NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by JimO
We also discussed what the requirements had been for obtaining this piece of paper from the corporation he had set up and operated for about a decade, in the 1980s.

Well, what's the hold-up? Do tell.

And, after all this, neither I nor JimO get applause?

Are there any Mods paying attention to this thread...?

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by JimO
We also discussed what the requirements had been for obtaining this piece of paper from the corporation he had set up and operated for about a decade, in the 1980s.

Well, what's the hold-up? Do tell.

I'm going to give Ken the chance to initiate full disclosure on this -- IF Bara will allow him to.

It will diffuse the hysteria if he does it.

This might be related to the question at hand...


quackwatch.org...
“A.. large gray area is the one dealing with religious schools. Because constitutional safeguards in the United States guarantee separation of church and state, most states have been reluctant to pass any laws restricting the activities of churches -- including their right to grant degrees to all who make an appropriately large donation. In many states, religious schools are not regulated but are restricted to granting religious degrees.

Also see:
Diploma Mills FAQ:
www.wes.org...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

And, after all this, neither I nor JimO get applause?

Thanks for the post TS. No, no applause. You and JimO are simply wasting everybodies time with useless and irrevelant information.

The issue is whether or not the photos he took were real Apollo photos and I'm satisfied they were.

This useless and senseless pounding of a man who is helping to uncover NAZA secrets is pointless but typical of those who intentionally or unintentionally, as the case may be, help the government in its coverup of the truth.

Are there any Mods paying attention to this thread...?

No. It would be my opinion that they left in disgust several pages ago and let you and JimO congratulate each other on pointless issues.

I notice that neither one of you has satisfactorily addressed the neutral point issue other than to throw in the old "Sphere of Influence" horse puckey.

But thanks for your input as useless, pointless and irrevelant as it is.

Spork, we should be proud of the high honor the last message unintentionally bestowed on us. Way to go!

MY Gosh!

What happened to the level of civility I have come to enjoy here at (on?) ATS? Well....we're all human, after all.

I really would like to know, definitively, whether or not Mr. Ken Johnston has something of value to 'disclose', or not. Secondly, I'm rather interested in what some of the 'mods' are doing in Roswell right now. 'Interested' sounds too wimpy...'intrigued' is better. Looking forward to great info....

Originally posted by johnlear
I notice that neither one of you has satisfactorily addressed the neutral point issue other than to throw in the old "Sphere of Influence" horse puckey.

But thanks for your input as useless, pointless and irrevelant as it is.

John, the topic of this thread is NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure. We've already established that he was not fired. We're trying to determine whether or not he can even rightly be called a scientist.

Either Johnston is being used by Bara and Hoagland or he is wholly complicit in the lies and/or exaggerations being told to the public about his education and career in order to sell a 548-page conspiracy theory.

I haven't addressed the neutral point issue at all, by the way. I've stayed on topic throughout this entire thread.

Originally posted by johnlear
The issue is whether or not the photos he took were real Apollo photos and I'm satisfied they were.

I don't think that is the issue, the photos he illegally took from NASA are obviously NASA photos, and if they are those that we have been seeing published by Hoagland then we already knew them as real NASA photos.

I think that it is more than that.

As the thread title says "NASA scientist fired - promises disclosure", I think that there are some issues:

1 - Was he really a NASA scientist?
2 - If it was, was he fired?
3 - If he was a NASA scientist and he was fired, was he fired while doing work as a scientist?
4 - Did he really promised disclosure?

Based on what we have read here and other sites about it, some more issues may arise.

5 - Who is responsible for what has been said about Ken Johnston on the Dark Mission blog and related sites?
6 - If he is not the responsible, does he know what has been said?
7 - If he is not the responsible and knows about it, does he agree with what has been said?

This useless and senseless pounding of a man who is helping to uncover NAZA secrets is pointless but typical of those who intentionally or unintentionally, as the case may be, help the government in its coverup of the truth.

I don't think that he has been "pounded", when anyone makes the transition from anonymity to public figure he/she must know that life will never be the same.

