So this 'purloined data', Dark_Mission claims, is safe?

"... [H]e eventually decided to donate the rest to his alma mater, Oklahoma City University, where the data quietly resided -- out of NASA’s oversight -- for over thirty years..."

It was trivially easy to determine that this statement, as so many others, is false.

I called Christina Wolf, OCU Archivist and Special Collections librarian (located via internet search in 2 minutes), and she was familiar with the material -- "about two cubic feet, but way before my time..."

It was never donated to the Dulaney-Browne Library's 'spacial collections', but directly to the science department in Loeffler Hall.

"But when they renovated the building in 1988, a professor took it home with him. When he died, we never got them back. The materials are presumed lost."

She added that Ken Johnston has been in contact with her trying to locate the material, so far without success.

So -- the box sat in a professor's office for fifteen years, and was never missed when he took it home -- where it presumably ended up in the trash after his death.

Is there anything that has been claimed about Johnston's experiences that has actually checked out to be true?




[edit on 3-12-2007 by JimO]

Originally posted by JimO

Is there anything that has been claimed about Johnston's experiences that has actually checked out to be true?

I don't think Ken mentioned anything about the neutral point being 43,495 miles from the moon or that this fact would make the moon's gravity 64% of earth's or that these facts would probably prove there was a breathable atmosphere on the moon so I think those ideas are still in play.

Thanks for the research Jim, however I am going to wait until I hear Ken's side of the story before I make up my mind on the Nazi issue.

Sorry, the math confuses me here...if the 'Neutral Point' is 43,495 miles from the Moon, and that is approximately one fifth to one sixth the distance between the Earth and the Moon...how is it not true that the Moon's gravity/mass is approximately one sixth of the Earth's?

It is true, no? that the Moon is slightly less than one fourth the size of our Earth? Now, everything being equal, that would mean the Moon would have 25 percent the mass of Earth...(and that assumes the Moon has the same cross-section, that is, a large heavy molten core, like our Earth).

SO, even IF the Moon were that massive, would not the orbit and behavior of the Moon that has been observed and recorded for thousands of years betray this? And I'm just supposing a Moon that is .25 percent of Earth's mass...it's hard to fit .64 percent into the facts of years of observations....just my opinion....

SO, even IF the Moon were that massive, would not the orbit and behavior of the Moon that has been observed and recorded for thousands of years betray this? And I'm just supposing a Moon that is .25 percent of Earth's mass...it's hard to fit .64 percent into the facts of years of observations....just my opinion....

Greetings TJ/WW,

this argument has been made by me before, and of course what I heard back were accusations of being closed-minded and a few buckets of vitriol. I hope your fair post will get a better reception from the "believers".

Originally posted by buddhasystem

SO, even IF the Moon were that massive, would not the orbit and behavior of the Moon that has been observed and recorded for thousands of years betray this? And I'm just supposing a Moon that is .25 percent of Earth's mass...it's hard to fit .64 percent into the facts of years of observations....just my opinion....

Greetings TJ/WW,

this argument has been made by me before, and of course what I heard back were accusations of being closed-minded and a few buckets of vitriol. I hope your fair post will get a better reception from the "believers".

Thank you, buddhasystem,

I see you pulled only a portion of my original post (I still don't know how to do that!) but I think you did it to not run afoul of the rules, so I understand.

I think it is an important question, that is (i.e.) 'How could our Moon be that heavy? If the Moon is .64g, that is incredible. Mars is, we're told, slightly more than one third the diameter of Earth...I would like to know the exact g on Mars.

Somewhere else (another thread) I postulated that our Solar System has THREE rocky planets that are within what would be considered the 'habitable' zone, based on our star's (the Sun) composition and radiation output. Actually, I didn't postulate that fact, what I meant is, as we try to discover other planetary systems, we first see the 'wobble' of the host star, and infer the existence of a large planet. I'm just suggesting, our system has THREE rocky planets!! In different eras, all three could have been conducive to life as we know it. Is this unique? I doubt it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I see you pulled only a portion of my original post (I still don't know how to do that!)

You press the "quote" button on top of the post you want to quote, then edit it.

I think it is an important question, that is (i.e.) 'How could our Moon be that heavy? If the Moon is .64g, that is incredible.

You can estimate the density of the Moon based on this and it would have to be more dense than the element Mercury and only less dense than Uranium to comply with the fake .64 Even John Lear has trouble with Moon made out of Uranium. He hinted there might be a giant alien gravity generator that does the job of increasing gravity without increasing the actual mass of the Moon (and even then that would lead to discrepancies between the orbit it should follow and what's observed from Earth, so that's crock).


[edit on 4-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Sorry, the math confuses me here...if the 'Neutral Point' is 43,495 miles from the Moon, and that is approximately one fifth to one sixth the distance between the Earth and the Moon...how is it not true that the Moon's gravity/mass is approximately one sixth of the Earth's?

What we are doing weedwhacker is figuring the moons gravity relative to earth using the Bullialdus/Newton inverse-square law.

The inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Therefore using the following values:

Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, and we know the neutral point from Wernher von Braun's statements and Michael Collin's (Apollo 11) "Carrying the Fire" and Gene Cernan's (Apollo 17) book, "Last Man on the Moon", the inverse-square law yields:

Ge (Re²/X²) = Gm(Rm²/Y²)

Gm/Ge = Re²Y²/Rm²X²

= (3,960)2 (43,495)2/(1,080)2 (200,000)2

= .64

Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge

So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful 18 inch hops on the moon. It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.

If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles. There is no evidence that the neutral point is that close to the moon.

