Ken Johnston (NASA Whistleblower) at the Smithsonian

I looked him up and all i got was this HUGE page...lol

huge page

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks, I hadn't seen these videos.

I guess the opening question has got to be, what can somebody do to check up on whether this guy really was what he claims, or is just delivering technogarble spiels to amuse an audience and himself?

Like, was he ever a test pilot or a pilot of any kind? Aside from his own say-so, is there any checkable documentation?

Like, whether he really is a "Dr." of some recognized academic program, or just bought a certificate of a non-existent institution from some post office box in Colorado, or something?

Like, whether he ever really was in charge of the Apollo photo archives with the authority to purge them of unwanted images? How old would he have been then and what work/education background would have justified his selection?

He called the Lunar Module at the Smithsonian "LTA-8" and said he had thousands of hours testing it, including in vacuum chambers. Are there any on-line historical documents that corroborate this claim? What is the designation of the Lunar Module that the Smithsonian claims it has -- is it consistent with Johnston's description?

Johnston claims the lunar modules landing on the moon had four probes deployed beneath each landing leg. What does NASA claim in this regard? Four probes, one beneath each leg, as Johnston states?

Johnston claims that the images of Armstrong descending to the lunar surface were actually made by a 16-mm camera in the LM co-pilot's window. Is that true? If so, how were they received in real time on Earth?

Johnston describes the Apollo module post-launch dance as "While we were still in earth orbit we had to separate from the Saturn V, take this spacecraft and turn it around, and come back and dock to the lunar module and then extract the lunar module out of a shroud where it was protected during ascent." How accurate is this description?

Johnston says that on Apollo-11 the lunar module was 'Eagle' and the command module' was 'Snoopy'. Who believes him, by now?

Isn't it reasonable, before being bluffed by bafflegarb, to make some straightforward 'reality checks' before jumping to any conclusion about the credibility of his amazing story about Thornton Page?

Or would this doubting -- and attempting corroboration -- be seen as some sort of unfair and reprehensible 'personal attack'?

It's fun and easy just to believe his story. How much of the story on these two videos departs significantly from verifiable historical facts?

In answer to the above questions, yes the Lunar Lander did have whiskers beneath the landing pads to cut off the engines but that wa common knowledge at the time.

The Command module did not dock with the lunar lander in the S-IVB (third) stage whilst in earth orbit. The rocket was always boosted away from earth orbit before this docking manouvere by the S-IVB stage. Stage S-1C and S-II would boost it from earth's surface into orbit.



Stan lebar of Westinghouse developed a handheld TV camera for use on the Lunar surface, so it was not a 16mm film camera.

These matters tend to refute Johnston's authority to inform us even if he did play some minor role in the space mission

Originally posted by sy.gunson

In answer to the above questions, yes the Lunar Lander did have whiskers beneath the landing pads to cut off the engines but that wa common knowledge at the time. .....

Thanks, Sy. Your findings (especially your accurate insight into when the Apollo turnaround and docking occurred -- kudos!) help raise doubts about ALL the factual claims from Johnston.

And it gets even worse for Johnston's credibility -- since the 'whiskers' were only installed on THREE of the four landing legs. The original plan to have all four legs carry the probes was modified when the possibility arose that the probe beneath the leg with the ladder might be bent upwards at touchdown, and present jagged metal as a suit puncture hazard to the descending astronauts. So that probe was removed long before launch.

Johnston says it wasn't removed, that there were four probes, not three. All NASA documentation and memoirs say three.

And by the way, his military records -- available through FOIA -- show he never completed flight school, never earned his wings, and returned to duty as a flight line electrical technician (he performed honorable military service in the 1960s).

So not being a pilot, there's no way he could be -- as he claimed -- CHIEF LUNAR MODULE TEST PILOT.

reply to post by sy.gunson

Thank you Sy. I was hoping somebody would do that. I was beginning to worry that I'd have to try to spend a bit of time on it. Great work.

