Evidence of NASA UFO Fraud Might Kill UK Hacker Case

One can see my previous posts on McKinnon threads about my very apparently psychic connection to this case... I'm certain McKinnon and Richard Hoagland will (at least eventually) be recognized the 2 original pioneers of exposing the secret space program.

I'd like to hear a couple or so specific names of the ships Gary came across that didn't match with the known registries: the USS (This and That).

And forgive my rudeness for not offering a personal hello to Jeff. He and I go way back on his site and other correspondence. tidings of comfort and joy (to all) as always

The only really valuable information on ET is their technology. How it works and ,more importantly how to manafacture it. THAT STUFF would never be kept anywhere except on paper and stand alone computers so that hacking would be 'impossible' .

NASA abuses its civilain role of space exploration everyday ,when it uses its infrastructure for military applications such as sattelite deployment .

Thats why ET loves to take the piss out of their mars rover by keeping it going for them then watching those smart arse goons at nasa taking the credit for It !

So now we have the US crying wolf over useless 'teaser' intelligence blogs being hacked ! its laughable but its true .

Stupid humans .

If a trial is held, and Gary insists that he saw what he saw, why couldn't former nasa employees(whistleblowers) be brought in to substantiate that and provide support?

The only real crime that I see here is the crime of curiousity.
I mean, really, if we got that close to finding out the holy grail of UFO's and what the American government knows about them, would we know when to stop?

It's like crack, hackity crack that is.

He was probably in a situation like this:

Was looking for information, got to a US government site, got a bit curious, found some information, it led me on, hours later I found a password prompt, surprisingly I did not need a password, wow, (slurp coffee) what's this, click, read, click, read (slurp coffee), peruse, read, click (slurp coffee), peruse, scroll, find, (slurp coffee) peruse, glance, scroll, find, find, (make some coffee) ah, what's this....

Can you see? How can you put down a good book, how can you eat a potatoe chip without taking another one, how can you have 2 beers and not have a third?

His major crime was curiousity.

OH THE HUMANITY!

reply to post by Toadmund


I think he should be freed. but personally if i were in that situation, I'd at least attempt to take a screenshot and save it in a safe place.. but thats just me.

Originally posted by spacemanjupiter
If a trial is held, and Gary insists that he saw what he saw, why couldn't former nasa employees(whistleblowers) be brought in to substantiate that and provide support?

Irrelevant. The case is not about what he may or may not have found. It is about illegal access, damage, and threats.

He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading: “US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”

www.publications.parliament.uk...


That McKinnon was where he should not have been has been established. He has admitted he accessed the servers. His "defense" is that it was no big deal, not that he found some really kewl stuff so he should be let go.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by spacemanjupiter
Irrelevant. The case is not about what he may or may not have found. It is about illegal access, damage, and threats.[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]

If you know anything about this trial, shall I call you God of ATS, then you obviouslly have just stated the obvious.

Gary McKinnon originally was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and probation, now given the circumstance he is facing extradition?

If you're meaning he IS a threat, then ok I can understand that. However he made NO threats. In fact after he got caught he openly admitted to everything he did. EVERYTHING. And how he did it, alas...

He did NO more than 500$ of damage. Why? Because I'm a computer programmer/reverse engineer and I can tell you that running a few PERL exploits on a machine and uploading a rootkit is removed within 15 minutes and causes virtually NO harm to the computer at all, it doesn't leave spyware, it doesn't clog the OS, or anything like that. At most it adds a few programs and services to your start-up.

Personally, I thank him for what he did. I think he is a great man. I think that he should be let off the trial, scotch free.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Revolution-2012]

reply to post by Revolution-2012



My response was to the suggestion that questioning the "whistleblowers" would have any bearing on the case. (Which is the topic of the thread, BTW.)

I was clarifying the charges made, not making a statement on their merit.


