- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted April 13, 2013
There may be some truth this book.
I am a scientist with a phd. I believe that should look at everything with an open mind and curiosity. We should leave all preconceived thoughts behind and examine the evidence. That, in itself is good science. I say show the evidence. I have read the four pages and agree with what has been presented. It is my plan to read the book all the way through before making any judgement on how this material has been presented. Sounds interesting!
3 out of 6 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 18, 2012
Everything Mike Bara thinks he knows is wrong
This author loves cats. So much so, that until very recently his Amazon author's page announced that his 2012 book would "raise the veil on the spiritual relationship between people and their pets." I wish he'd continued with that project, instead of shelving it to offer us more of his appalling errors dressed up as science.
This book wants to be a gee-whiz series of amazing revelations about the fantastic things a race of aliens left on the Moon when they either departed under duress or, more likely, were exterminated. Glass domes, satellite dishes, condos, bits and pieces of a robot, some beach houses.... Instead it's an unintentionally hilarious collection of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and ignorance. A curly fiber inadvertently caught in a photo scanner becomes an "obviously metallic antenna," a pair of slightly odd shaped craters are "obviously satellite dishes," and so on. No sign of the manufacturing facilities these aliens would have needed to create their vast glass domes and their condos. No sign of the enormous solar power installations such a civilization would self-evidently have needed as an energy supply.
Just one detailed example of the errors we find herein. In Chapter 4, Bara references and illustrates a blue flare seen in the lunar sky above Ed Mitchell, LMP of Apollo 14, as he stands on the surface. Bara writes "Under enhancement, the blue spec turned out to be a blue-scattered specular reflection off of ... [a] towering, lattice-work structure." He adds that this is evidence of "transparent, glass-like Ancient Alien ruins." However, there's a fatal problem with that explanation. The image referenced is AS14-66-9301. What Bara doesn't realize or understand is that exactly similar flares are seen on six other frames from that same film magazine (Mag 66) -- 9236, 9276, 9286, 9290, 9295, 9345. In 9236 the flare is not in the sky but superimposed on the lunar surface in a close-up shot. In 9276, it's superimposed on the Lunar Module. In 9345 the shot is taken _after_return_to_lunar_orbit_. It's perfectly obvious that this film magazine suffered some accidental exposure. Mike Bara's more fanciful explanation fails, and fails BIG-TIME. We're talking EGG-ON-FACE TIME.
In his previous book, Mike Bara self-disqualified as an author on astronomy by writing absolute poppycock about the eccentricity of the orbit of Mars. In this book he similarly leaves us in no doubt that he's not competent at photography and optics. In Chapter 4, on the subject of images of Earth from space, we find this: "the clouds are the highest in the atmosphere, meaning that they are reflecting more light back to the camera and at a faster rate. Since they are returning more light, the clouds are the lightest. The surface areas ... are darker, because they are a bit further away from the camera than the clouds and therefore the light has to travel further before it is reflected back. The deep blue oceans are therefore the darkest, because the light has to travel all the way to the ocean floor before it is reflected back to the camera."
EGG-ON-FACE TIME AGAIN. AND THIS IS THE MAN WHO "ADVENTURES UNLIMITED" CONSIDERS COMPETENT TO WRITE ABOUT IMAGERY??????
3 out of 7 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 23, 2013