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
And some even claim that NASA messes with the photos deleting what they don't want us to see. Challenge after challenge, by me and others, no one has yet to produce a photo showing anything but natural features as weird as they may be. Pareidolia is big in interpretations.

If there is a cover up then most of the images with 'structures' on will have been destroyed, air-brushed or otherwise doctored. If NASA aren't hiding anything they should have stopped trying to control what the public see. If there's an anomaly or a photographic artefact then publish the picture, unadulterated and explain it. Yes, lots of images (not to mention sound) have been edited (see below).

Originally posted by antar
Yes I admit to being helpless in every way an honest person can be. I give this the chance of being correct only because I once had a strange thing happen while watching a live feed from NASA. It was scrubbed as fast as it appeared but thanks to my recording of it I manged to save the whole thing, but the following morning it was gone from my recordings and replaced with the picture NASA had placed over the scene in real time along with the transmissions.

It is so possible that NASA fixes what they share with the public, it is the only thing they can do to keep people from knowing we are not alone before they are given permission to broadcast as it is.

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear that. Yes, it's very possible that what is released is 'fixed'.

Here's Gary McKinnon. Fortunately for us, Gary managed to hack in to the NASA computer network (the millions of pounds a years worth of IT security jokers lol). The bit I draw your attention to is at about 7m20s until about 8m where he describes finding a computer with folders with (take note Shrike) raw and processed photographs taken in space. He even managed to download an image of what he thinks was an alien/black project craft.



Next up, we have Sargeant Carl Wolf (USAF). Carl had a top secret security clearance and was shown unedited photographs of what he was told was a base NASA had discovered on the dark side of the Moon.



Next we have Donna Hare. Donna, who only had secret clearance, was an aerospace contractor who worked on, among other things, the lunar mapping project. She was also shown unedited photographs. This time the photographs were 'UFO's' and she was informed that they would be altered before being released to the public. It sounds suspiciously like normal procedure for NASA as that is what she was told they always do.

It also appears that staff have been instructed to burn photographic evidence of black operations/E.T. activity. Donna met one guy who got his head bashed for looking at a picture of a UFO he was instructed to destroy. Oh yes, and the Apollo Astronauts allegedly saw E.T. craft on the moon which could explain why they might have had to fake a lot of the footage of the moon walks



Yes you could say they are all lying. You could try and change the subject and make it about Greer's credibility. However non of those witnesses are Greer. All I ask of you all is to think long and hard before you believe everything NASA says. I'm at risk of going on and losing you all so I guess I should leave it there. For now anyway...

Originally posted by The Shrike
How do you know what NASA alters if you don't have a before and after photo. I mean where a photo shows something that's not natural or human, not simple touch-ups to remove some film processing flaws although such photos have also been published.

Imagine how simple the challenge is: supply one before and after photos. Just one!

What, something like this you mean?



Sorry, I know it isn't ideal but there's your one before and after photo. Or perhaps the original is an artefact?

And there is no need to process film any more. The images are digital these days. As for the old stuff, it would be polite of NASA to show us the versions that haven't been touched up when trying to explain why they need to 'process' images for public consumption. Then we could see for ourselves that there is nothing to hide...

If there is a cover up then anything very obviously anomalous will have been filtered out. I suspect anything not obvious will be too doubtful for you. Hmmm?

I thought you said you were impressed by some photographic evidence at a conference in Culver City anyway?

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
There was a guy with a table covered with lots of overlappin' poster-size NASA photos. AND they showed anomalies, structures! Real ones! Not the junk you see posted here and elsewhere by Zorgon, Mike Singh, John Lear, et al. I was impressed, to say the least!
(snip)

Knowing what you saw that day, do you really want to go on record and say that NASA have not tried to keep anything they have photographed 'up there' from the public domain? Surely, as a sceptic, you can't be sure of that? There are people who would testify before congress that they have seen the images.

Originally posted by Pimander
Yes, it's very possible that what is released is 'fixed'.

Sure it's possible. And that requires all Russian lunar images, all European Space Agency images, all Japanese images of the lunar surface, all Chinese images of the lunar surface, all Indian images of the lunar surface, all earth-bound telescopic images of the lunar surface be similarly 'controlled' and 'fixed' in a coordinated manner, globally and over decades. It gets complicated.

