It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How wrong is Mike Bara?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2013 @ 09:49 AM
This is Mike Bara, college dropout, describing images of Earth from space in his recent book (p.125):

"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."

I count four MAJOR, MAJOR errors in that short paragraph. Anybody find any more?

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 12:44 PM
How about some major, major linkage? I have no idea what you are going on about.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by groingrinder
How about some major, major linkage?

Dunno what I could link to. My simple point is that this incredibly wrong paragraph actually got published in a real book. The publisher is Adventures Unlimited Press.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:47 PM
How is it that you have come to know of this author? What is the title of the book? How about linking the Amazon page for the book so we can read the synopsis and see samples from the book?

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:15 PM
No problem for the Amazon page:

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:59 AM
Another error by Mike Bara:

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 12:25 PM
...and more errors:

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 04:59 AM
Mike Bara was Richard C. Hoaxland's -personal bitch for years. He is cut from the same cloth, yet he was dumb enough to do Hoagland's bidding for years first.

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:44 AM
Another hilarious error...

Mike's response:

Expat's rebuttal:

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:16 PM
And in yet another howling error, Mike Bara posts that the direct observation of an exoplanet "totally supports the solar fission model of planetary formation."

Why is he wrong? Because the solar fission theory was primarily espoused by Tom Van Flandern, and Van Flandern's theory was that planets are flung off the proto-sun in pairs.

Seems Mike can't get anything right. He should stick to his other favorite subject, pet cats.

top topics


log in