NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

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

So, the dog ate their homework, and you'll still shell out $25 bucks for a description of it?

I just happen to be in possession of a lovely bridge, in fine condition, over Mare Ingenii ...
Care to make me an offer?

dupe

[edit on 5-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

I just got a response from a retired USMC pilot, general officer, and long-time 'space buddy' of mine. At my request he had asked his Pentagon contacts about any records of Ken Johnston ever being a Marine pilot.

He emailed me: "I just received some info back from the manpower folks at Headquarters Marine Corps. Following is an excerpt from the message I received:

"...our records show no record on an officer pilot named Johnston, - Ralph K, Ken, or Ralph Kenneth. My recommendation for any journalist or PAO looking to verify stories would be, 'show me your DD214'."

Now, I had asked about a 'Ralph Kennedy Johnston', but on his military certificates he was using the name "Ralph K. Johnston', which they did check and drew a blank. I suspect that if they had found a 'Ralph Kennedy Johnston" they would have flagged it, because they did point out another near-hit:

"There is a retired Major Ralph K Johnson, A6E pilot. Born 1935. Entered Oct 1955. Retired with 20 years Nov 1975. Currently lives in Minnesota. Age about 10 years+ difference for the guy [you are] is describing. ." That isn't our guy, because “our Johnston” wasn't on active military service in the 1970s, he was at the NASA center in Houston. But it indicates to me that any similar 'near miss' would have been flagged.

Here's what Hoagland/Bara had written in DM, page 144:

"In early 1995, Hoagland … met Ken Johnston -- a Boeing engineer at the time, and a former fighter-jock and test pilot for Grumman Aerospace. After his duty tour in the Marines as an F-4 pilot, Johnson had gone to work at NASA in the mid-1960s as the chief Lunar Module test pilot."

His own ‘official NASA bio’ in the “Solar System Ambassador” program claimed: “Ken learned to fly in the US Marine Corps and in the 1960's he was one of the 5 Test Pilots assigned to work with the Astronauts during the Apollo Moon Program at NASA in Houston.”

Now, here’s the problem with these claims – from the beginning, there was no credible timeline to accomplish them. If he ever was a pilot and served a duty tour, it must have been extremely brief and under a different name. He only completed 'pre-flight' pilot training on 26 February 1965. For pilot training, a cadet at this level would wait for a flight school slot – and that could take up to a year in the Vietnam era – and then complete the class in 13 months, followed by a six year duty commitment for flight operations.

Yet on October 10, 1966 (only 20 months after finishing pre-flight school), he is hired by Grumman Aerospace on Long Island (NY), on a contract that would include work as “a LM test crewman” [NOT “test PILOT”] and other interfacing with NASA trainers and astronauts. That job ended on August 1, 1969, as the contract was terminated after the success of Apollo-11 and all test and training functions transferred to NASA.

On Jan 28, 1970 he was assigned work in the “lunar sample and photo area” and spent the rest of the Apollo program there. But that’s another story.

What's the explanation for these disconnects?

To clear up misconceptions about the 'neutral point' and the changed definition that came into common usage in the 1960s, I had suggested examing the Earh-Sun neutral point and what that result might teach.

The Sun has 330,000 times the mass of the Earth.

With 'AU' being the distance from the Sun to Earth,
the 'neutral point' would be AU / sqrt(330,000) or 0.0017 AU,
and with AU = 93,000,000 miles, that's 162,000 miles from Earth.

The moon orbits at a distance of 240,000 miles.

Shouldn't it fly off into space -- and any careless Apollo
astronauts with it?

No -- because the gravitational 'neutral point' is a useless
mathematical term when it comes to real space flying.

The 'sphere of influence' range is the more important one -- and
vis-a-vis the Sun, Earth's sphere of influence extends out about a
million miles, right to the Sun-Earth radial Lagrange points.

Vis-a-vis the Moon and earth, the Moon's sphere of influence also extends
farther out from the Moon than the simple-minded 'gravitational neutral point'.