Here's Gary McKinnon. Fortunately for us, Gary managed to hack in to the NASA computer network (the millions of pounds a years worth of IT security jokers lol). The bit I draw your attention to is at about 7m20s until about 8m where he describes finding a computer with folders with (take note Shrike) raw and processed photographs taken in space. He even managed to download an image of what he thinks was an alien/black project craft.

I'm sure we'd all love to see that image. Sadly, as Gary himself said, he spent most of that time stoned. and all he has left to show is his own memories. And now his family is offering as defense a long list of mental aberrations. This is your star witness?

Next up, we have Sargeant Carl Wolf (USAF). Carl had a top secret security clearance and was shown unedited photographs of what he was told was a base NASA had discovered on the dark side of the Moon

You mean Sergeant Karl Wolf right? Try harder to be precise. Is there anything about his testimony you find inconsistent with what is known about NASA moon photo processing in the 1960s?

Next we have Donna Hare. Donna, who only had secret clearance, was an aerospace contractor who worked on, among other things, the lunar mapping project. She was also shown unedited photographs. This time the photographs were 'UFO's' and she was informed that they would be altered before being released to the public. It sounds suspiciously like normal procedure for NASA as that is what she was told they always do.

It also appears that staff have been instructed to burn photographic evidence of black operations/E.T. activity. Donna met one guy who got his head bashed for looking at a picture of a UFO he was instructed to destroy. Oh yes, and the Apollo Astronauts allegedly saw E.T. craft on the moon which could explain why they might have had to fake a lot of the footage of the moon walks

Donna never said the photos she saw were from the moon. Did you imagine that, and then just decide to present it here as a fact to support your argument? Did you expect anyone to call you out on that inaccuracy? Or were you just careless with the facts based on your own enthusiasm? Or can you offer evidence that she did claim it was a moon photo she saw being retouched?

Yeah, it sure looks like people [mostly young single men?] told Donna -- a known UFO contactee buff even at the time [and a babe, from photo evidence] -- UFO stories, she says, like the one about Apollo-13 being zapped by UFOs because it was carrying a nuclear bomb to explode on the far side of the moon. Did you find that story credible?

Yes you could say they are all lying.

Not necessary. It's possible that people who imagine and conjure up fantastic memories of what they think they saw and heard are indeed collected together by similar themes. They don't have to be lying, they can be sincere as Billy Graham. The world is awash in delusional false memories in every field of endeavor.

The issue is this -- why do people with these kinds of stories ALSO have the most bizarrely unreal and demonstrably false factual claims about related topics? Shouldn't such unreal assertions on items that can be checked cast some calibration on claims from the same sources that CAN be checked?

You could try and change the subject and make it about Greer's credibility. However non of those witnesses are Greer.

You brought up Greer, not the OP or me. We're discussing the factual reliability of assertions from Ken Johnston. You have not disputed a single criticism made here about a string of explicit inaccurate claims he made on this video. And there are more, not yet discussed here. Are YOU trying to change the subject?

Your point is valid that the existence of similar corroborations by other people enhances the likelihood they are correctly recalling a commonly-known truth. So I think that in principle the argument you put forward is logical. Now it depends on the factual bases of the premises -- the quality of the testimony of each witness.

All I ask of you all is to think long and hard before you believe everything NASA says.

No argument here. We're in agreement. Where we differ is in your apparent refusal to apply that same standard to testimony of individuals making claims of massive mendacity and coverup. For example -- Ken Johnston. Has any information posted here made you wonder whether his comments can be accepted at face value?

I'm at risk of going on and losing you all so I guess I should leave it there. For now anyway...

By no means. You presented a logical and coherent argument, one that is helpful to identifying differences of opinion in efforts to establish commonly accepted facts. Thank you.

