Over the past month or so I’ve read several entries on a new blog I recently found. It’s entertaining, informative, and fills a void in the study of UFO religions.
I’m speaking of Emoluments of Mars (the URL includes the phrase “Dork Mission” so that may betray the nature of the blog). Emoluments of Mars is the work of someone who goes by “expat” and whose scientific background and expertise becomes quite evident in any given post. The blog is dedicated to debunking the work of Mike Bara and, since Bara is an associate of Richard Hoagland, the latter as well. It focuses on critiquing the “scientific” and photographic proofs put forth for monuments on the moon and, naturally, an ancient alien presence there. Due to the inclusion of Hoagland in the equation, a good deal of content on the blog is also aimed at his ideas about “hyper-dimensional physics” and artificial structures on Mars.
This blog is one of the few efforts I know of for the non-scientists (like me) to address the claims of Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara. I’d like to see more of a factual response from them, as most of what Bara does is mix sarcasm amidst profanity. Not real helpful and miles away from offering substance. But Emoluments would simply say that’s because there is no substance. I haven’t seen any posts yet where Richard responds, but I’ve only read a half dozen or so.
As a taste of the blog, I’d invite readers to take a look at the following:
“The Emoluments of Mars: Point by point critique of ‘Ancient Aliens on the Moon’ – FULL VERSION”
“Ken Johnston’s photos show things that aren’t in the NASA versions” — Well, now we know why“
Thanks for the publicity. Mike Bara never responds other than to call me a psychopath or a douchebag, or insinuate that I’m homosexual (to him that’s apparently an insult of some kind.) Hoagland very seldom does, but he got chatty over the recent “ziggurat” fiasco.
I think the “Dork Mission” titling is simply inspired. Just love it. I’ll read the Hoagland piece – thanks.