Gary Mckinnon's account of NASA images

Jim,
What are you snorting in the picture?

"Moon dust"

a reply to: Bedlam

Isn't that Hynek bent over looking at the Gemini film? The other guys don't look like him and I don't know what Jim looks like. I guess I could google him and find an image.

a reply to: wtbengineer
He's the guy on the left.
He don't look like that no more.

Fwiw I was working at NASA during this time frame and I wouldn't dismiss what he found as being part of a honeypot.

Well, the NRO recently gave NASA two space telescopes that it built for espionage:

The secretive government agency that flies spy satellites has made a stunning gift to NASA: two exquisite telescopes as big and powerful as the Hubble Space Telescope. They’ve never left the ground and are in storage in Rochester, N.Y.

It’s an unusual technology transfer from the military-intelligence space program to the better-known civilian space agency. It could be a boost for NASA’s troubled science program, which is groaning under the budgetary weight of the James Webb Space Telescope, still at least six years from launch.

At first, it was thought these were old KH-11 spy satellites:

The two NRO telescopes may be versions of the KH-11 Kennan satellites that the agency has been putting into orbit since 1976, according to a space analyst familiar with both civilian and military hardware. The analyst said that in recent years, the NRO has decided to switch to surveillance satellites that have a broader field of view than the older models.

Washingto n Post

It turns out they weren't KH-11's though, they were actually newer:

The two optical telescope assemblies (OTAs only, not full satellites) offered to NASA from the NRO in January 2011 were initially suspected to be KH-11 series "extra hardware." but later attributed to the Future Imaging Architecture program.

But regardless, the NRO had these KH-11's back in the 1970's. The NRO then moved forward with its Misty line of stealth space telescopes, first launched by STS-36 in 1990. It's pretty impressive actually ;it uses a mylar balloon for part of of its stealth operations, and even carries decoys:

The top, side bays for the decoy sub satellites can be seen in the Bus-1 literature along with it navigation star trackers and attitude control thruster racks (ref. NASA Space Station Redesign Team Final; Report), (ref. Boeing Historian Office provided unclassified Lockheed document “Bus-1 Implementation Concept for Space Station Alpha”). The two main thrust chambers of the Bus-1 module are also prominently displayed. All of the misty satellite buses carry deployable decoys and radar, light reflecting cloaking devices and mission specific packages. It almost certainly carries Passive – store dump SIGINT – COMINT packages in addition to communication dishes both for satellite to satellite and up, down links. Misty

globalsecurity.org


They've since gone beyond those first generation stealth telescopes to something even more powerful called the EIS:

Enhanced Imaging System (EIS), officially referred to as "Enhanced Imagery System", previously known as 8X, and sometimes unofficially known as Misty 2 and KH-13, is an American reconnaissance satellite programme. A derivative of the Improved Crystal satellites, EIS replaced Misty, and was intended to provide more coverage and dwell time than previous reconnaissance satellites;[5] like Misty, it has stealth capabilities.[6] Only one EIS satellite has been launched; USA-144, which was placed into orbit by a Titan IVB rocket on 22 May 1999.

Wikipedia

So starting in the mid 70's the NRO had these KH-11's that could take pictures like this:



The assertation that NASA didn't have imagery capable of taking photos like what Donna saw is true -- the Landsats (Lanstat 1 launched in 1972) and Skylab (1973-1979) didn't have near the resolution capable of capturing images close to what Donna claimed.

But the NRO did.

In fact, NASA has played an instrumental role in helping the NRO get some of its spy satalites into orbit, why is it any stretch of the imagination that the photos she saw were taken by a KH-11? From the photo above you can almost make out individual people.

So we know the technology existed, we know NASA has even launched one of the most highly secretive satellites (Misty) ever for the NRO, and we know that the photos taken by the NRO certainly fit the resolution described by Ms. Hare.

Hare's story seems completely plausible if you actually incorporate the facts about the USA's actual capabilities and close relationship NASA has/had with the NRO, going all the way back to the Apollo days:

To acquire the high-quality imagery needed to select Apollo landing sites on the Moon, NASA officials contacted the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) beginning in 1961 about using classified cameras in lunar probes. NASA eventually selected Kodak's SAMOS E-1 film readout system as the best candidate. The E-1 had flown several times before all SAMOS film readout systems were cancelled in late 1961 (Document 17). NASA and the DoD signed the "DOD/CIA-NASA Agreement on NASA Reconnaissance Programs" in August 1963 establishing the procedures under which NASA could acquire and use classified cameras for lunar photography (Document 18). Shortly thereafter, NASA and the NRO signed a Security Annex establishing the classification levels of about 40 types of information relating to the agreement (Document 19).