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
There was a guy with a table covered with lots of overlappin' poster-size NASA photos. AND they showed anomalies, structures! Real ones! Not the junk you see posted here and elsewhere by Zorgon, Mike Singh, John Lear, et al. I was impressed, to say the least!
(snip)

Argh, this is a terrible tease! This is exactly the kind of thing I am always looking out for - stuff I haven't seen before.

Who was he? Will there be another convention or anything else where he will display these images again? Because these are something I really, really need to see. I cannot stress that enough.

I am absolutely starving for images that actually show something truly bizarre. Things worth being called anomalous. So far Mike's LRO images were pretty neat in comparison to all images before them, but I still couldn't see anything that couldn't be explained by geology. Long shadows and fractured stone/basalt were what I walked away with on those...

Anything new would be a godsend.

reply to post by Pimander


I can't use your actual reply to reply because I'd get lost in the quoting and some mod would hassle me for excessive guoting so I'll reply to you by copying and pasting but I won't be able to include my quotes to which you are replying.

Pimander: "If there is a cover up then most of the images with 'structures' on will have been destroyed, air-brushed or otherwise doctored. If NASA aren't hiding anything they should have stopped trying to control what the public see. If there's an anomaly or a photographic artefact then publish the picture, unadulterated and explain it. Yes, lots of images (not to mention sound) have been edited (see below)."

If you look at the NASA photos that are used to "prove" claims of alien anomalies you'd see that they are the same published photos. Whether in old and new books and all over the Internet. However, I don't see how you can say or support claims by others that NASA has destroyed or airbrushed or otherwise doctored photos. If they're been destroyed then you don't have an argument because you don't know which photos they did that to. If that's the case there's a possibility that negatives may still exist. But are you willing to get involved in finding those negatives? You'd never get near them. And you badmouth NASA too much as do others. We have thousands of photos available for viewing. They're not trying to control what the public sees. You can even see whole boring consecutive series of photos as opposed to seeing representative frames.

Antar said: "It is so possible that NASA fixes what they share with the public, it is the only thing they can do to keep people from knowing we are not alone before they are given permission to broadcast as it is."

And you agreed with:
Pimander: "I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear that. Yes, it's very possible that what is released is 'fixed'."

Yet neither one of you supplies a before and after photo to support your opinions. I think that based on the lack of evidence these are baseless opinions.

Pimander: "Here's Gary McKinnon. Fortunately for us, Gary managed to hack in to the NASA computer network (the millions of pounds a years worth of IT security jokers lol). The bit I draw your attention to is at about 7m20s until about 8m where he describes finding a computer with folders with (take note Shrike) raw and processed photographs taken in space. He even managed to download an image of what he thinks was an alien/black project craft."

Gary McKinnon makes claims which you accept blindly. I'm not saying he's lying but all he's doing is talking a good game.

Pimander: "Next up, we have Sargeant Carl Wolf (USAF). Carl had a top secret security clearance and was shown unedited photographs of what he was told was a base NASA had discovered on the dark side of the Moon."

Again, you are reacting enthusiastically to hearsay. That's what's wrong with that "Disclaimer" bit, that all they do is talk. Some hold up documents, which may be sufficient for some things but not for photos. When I read someone's description in a book or whatever, and they say something about photos and yet no photos are shown, I disregard it.

Donna Hare is in the same camp as Ken Johnston, all talk with no substance. I'm not impressed with empty talk. That's why I brought Ken to Jim Oberg's attention and that's why he is no longer at NASA. Donna would have to offer more than talk.

Pimander: "Yes you could say they are all lying. You could try and change the subject and make it about Greer's credibility. However non of those witnesses are Greer. All I ask of you all is to think long and hard before you believe everything NASA says. I'm at risk of going on and losing you all so I guess I should leave it there. For now anyway..."

I'm not going to say they're all lying although I highly doubt that they are being honestly truthbul. I don't know what faults NASA has besides wasting tons of taxpayers' money. But certain claims have to be supported with evidence and I don't see any. Not when it comes to claims of alien activity on the moon which one can see in certain NASA photos. Show 'em to me, to everyone.