Also, if his past is part of what makes his word more important than that of others, then I think he should be at least as checked as all the other evidences have been.

PS: there is no need to thank me for my posts, the automatic answer from the forum software already says it, and I never think about having the gratitude of anyone just because I say something. If you want to thank me for something, thank me when anything I say or do something that will change your life for better, thanks given as a politician gives out fliers are as useless as a politician word.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

John, the topic of this thread is NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure. We've already established that he was not fired. We're trying to determine whether or not he can even rightly be called a scientist.

Thanks Tuning Spork. Please refresh my memory as to what Ken Johnston said in the book that would make a difference if he was or was not fired by NAZA or was or was not a scientist.

Thanks for the post.

"Remind" you, John. Have you read the book at all?

I am typing in some of thise sections so I'll share them shortly, but just to tease your interest, one vignette involves astronomer Thornton Page... a name that ought to be familiar to those who have studied UFO-related history for, oh, an activity in Washington, DC, 55 years ago.

..and re the 'neutral point' questions, all the correct explanations and links have already been posted, the only thing remaining is for you to study them and seek to understand their arguments before closing your mind to learning. I found the original 'disconnect' in that book to be intriguing, and the later explanations I found through research to be thoroughly satisfying, and I don't really care if you do, or don't, agree. I've spent all the keystrokes on it I care to.

JimO, TuningSpork, JohnLear....

IS or is not the 'Fired NASA Scientist' (took liberties with the heading of this thread, sorry...) credible? IS Ken Johnston, the person who this thread seems to be about, credible or isn't he?

Let's get to the meat...no bickering, just the facts (to paraphrase a certain TV personality from the past...).

Originally posted by JimO

"Remind" you, John. Have you read the book at all?

Thanks for the post Jim. Here is my book report you might have missed:

Book Report: “Dark Mission; the Secret History of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara. Copyright 2007 Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara. ISBN 978-1-932595-26-0.

There are 548 pages in Dark Mission. So, as usual, when I read a book of that length I take it up to my cabin in Nevada's high desert where there are no distractions of any kind. I also take my yellow and orange highlighters and blue and black felt tip pen.

If I plan to discuss the contents of a book, which I usually intend to do, I owe it to the author/authors to read their presentation thoroughly and carefully.

I started Thursday evening and finished Sunday morning. These are my thoughts on “Dark Mission” by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara.

First I would like to thank the authors for the incredible amount of time (4 years) that they put into writing this book. I would also like to thank them for the incredible detail with which this book is written.

Having followed the space program since its inception I was able to immediately remember most twists and turns presented by Hoagland and Bara.

Their conclusion is that the original and continuing core of NASA, who they identify as ‘Freemasons, SS (Nazis) and magicians’, and who they call “ritual elitists”, have ‘literally stolen the entire space program for themselves from the rest of all Mankind’. They go on to say that “Space” is destined to ‘remain the sole possession of only those with (these) proper bloodlines and perspectives’…but not for any of the rest of us.

I believe that their evidence and conclusions are an accurate assessment of what we refer to as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its policies and that anyone interested in the future the United States of America, if any, should read this book.

What Hoagland and Bara do not say or imply is that “It is obvious that the DOD, who was certainly responsible for orchestrating the horror/fiasco of 911 and the murder of 3000 Americans simply to further their own selfish and self-serving goals is part of and strongly allied with NASA along with the Military/Industrial Complex to lie, cheat, steal, fabricate and commit fraud against the American people”. In the words of one, “These are some nasty kitties.”

The guise under which all of this is perpetuated is “National Security”. National Security is a term that has nothing to do with the security of our Nation. National Security is a term used to hide information and knowledge at the expense of those who paid for it and to whom it rightfully belongs for the exclusive benefit and wealth of those who have stolen it.

“Dark Mission” presents in great detail exactly how NASA committed this fraud and how they continue to do so.

I have three basic disagreements with Richard.

Hoagland and Bara present what I consider to be conclusive evidence of civilizations on both the Moon and Mars which they call “ancient”, a term with which I disagree. I believe the civilizations are extant.