Here's Bara's response to my inquiry about Johnston's pilot status:

From: mbara
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: Johnston's "pilot" status


No Jim, the biggest difference between us is that you are a vile, vicious little man with a poisoned soul, who always assumes the worst about people he disagrees with and uses character assassination to try and win arguments he can't win on the facts alone. I on the other hand am a human being.

Mike

Originally posted by JimO
Here's Bara's response to my inquiry about Johnston's pilot status:

From: mbara
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: Johnston's "pilot" status


No Jim, the biggest difference between us is that you are a vile, vicious little man with a poisoned soul, who always assumes the worst about people he disagrees with and uses character assassination to try and win arguments he can't win on the facts alone. I on the other hand am a human being.

Mike

I think this speaks volumes, really. Real Ken Johnston, please stand up.
The fact that Bara so lost his cool is quote indicative of a sham.

I on the other hand am a human being.

Who can't seem to come up with at least a couple of verifiable facts to rub together.

What is Baras background? What sort of expertise does he bring to this little triumvirate?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
May I indulge in another off-topic post?

It is indeed pleasure to see that photo, John and Zorgon. Truly, having a personal touch in a forum like this makes a huge difference. Too many (and I have been guilty) tend to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. I was thinking that was a deep thought, but I have no more to say. Except, I appreciate the work that you both do.

Thank you for expanding our minds.

TJ (ww)

JimO, when you first appeared on this post you were quickly accused of being mildly overweight on Larry King show. Terrorists used American technology to crash down the twin towers, and some smart x-americans on this post are seeking to duplicate NASA tech, duplicate the FEAT of 20th century in their backyard. With great powers comes Great responsibility....I personally dont think these anti americans deserve the truth (that NASA has been economical with) here in this hostile post. Remember to save your keystrokes on issues of global security.i.e Adv TECH.
Also, thank you for proving what was not so obvious, RKJ = false prophet

[edit on 6-12-2007 by IN8085]

Actually, I am indeed slightly overweight -- but I wasn't on the Larry King show in question (that was Jim McGaha), so the logical thread was broken.

Just because if A implies B,
then not A, sadly, does not imply not B.

How did you like my Sun-Earth 'neutral point' exercise?

It sure seems to have shut John up.

reply to post by JimO

thats 4 sure. But dont hold your breath.

Originally posted by JimO
How did you like my Sun-Earth 'neutral point' exercise?

It sure seems to have shut John up.

Well I wouldn't put it this way. John courteously acknowledged that the formulas he used aren't applicable to the physics problem re: translunar flight (at least in the thread I started with 2D calculation). Fair enough.

However, this doesn't stop him from the lunar atmosphere propaganda. Again that's fair enough. He can say that despite insufficient gravity, there is still atmosphere. When it comes to physics points, we'll discuss that as well.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Someone who believes Hologram planes backed up by cloaked death ray star wars technology destroyed the twin towers will have no problem accepting scientific reasoning? ..its a longshot..pardon the pun

[edit on 6-12-2007 by IN8085]

Just to butt in (which thread is this again? Oh, I see now...)...

Moon at .64G That is the same as saying that the Moon, a celestial body that is about one fourth the diameter of Earth has a gravitational field that is two thirds that of the Earth. In other words, the Moon would have to have a mass that is 64 percent that of the Earth.

OK...stay with me here...

Can someone who is better schooled in the math/physics/orbital dynamics required to calculate how two celestial bodies, one slightly more massive than the other, in a relatively close (240,000 miles/384,000km) orbit.

NOW...if the Moon is almost as massive as our Earth, at that close a distance, would there be a significant 'wobble'...maybe not the correct term...BUT wouldn't there be a significant influence on the Earth? By a mass that big, that close by?

I guess you could describe two bodies orbiting each other as a 'dance'...if that makes sense. The 'heavier' partner in the 'dance' would be the center, or at least would tend to the center...except as much as being pulled out of center by the 'partner'.