And the relationship didn't end with Apollo...

The NRO and NASA reached an agreement in August 1965 limiting the capabilities of NASA's space-based image-forming sensors used to photograph the Earth to the equivalent of 20 meters from low-Earth orbit. It also required the NRO to review all of NASA reconnaissance-related activities as broadly defined in the agreement (Document 24).

Link

So we have capability, opportunity, established working relationships ... When you dig into the actual history of the now non-classified technology, its capabilities, and how the NRO worked with NASA over the years (all the way to STS-36 with Misty in 1990) -- I see Donna's story entire plausible.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I see Donna's story entire plausible.

Sure it's plausible that someone told her something. That doesn't make it true. That makes it hearsay. At best. If someone actually told her that.

Tell me, where in her story does she say she saw any lunar imagery?

a reply to: Phage

It doesn't -- I was establishing the long working relationship of the NRO with NASA.

And "someone told her" isn't the same as NASA having been granted access to actual NRO photographs taken by KH-11's, being airbrushed.

It doesn't make her story true -- but it certainly lends a lot more weight behind it being possible. I've read Mr. Oberg's .pdf and quite frankly none of the available technology at the time or the actual NRO/NASA relationship was ever addressed or taken into account.

And I'm not sure why seeing a "tree and its shadow" has anything to do with Donna seeing a UFO airbrushed out of a photo. Regardless, I have shown that the NRO had the capability to image a tree and its shadow in any case ...

So the argument that NASA didn't have the imaging -- is complete hogwash. NASA used NRO images to find Apollo landing sites, and made agreements with the NRO through the 60's and 70's and even launched one of the NRO's most secret projects of all time with STS-36.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't make her story true -- but it certainly lends a lot more weight behind it being possible.

Not really. It has nothing to do with her story about the Moon.

NASA used NRO images to find Apollo landing sites,

No. That is not what the article you linked says.
NASA used the Lunar Orbiters. Quite ingenious, actually. In the way the photographs were obtained and returned to Earth. Until the LRO, their resolution was unmatched.
Orbiters

So starting in the mid 70's the NRO had these KH-11's that could take pictures like this:

When do you think Apollo 11 landed? Exactly? When do you think the Orbiter missions occurred? When do you think the landing sites were decided upon?

Just re-watched an interview where Mckinnon responds to the issues relating to print screens etc...


No other way to look at it than a dog ate his homework situation...
Comes across as intelligent and credible right up until the bit about knowing about print screens and their usefullness.

When someone talks about perl scripting then cant remember what a print screen is or what it is called they are trying it on....

originally posted by: MystikMushroom....

The assertation that NASA didn't have imagery capable of taking photos like what Donna saw is true -- the Landsats (Lanstat 1 launched in 1972) and Skylab (1973-1979) didn't have near the resolution capable of capturing images close to what Donna claimed.

But the NRO did.

In fact, NASA has played an instrumental role in helping the NRO get some of its spy satalites into orbit, why is it any stretch of the imagination that the photos she saw were taken by a KH-11? From the photo above you can almost make out individual people.

So we know the technology existed, we know NASA has even launched one of the most highly secretive satellites (Misty) ever for the NRO, and we know that the photos taken by the NRO certainly fit the resolution described by Ms. Hare.

.......So we have capability, opportunity, established working relationships ... When you dig into the actual history of the now non-classified technology, its capabilities, and how the NRO worked with NASA over the years (all the way to STS-36 with Misty in 1990) -- I see Donna's story entire plausible.

Nice try. Good history.

It doesn't fit for several reasons. NASA wouldn't have had access to NRO images at the SECRET level [Donna's highest possible clearance] and the pictures she saw were being prepared for public release -- her exact words. So where are any other views showing trees in the 1970s -- decades before 'Misty'.

There just aren't any.

The photos she would have seen are Landsat images, which you describe accurately. No trees, shadows, or UFOs.

Thanks for the serious reply.

a reply to: Jukiodone

And your assessment is that refutes everything he said? Even when he says he was viewing it through an app, frame by frame, after making some compensatory changes to allow him to view that really big file on his slow speed internet? He mentioned he had been 'snooping' around for couple of years maintaining a quiet presence and felt safe. Personally I think his motivations were based on curiousity. I am sure another person in his place will have other motivations and will have the presence of mind to have a copy, although that could be more dangerous than 'snooping around'. I dont think that refutes what he said. Different people handle situations differently. He obviously never intended for himself to be caught or have to justify his actions or reveal himself as a hacker who hacked NASA. I think people are projecting what 'they' would do in that situation, rather than evaluating what he did in the context he did. His motivations, method of reasoning, processing are all noteworthy in evaluating his actions.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom...