Hoagland mentions on more than several occasions that there is no air on the moon. I disagree. I believe there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

Hoagland proposes (then) Vice-President Johnson was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination. I believe it was a Mossad/CIA operation about which the Vice-President may have known but was not part of.

Hoagland and Bara avoid the issue of the NASA’s secret astronaut corps and the ‘other space program’. And this I can fully understand. There is just so much an average reader can take in at one time or in one book.

I particularly like the last sentence of the book referring to a comment made by one of Hoagland’s’ intelligence sources:

“The lie is different at every level.”



John Lear Nov. 5, 2007

You and JimO are simply wasting everybodies time with useless and irrevelant information.

Your funniest post yet Mr Lear.

Mr. Johnston seems to be the key to this tale, at least according to the press release.
That's why he's deserving some scrutiny.

And I'll continue to examine what they are, and aren't telling me in their book pitch.
The press release
Part 2

"SHOW ME THE MONEY..."
The next question everyone asks is "Where's the beef?"

Dueling cliches? Not good.
I'm getting that "it was a dark and stormy night" kinda vibe now....

"Bear in mind that there is no one single staggering, definitive picture that drops everyone in their tracks."

WHAT?

The press release did at the very least imply that there was a "shocking" photo(s) that Mister-Doctor-Ambassador-(maybe Reverend) Ken Johnston had "secretly preserved" for decades after rescuing it from destruction!
Right in the press release-

"NASA ordered him to destroy key Apollo lunar images and data more than 40 years ago, rather than allow them to be preserved for academic and public study. Johnston will testify how he disobeyed these NASA orders, secretly preserving the critical Apollo images -- and the never-officially-published lunar discoveries recorded on them."

So if the images were startling enough for him to notice the strange things NASA did not want you and I to see, won't their content be as painfully obvious to us as well? Why would he smuggle them out? He risked years of trying not to drop the soap somewhere in Leavenworth Penitentiary for it. At least one of these photos should well, stagger me.....at least a little? I mean, shouldn't I need to at least sit down?

"Our evidence suggests that NASA has tried to ensure that none would get out."

Not to the point of checking Mister-Doctor-Ambassador-(maybe Reverend) Ken Johnstons' pants on his way out of the building, it seems. Of course I've never been frisked while leaving a NASA center either.
There was a cute girl I met working at NASA headquarters that I would not have minded checking me for photos.......

"At the very least, if you follow this article all the way through, you will end up seeing very clear examples of image tampering that our colleagues in Russia independently discovered."

Just making it this far into the article has me keeping an eye on my wallet, but if the Russians have duplicated this evidence, that's good, as repeatability is one of the cornerstones of real science.

"Here is one intriguing case that escaped NASA's censorship... brought to new life thanks to simple Photoshop techniques to enhance brightness and contrast."

Considering the phonebook size of some of the Photoshop manuals I've seen at bookstores, Photoshop seems rather intimidating to be very simple. Here's where I can apply some repeatability myself, as I happen to have Photoshop. Brightness and contrast? Not too difficult. How much of each?
They don't seem to tell me. Photoshop is quite specific, and I can enter the values for both brightness and contrast by the number, repeat their experiment, and prove for myself. But they don't tell me that.
Did they do anything else to it?
If this photo "escaped NASA's censorship" how come I can find it on so many websites?

"The mass you see in the above images is not caused by a lens flare. The astronaut's shadow in the first three images shows that the sun is coming in at a right angle to the camera axis -- thus eliminating the potential for such a mundane explanation."

By "mass" I assume the author means the dim blob of color as opposed to the bright blob of bright color, again by the context. What is the bright blob? Appears to me to be a flaw in the emulsion, based on my own limited photography experience. But that seems to be of little interest here.

continued next post-

"thus eliminating the potential for such a mundane explanation."

Well eliminating one mundane explanation anyway. But extra points for use of the word "thus".

"Lens flares require the light source to be either in-frame or directly outside of it in order to illuminate the camera lens".