In a more scientific term...two celestial bodies, one the 'Primary', and one the 'Secondary' (just to keep it simple) will have a center of mass...so my last analogy isn't quite correct...dancers use the floor, and their feet....the friction between the floor and their feet to deceive Newton and his laws.

But gravity and mass, and how they attract in a Newtonian sense, are very well understood. At least, by most of us....

Cheers!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Moon at .64G That is the same as saying that the Moon, a celestial body that is about one fourth the diameter of Earth has a gravitational field that is two thirds that of the Earth. In other words, the Moon would have to have a mass that is 64 percent that of the Earth.

You got it all wrong. Please use a piece of paper to do the calculation for the "g". The Moon would still be quite a bit lighter than the Earth.

reply to post by buddhasystem


buddhasystem....

Why did you pull one sentence out of my post and 'spin' it?

Anyone who wants can go back and read my entire post.

I was asking someone to come forward and tell us how the Moon, at its known distance and obviously recorded (for centuries) orbital period could have two thirds the mass of Earth and NOT affect OUR planet?

Yes...tides...I know that already. I am asking, if the Moon is 2/3 the mass of Earth, why is there no indication of that gravitational 'pull' on our planet?

Why are not the two bodies orbiting around a common center of mass, as they orbit around the 'Big Guy', aka the Sun?

OK...the Moon has a mass that is approximately one sixth of Earth's. AND, because of the inverse square law (see Newton) it has some effect here...hence the tides...but....here is something for someone to chew on....
doesn't the Earth ALSO have an effect on its only 'natural' satellite? I mean, tidal forces and such....

Please, discuss!!

(maybe this is the wrong 'thread'...) BUT, we were chatting about 'Disclosure', so is it not relevant?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

buddhasystem....

Why did you pull one sentence out of my post and 'spin' it?

Because the admins are asking us to not quote too much. Repeatedly.

Known lunar "g" is 1/6 of Earth.

64%/16%=4, this is the factor you need to gain in gravity for the crazy theory to hold. Known lunar mass is 0.0123 of Earth. So the "crazy" mass would be 4*0.0123=0.05 that of Earth.

Questions?

Weedwhacker,

What BuddhaSystem is pointing out is that while the Moon's surface gravity is 1/6 that of Earth's, the mass is not 1/6. In fact, the Moon's mass is only about 1/80 that of Earth. The reason that the Moon's gravity is 1/6, though, is because when you're on the Moon you are about 4 times closer to the center of mass then when on Earth.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Sorry, Tuning Spork,

What you posted doesn't 'fly', to use a parlance....

A celestial body, a planet (or planetoid, if you will) has a certain mass, and therefore, a certain 'G' force...oh, why am I trying to tell you this, when I know you already know it?

OK...I'm naive...but i can tell when everyone is about to jump out of the closets and yell 'SURPRISE!'.....hello? Anyone there.... [slinking away...]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hmm. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but what I wrote is true, I assure.

But, as to your larger point: Yes, the difference in a surface gravity of 1/6 and of 2/3 would make quite a difference in the Earth's "monthly" wobble.

Since 2/3 is 4 times 1/6, the Moon's mass would have to be about 4 times it's actual mass in order to account for it. And that would make the Moon's average density about twice that of Earth's!

That would also place the center of mass between the Earth and Moon not at the observed and calculated location of roughly 1,710 km below the Earth's surface, but, rather, at about 3,220 km above the Earth's surface. That would be quite a perceptible difference to astronomers, not to mention resulting in some pretty hefty tidal forces.

Here's some info with neat animations.
en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Did I say "neat"? I meant "cool".



[edit on 7-12-2007 by Tuning Spork]

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Yup!

You are preaching to the choir here, as the saying goes. Just needed to get someone's attention...someone who knows a lot more than me, who could explain better than I....

Thanks....