That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.

Thanks, buddhasystem.

I know it's confusing when calculating orbits since they aren't perfect circles, always ellipses. Kepler figured that out...

However, the ellipse is fairly consistent, from what I've learned/been told. So the perigee/apogee can be predicted with regularity as each celestial body moves through its orbital period. Of course, nothing is permanent nor completely predictable in orbital mechnanics in the LONG term, usually longer that one Human's lifespan. Hence the apparent confusion...

Back to Disclosure...since it occured to me that our little out of the way Solar System has three rocky planets that, given another couple of million years either way, could once or could in the future (4 Billion years is a long time) support life as we know it. Unless our system is atypical I will infer that life is everywhere in our Galaxy, and in others as well. Seems logical to me. AND, I will also propose that the technological development of the various life, assuming they rise to the level of 'intelligent' will vary greatly. Hence, quite a few can be further 'advanced' in technology especially when you simply look back on the last two centuries of Human's scientific discoveries....

Originally posted by johnlear

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point...

Your fundamental misconception is that you treat these forces based on an 'Earth' and a 'Moon' that are static, locked in place by some alien force,
not free to move or fall or ... orbit each other, as they really do.

Consequently, the 'neutral point' to you is merely a matter of 'gravity', and not a sum of ALL forces actually acting on an object.

This is decades out of date -- but prior to the space age, that's how most science writers (and scientists) thought, merely doing the gravitational attraction math.

It's the same invalid math approach that, if you try it with the Sun and the Earth, will put the Moon's orbit out BEYOND the edge of Earth's gravity -- and if that were true, wouldn't the moon fly off onto an independent circuit of the Sun? Clue: it doesn't.

Do that math, and see how the results produce an obviously non-intuitive result. Earth still has a gravitational 'sphere of influence' wider than merely the edge of the mass-mass 'neutral point.

So does the Moon, in practice. So when people began throwing stuff out there, the old simple-minded mass-mass calculation was useless in predicting how the probes, which together with the Earth and Moon were moving freely through space, would move.

Hence the appearance of another value -- the boundary of the moon's sphere of influence.

It wasn't the moon's gravity that changed. It was the definition.

So, John, you are just decades out of date (thinking in pre Space Age terms), clueless about real spaceflight, proud of your ignorance, and obtusely resistent to anybody trying to explain it to you.

Well, to tell the truth, I like you that way. It makes debunking any other silliness you profess so much the easier.

And you know how well I get paid for THAT!

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Weedwhacker, you addressed us specifically,
yet I'm not sure what the question is...

I'm with you there Sporky... and I am not sure what adolescents on Youtube have to do with Hoaglandites Maybe we were just insulted?

As to the 'voluminous' pictures they are part of Hoagland's evidence,,, and since this thread is about him, Ken and their pictures...

signed... confused

[edit on 4-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by JimO
Is there anything that has been claimed about Johnston's experiences that has actually checked out to be true?

Well sure! You yourself just proved it above ... seems the material did exist...

and she was familiar with the material -- "about two cubic feet, but way before my time..."

Two cubic feet... thats a LOT of photos...

So it seems Ken thought they were safe... Now I understand why they didn't reveal them like promised...

I bet Hoagland arranged the conference and when Ken went to get the pictures found they were no longer safe...

But now they already had scheduled the conference and had to proceed and hide the egg on their face...



I do wonder though how she would be familiar with the material and describe it when it was 'way before her time'



[edit on 4-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
I bet Hoagland arranged the conference and when Ken went to get the pictures found they were no longer safe...

Sure Zorgon, it makes a lot of sense (not!). It's like announcing a major "disclosure" conference in three months from now, then reaching out for your point-and-shoot camera just hoping to score some close-ups of the UFOs in the local woods. Yeah, right.

But now they already had scheduled the conference and had to proceed and hide the egg on their face...

Said egg could not be hidden and the Hoagland team looked incredibly non-credible, pun intended.

Originally posted by JimO=
Well, to tell the truth, I like you that way. It makes debunking any other silliness you profess so much the easier.
And you know how well I get paid for THAT!

Quite handsomely I would imagine... you have been doing it for so long... It doesn't seem logical that you would do this for so long for free...

What I don't understand is why no one... not you... not the skeptics... not even those that claim they work at or with NASA can just humor me on one simple request...

The spaceship readings on the accelerometer...

I know they have that data why is it impossible to get?



[edit on 4-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Either that or I might have to charge a fee to do the legwork for ya

No Zorgon, nobody's paying you for using Google (and that is exactly the extent of your practical skills).

And I'm generous enough to not charge anything for a calculation I did in the "lunar gravity" thread, complete with plots, which shows the nonsensical nature of John's claims.

Well here's my 3 cents.

I finished reading the book Dark Mission. I can't say I disagree with any of it completely. It has good images and URLs or mission number are provided for most so you can attempt to get the images your self.

I liked the book. It was informative. I recommend it as a good read.

I only disagree with one point Hoagland claims that these domes are sooooooooo huge they extend for hundreds of miles above the surface and they cover hundreds of miles. I don't believe this and I don't see any evidence of this..... but I do clearly see in their photos, and my own analysis of images that I downloaded, clearly defined structures that are semi-transparent in some places. And other structures that are definately not transparent at all.

-Euclid

[edit on 4-12-2007 by euclid]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by euclid]

What I don't understand is why no one... not you... not the skeptics... not even those that claim they work at or with NASA can just humor me on one simple request...
The spaceship readings on the accelerometer...

Well, except for the link I gave you to Apollo 8 data back on page 24......