Most lens flares would fit this description, not all.

"In this case, it is impossible to illuminate the lens, due to the right-angle offset position of the sun."

Nope. The author assumes the sun is the only light source, An object reflecting the sunlight near the lens can effect it as well. Just about any shiny surface could bounce a little light into the lens. In fact a little diffused light could bounce into the lens without being a typical lens "flare" that we're all used to seeing.
Kinda skimpy on all the possibilities there, Mr Wizard.
Lens flare tutorial

"The top left shot, seen here once again, is an original print -- saved from destruction by our senior Enterprise Mission correspondent Dr. Ken Johnston."

Hmm, original print? A print is made from an original, in this case a photographic negative. Perhaps he means "first generation print"? He doesn't say.

Do you suppose "senior Enterprise Mission correspondent" is a paying gig? or another one of Mister-Doctor-Ambassador-(maybe Reverend) Ken Johnstons' volunteer positions? Too much "Daily Show" has ruined my respect for the title "senior" in anything anymore these days.

"The top right image is an enhancement of Dr. Johnston's 'rescued' print -- lightened and contrast-enhanced -- showing what you find buried in the emulsion of the black layers of the supposedly airless lunar sky".

Enhancement? How exactly? "Rescued print" again, If I managed (and we still don't know what capacity Mister-Doctor-Ambassador-(maybe Reverend) senior correspondent Ken Johnstons job actually was) the photo lab and found an astonishing photo revealing a terrible truth....I'd steal a negative. Or at least a copy of a negative. A Manager ought to be able to do that don't you think?.
"Supposedly airless lunar sky" Well, we covered some of that discussion earlier in this thread, and I'm still quite disappointed my plans for Lunar Wind Farm patents are going nowhere. Does the author mean to imply it's not airless?

"Three vertical geometric 'pillars' seem to appear in the middle of the enhanced image, as well as a clearly obvious 'crossbar' up near the top."

Clearly obvious to me are many vague shapes, vague, as in "seems to appear"... I see several horizontal bands that go all the way across the image, I see a vertical band over on the left, the still unmentioned bright blob is still there, and if anything I'm reminded of the Shroud of Turin at this point, without a face in it.

As for "crossbar" no, it's not that clear to me. The fact that the author would suggest to me what it might be,
is suggestive and leading language.

"The bottom left image is an enhanced version of the previous shot... only this time it's taken from NASA's own version of the 40-year-old photograph, currently posted on official NASA websites. As you can see, the detail has been sharply diminished. The formerly blue 'comet-like' feature now seems red, due to a long-term degradation in the emulsion of the photograph. The stunningly regular geometry is also muted, leaving only the horizontal 'crossbar' as a sharp geometric figure."

No doubt taken from the same negative, but what generation? And what detail do we have about the camera, the lenses used? They do mention the type of camera, the Hasselblad, but little else.

continued-

The author offers plenty of conclusions about the image and how it should be interpreted but nothing about how it was achieved. Or how it was "enhanced", to say nothing of the fact that the photo we're looking at has been scanned before it can be tweaked by whatever means they have yet to share.
There's that "crossbar" term again, implying structure. Objection your Honor, leading the witness.

"This is from an entirely different photograph, taken from an entirely different angle!

I should think there would be lots of photos from different angles, most especially if the subject were even more extraordinary that the surface of another celestial body. They are telling me there are only two?
We find the remains of ETs greenhouse, and these 2 pics are the only proof? Am I convinced yet?
Well, no. Tell me more please.

"This image also can be found -- currently -- on official NASA websites!"

Shocking! At least he didn't go for --multiple-- exclamation marks! Love the italicized "also" also.

On behalf of Ken Johnston I would respectfully like to thank SpaceMax for the continued 'pounding'.

And I would respectfully like to ask if you NAZA apologists haven't got anything better to do? Like, give us a number for the neutral point? How about explaining this photo of Aristarchus?



Thanks again for the pounding.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


answer me this,why would a long serving professional and well payed man risk his reputation and sever his retirement packages in order to make a bit of short term attention/cash?.