[edit on 1/17/2009 by Phage]

Not totally off subject... I remember a thread about 4 years ago where an ATS member found an unsecure government network (FBI, maybe?).
I can't remember the outcome of the thread, just hoping that maybe it will spark someone's memory. Basically the argument was that it is open, and connected to public domain, thus no criminal charges should be made against someone casually surfing or researching and accidentally stepping inside. May be revelent to this thread.

reply to post by internos


Internos, I am amazed at posters such as yourself who take the time to answer, instead of taking the time just to dismiss, if you know what I mean.

As for your question, I had originally e-mailed Doug Biesecker from the Goddard Space Flight Center, who forwarded my question to Dominic Zarro, asking if the picture in question was a comet, who said no, it was not. The exact wording of Biesecker's e-mail to me had been:

You have indeed uncovered a problem. When data are sent down from the spacecraft, they are reformatted to standard fits files. We have a record of a C3 image at 17:42 on 9/22/99 being reformatted here at GSFC. However, we don't keep data on-line longer than one week, except for what we put in the SOHO archive. We have another site where we keep all of the data on-line. However, they don't seem to have that image. We are trying to figure out why.

When he finally "found" the image, he placed the raw file (much larger, black and white, as opposed to color) at the following location, which no longer works, probably because the server was renamed or they hired a new IT guy:

sungrazer.nascom.nasa.gov...

As for this link: lasco6.nascom.nasa.gov...

Within which the text file states:

This is a list of LASCO images marred by streaks which are
interpreted to be dust or debris near the telescope aperture.

It is great that the text file lists the image in question, and not to be intentionally difficult, but saying the image is "interpreted" as being dust or debris is the same defense they generally use for most anomalous images, data, or video, that is taken by NASA.

As for the "missing" data, if you follow the link below, you will see that a number of images seem to be missing before and after the image in question:

1999/09/22 VIDEO

When I saw this anomaly, I assumed that perhaps images just weren't recorded at the time of the missing images, but if you look at other videos of days in the same directory, you will see that they don't have this symptom of missing hours of data, and they even include the crappy images. Check out this link:

1999/09/21 VIDEO

At 16:48 on 09/21, they included a marred image. Why didn't they include the marred image of 'debris' on 09/22? And where are the other images which should be located around it? It's possible they just didn't have that data...but it is also possible, based on the strangeness of the 'wormhole' pic...that they DID have data, and removed it.

The data was initially downloaded from the "public" server at the time by Harbinger's Skywatch and one other independent source, but this was removed very rapidly, within 24 hours I believe, and NOT after a week as stated by Doug, which is apparently why he went fishing for the image?

Anyway, that's all the data I have on this strange incident. Considering that NASA has a policy to discourage dissemination of information to the public that 'threatens national security' according to Section 102 of the Act of 29 July 1958, it is plausible that they removed it from their archives because they felt it was not in the nation's interest to release them. This COULD be just a big misunderstanding, but then again....

Yeah this is definitely going to trial.

Nasa claimed that he destroyed some of their actual hardware remotely. Oh how nice it must be to deal with judges and other officials who know squat about technology and hacking.

Anyway the result of criminal damage to software or hardware is that he can be deported to the US to be tried by their laws. When it was a simple case of him browsing files they couldn't get ahold of him, so they just basically made up the stuff about criminal damage.

I think they said he did millions of dollars worth of damage. Pretty hilarious since he only hacked some low level pcs and tried to download some pictures via a 56k modem.

If they incarcerate McKinnon then there will be massive civil upheavel and riots in UK.