And I'm not sure why seeing a "tree and its shadow" has anything to do with Donna seeing a UFO airbrushed out of a photo. Regardless, I have shown that the NRO had the capability to image a tree and its shadow in any case ...

So the argument that NASA didn't have the imaging -- is complete hogwash. NASA used NRO images to find Apollo landing sites, and made agreements with the NRO through the 60's and 70's and even launched one of the NRO's most secret projects of all time with STS-36.

Fair question -- the tree=shadow observation was used to prove that the round white image wasn't on the ground but was in the air. Otherwise there wouldn't have been anything unusual about it at all.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks Phage, I guess looking at it closer that it does resemble a young Hynek without the beard and all.

This is all fine and dandy until he mentions he found a roster list for a US space fleet. Which, to be frank. Id love to believe. But "anything" can be duped these days from a CGI / Photoshop standpoint. You literally need a credible source to validate any claim to put any effort into believing. So many are quick to jump and mock you for "wanting" to believe, that many keep their mouths shut to avoid being slandered. This site is a perfect example. There are those here who sole purpose is to counter anyone's belief outside "their" directive. Whether personal amusement, or "other".

Its unfortunate. I wait for the day "they" decide to show themselves. Or Russia blows the top off the US to show how corrupt and deceitful our government is.

a reply to: JimOberg

Hi Jim!

[Donna's highest possible clearance]

I'm just curious about this. Is there a reason her clearance was SECRET? Was there no reason for her to have clearance above this level? Thanks in advance for the reply!

My question is why would NASA want to hide proof of alien life???
They are way under budgeted, they lost the space program and retired the shuttle, their funding has gone way down, probably had lots of lay-offs etc.....
Then they capture something that would cause massive public interest and re-invigorate the whole idea of exploring space, at least with better space telescopes.
Even if the military told them not to, once they gave stuff to the press and held a press conference it would be too late. by then there would be too much support by the public for NASA to end.

I like the idea of NASA hiding alien life, it's exciting but doesn't seem likely.
I saw that one guy telling his story about a military sgt. who pointed out that we found bases on the moon and showed him a photo. But that's one guy. Could be a lie, the sgt, could have been messing with him in some way via fake pic or misleading photo. Who knows?



Him and Donna Hare are part of the Greer video "Sirrus". Hare is telling a story about a military man being hit on the forehead with a gun butt because he looked at a ufo photo while he has burning a pile of them. Seems weird to expose someone to highly classified photos why wouldn't someone with clearance burn them?
Why would anyone burn them!? That seems crazier. In all other ufo stories the Gov takes the evidence and puts it somewhere secret. You don't burn photos of ET life. The Gov clearly wants that stuff to study.

Then the scared for his life military man goes and tells this stuff to the pretty blond lady?

Greer gathered these people with interesting stories together and probably gave them a % of sales. I don't know if the stories were being told before Greer did the video or not?

originally posted by: Phage...
Tell me, where in her story does she say she saw any lunar imagery?

In the July 2014 'Alien Bases on The Moon', she has suddenly remembered seeing that too.

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: Phage

Thanks Phage, I guess looking at it closer that it does resemble a young Hynek without the beard and all.

In 1975 he wasn't young, it was him peering at the flight negatives roll with a magnifier. A younger me is on the left. Dick Underwood is center.

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: JimOberg

Hi Jim!

[Donna's highest possible clearance]

I'm just curious about this. Is there a reason her clearance was SECRET? Was there no reason for her to have clearance above this level? Thanks in advance for the reply!

'SECRET' clearance was standard for NASA employees, although few of them ever handled SECRET level documents. 'TOP SECRET' was exceeding rare, usually involving briefings on foreign space technology to top managers in a special bunker -- very few facilities were even cleared to curate TS material, bldg. 8 never was.

a reply to: JimOberg

Thank you Jim. That's what I thought. I was just assuming that Phage knew more than I did about the situation. I have a habit of doubting myself when others whom I think might be more enlightened correct me sometimes.

This was my original reply to Bedlam that Phage corrected that I'm sure you must have read. Forgive me for presuming that I needed to post it:

"a reply to: Bedlam

Isn't that Hynek bent over looking at the Gemini film? The other guys don't look like him and I don't know what Jim looks like. I guess I could google him and find an image."