, you should do it, not stop responding to my e-mails.

I would suggest you not lower yourself by debating him. You will only serve to elevate his reputation by association, and he will dim yours. If you haven't seen him in action in the comment section of his YouTube videos, check it out and any desire to have discussion with him will whither quickly.

Who knows what happened to him, or why he is so afraid and angry. Just stay away.

a reply to: Leonidas

Trust me, I'm very familiar with his "debate" style.

Has there been any progress on this? I'd like to hear a debate.

a reply to: taxed
The only thing to report is that Jimmy Church showed some interest in having the debate on his Internet radio show last August. Mike Bara's reply when the idea was suggested: "What's in it for me?"

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Asertus
a reply to: taxed
The only thing to report is that Jimmy Church showed some interest in having the debate on his Internet radio show last August. Mike Bara's reply when the idea was suggested: "What's in it for me?"

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

Thank you. I'd like to see a debate between the two.

a reply to: Asertus

Whats selenology?.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Asertus

Whats selenology?.

The study of Earth's moon.

eta: the cognate would be geology, for studies of Earth. Areology for studies of Mars, etc.

What started this little feud?

I remember the images on that ziggeraut on the moon situation, and how NASA scrubbed some of them and then accused people of fabricating the image, namely Mr. Bera, which is funny knowing how NASA does more image fabrication than the Adobe company themselves.

This doesn't mean I support Bera's unjust treatment of people, but I do agree with a lot of things that Bera says about NASA images only because there is a lot of precedence of NASA scrubbing moon/mars images long before that.

The US military and all who belong to it through contracts and big money black projects have been ridiculing people, destroying careers, and even taking out those who get too close to sensitive things for a long time now, so it is no surprise to see squabbles and what not from anyone who sticks their nose into the conspiracies of NASA and other such topics. Perhaps that is why some who are in the public spotlight get all anti-social when it comes to this subject.

We see it here exactly the same as you are describing, and no one is immune to it's effects. Fighting back is when the real injustices start happening.

I spoke too soon. I found some rebuttals Bara wrote on his blog. If a debate happens, then cool, but I didn't know he wrote these, so I'm reading through them.

Sorry for kicking up an old thread (if that's frowned upon here).

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
What started this little feud?

I remember the images on that ziggeraut on the moon situation, and how NASA scrubbed some of them and then accused people of fabricating the image, namely Mr. Bera, which is funny knowing how NASA does more image fabrication than the Adobe company themselves.

This doesn't mean I support Bera's unjust treatment of people, but I do agree with a lot of things that Bera says about NASA images only because there is a lot of precedence of NASA scrubbing moon/mars images long before that.

The US military and all who belong to it through contracts and big money black projects have been ridiculing people, destroying careers, and even taking out those who get too close to sensitive things for a long time now, so it is no surprise to see squabbles and what not from anyone who sticks their nose into the conspiracies of NASA and other such topics. Perhaps that is why some who are in the public spotlight get all anti-social when it comes to this subject.

We see it here exactly the same as you are describing, and no one is immune to it's effects. Fighting back is when the real injustices start happening.

I agree.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I remember the images on that ziggeraut on the moon situation, and how NASA scrubbed some of them and then accused people of fabricating the image, namely Mr. Bera, which is funny knowing how NASA does more image fabrication than the Adobe company themselves.

That's not accurate. NASA had absolutely no role in the ziggurat dust-up. Nobody from NASA said or wrote one single word on the subject. For all I know nobody at NASA was even aware of it.

Dr. Stuart Robbins never accused Bara of fabricating the ziggy himself. His complaint was that Bara came across the image on the Call of Duty zombies web forum, and even though at the time he had no idea where it originally came from, he published it in a book as the only reliable image of that area of the Moon.

Video gaming web forums are not normally considered reliable sources for technical questions like lunar terrain. It later came out that the ziggy was created by Frank Gault and Terry James (a.k.a. kksamurai). Dr. Robbins matched the exact terrain and cited frames from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and from the Japanese orbiter Selene. Both of these are of far higher resolution than the original Apollo 11 image and do not show anything resembling a ziggurat. Robbins challenged Bara to explain why this is, and Bara's response was a 29-page foreword (he called it a "forward") in Ancient Aliens on Mars attacking Robbins but notably failing to answer the question.

That's where things stand.

As a reminder, here's the original un-retouched Apollo 11 frame from which kksamurai concocted the ziggy.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Mike Bara's position is truly untenable. In this very same frame he says he finds a flying saucer, an aerodynamic spacecraft (aerodynamic? On the Moon?), a crane, a drill, a gun emplacement, a jack, a beach house, and a human head.

So he wants us to believe that some sinister NASA spook wiped out the ziggy but allowed us to see all those other things, Yeah right, Mike.

One thing I like about Bara is he has responded to questions. Regarding the Ziggurat, he has some pretty good responses in these links:

mikebara.blogspot.com...