Do they really wan't that? His family and friends will do everything they can to protect him. He has a disability also, I believe anxiety, and he is not fit for a US prison what soever.

reply to post by jeff.behnke

You just confirmed to be a poster worthy to be taken very seriously, it is never a waste of time to talk with people like you. Douglas Biesecker was one of the first people that would come to mind, regarding coronas observations, but this is a very complicated matter to discuss, especially when it comes to soemthing interacting with the Sun. He likely replied that way just because not directly involved in soho program: at the time, he was likely involved in SDAC or in some NOAA program, one of the two for sure: either ways, his reply was politically correct, and now we know that you was barking up at the right tree, because Dominic Zarro is a senior scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, and if memory serves he is a specialist in L3: meaning that no one is more entitled than him to reply in some satisfactory way to your question since the image we are discussing IS an L3: if he's not the best then he's number two, but he's part of the elite of soho. Now, id say to do this: let's try to track down the image with data, i dont promise you i will manage to, but i promise you that i will put some efforts. Maybe you were on to something, and i would be more than happy to support you in case something was really there. Anyway, this is the fisrt time i see someone talking about soho stuff knowing what he's talking about.


[edit on 18/1/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Yeah this is definitely going to trial.

Nasa claimed that he destroyed some of their actual hardware remotely. Oh how nice it must be to deal with judges and other officials who know squat about technology and hacking.

Anyway the result of criminal damage to software or hardware is that he can be deported to the US to be tried by their laws. When it was a simple case of him browsing files they couldn't get ahold of him, so they just basically made up the stuff about criminal damage.

I think they said he did millions of dollars worth of damage. Pretty hilarious since he only hacked some low level pcs and tried to download some pictures via a 56k modem.

Please don't post to things that you don't know about. It is a crime to knowingly gain unauthorized access to a nonpublic federal computer or a computer used by or for the federal government. (Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473, Title II, §2102(a), 18 USC 1030, as amended)).

Whether the damage is as extensive as they say or even at all doesn't matter near as much as him accessing the computer system in the first place. Let me assure you, there is absolutely no way possible for someone to access a government computer system and not know it. Although I don't know how it is in NASA's system, the majority of other federal systems have an entry screen that you must agree that you know it is a federal system before you can go further. In fact, most state the law "It is a crime to knowingly gain unauthorized access to a nonpublic federal computer or a computer used by or for the federal government."

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Yes it's a crime, but countries do not have their citizens extradited for minor crimes like hacking. The damage caused lie was tagged on after the US tried and failed to get him deported. Strange, they really should have mentioned the millions of dollars of damage the first time.

Edit: Ah but how I exaggerate, the real number is 80 thousand dollars.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Lazyninja]

reply to post by zorgon

Once again.... Gary did not claim to find ANYTHING related to UFO's

I'll think you'll find he did...

SK: What did you find inside Nasa?

GM: One of these people was a Nasa photographic expert, and she said that in building eight of Johnson Space Centre they regularly airbrushed out images of UFOs from the high-resolution satellite imaging. What she said was there was there: there were folders called "filtered" and "unfiltered", "processed" and "raw", something like that. I got one picture out of the folder, and bearing in mind this is a 56k dial-up, so a very slow internet connection, in dial-up days, using the remote control programme I turned the colour down to 4bit colour and the screen resolution really, really low, and even then the picture was still juddering as it came onto the screen. But what came on to the screen was amazing. It was a culmination of all my efforts. It was a picture of something that definitely wasn't man-made. It was above the Earth's hemisphere. It kind of looked like a satellite. It was cigar-shaped and had geodesic domes above, below, to the left, the right and both ends of it, and although it was a low-resolution picture it was very close up. This thing was hanging in space, the earth's hemisphere visible below it, and no rivets, no seams, none of the stuff associated with normal man-made manufacturing.

BBC Interview UK


FREE Gary Mckinnon
(The Crappy Unhappy Hacker)

reply to post by UKWO1Phot


Then which crime is bigger.
I think NASA is the criminal.
They work for us and lie to us.
Open up NASA files to this guy and let him deal out the punishment
to the Illuminati infested NASA instead of costing us millions
of dollars in some settlement.

reply to post by Lazyninja


Like I might have said before...

The dollar value of the 'damages' was FABRICATED...

in order to trigger the heavy penalty clauses.

Gary has got some schizo problems... In terms of telling the public what he REALLY knows...

He hides behind... A cloud of smoke... Mostly when it suits him.