I've come across a long 2003 radio interview with Ken Johnston, here:


March 12, 2003
archived.thespaceshow.com...

It's a rambling conversation but gets interesting towards the end where he recommends www.enterprisemission.com and states quite firmly that he knows NASA found evidence for aliens on the moon but is concealing it based on the recommendations of the Brookings Report.

"I know for a fact that we found some artifacts on the moon..."
"I really do feel there are things they've found they've kept quiet about..."

NASA has been able to spin doctor any claims of finding evidence..
"so far they've been getting away with it"

He specified AS12 48 7071
"faceplate of Alan Bean, you're going to see an artifact and its shadow on the surface"

In 1965, Zond-3 20 mile high tower on rim of moon, and a huge new dome,
the Russians published it and said exactly what it was... NASA said it wasn't there.

He gave his email address as [email protected]

He also recommended the books of Zechariah Sitchin



March 12, 2003
archived.thespaceshow.com...

Originally posted by Adept_Zero

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
There was a guy with a table covered with lots of overlappin' poster-size NASA photos. AND they showed anomalies, structures! Real ones! Not the junk you see posted here and elsewhere by Zorgon, Mike Singh, John Lear, et al. I was impressed, to say the least!
(snip)

Argh, this is a terrible tease! This is exactly the kind of thing I am always looking out for - stuff I haven't seen before.

Who was he? Will there be another convention or anything else where he will display these images again? Because these are something I really, really need to see. I cannot stress that enough.

The tease is here. I cant find any references to the guy anywhere except in that OP unfortunately.

NOTE TO MODS: Sorry to use this many quotes but there are so many points to respond to I don't see any other way to be clear about what is being said.

Jim, perhaps if we do this again, I think we maybe ought to split off and start another thread. In fact maybe some U2U's might be in order before we present our points of view again publicly so we don't end up dominating a thread like this? Hopefully the mods will let me get away with it this time in case anyone benefits from what we are debating.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
Yes, it's very possible that what is released is 'fixed'.

Sure it's possible. And that requires all Russian lunar images, all European Space Agency images, all Japanese images of the lunar surface, all Chinese images of the lunar surface, all Indian images of the lunar surface, all earth-bound telescopic images of the lunar surface be similarly 'controlled' and 'fixed' in a coordinated manner, globally and over decades. It gets complicated.

If there was lots to hide then I would agree. However if there is not too much visible evidence then it would be far simpler. Say there are only a small number of lunar sites that are being censored. Then a covert agreement between space agencies to cover up what can be seen at at a few sites is straight forward. It would not require that all lunar images needed censoring at all. Possible and not so complicated.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
Here's Gary McKinnon. Fortunately for us, Gary managed to hack in to the NASA computer network (the millions of pounds a years worth of IT security jokers lol). The bit I draw your attention to is at about 7m20s until about 8m where he describes finding a computer with folders with (take note Shrike) raw and processed photographs taken in space. He even managed to download an image of what he thinks was an alien/black project craft.

I'm sure we'd all love to see that image. Sadly, as Gary himself said, he spent most of that time stoned. and all he has left to show is his own memories. And now his family is offering as defense a long list of mental aberrations. This is your star witness?

I cite Gary as a witness to the fact that there is an alleged cover up. The fact that NASA are so intent on having the guy locked up and admit he accessed their computers gives him more credence. If he remembers accurately exactly how he got in, then perhaps the rest of his testimony is accurate too. Also many people with Asperger's have a very good memory for their chosen subject.

I would not put too much emphasis on any single witness. However, as other testimony (including the other 2 witnesses I cite) backs up what Gary is saying, there are strong grounds for not dismissing what he says.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
Next up, we have Sargeant Carl Wolf (USAF). Carl had a top secret security clearance and was shown unedited photographs of what he was told was a base NASA had discovered on the dark side of the Moon

You mean Sergeant Karl Wolf right? Try harder to be precise. Is there anything about his testimony you find inconsistent with what is known about NASA moon photo processing in the 1960s?

Karl quite clearly testifies that he was informed that, 'By the way, we've discovered a base on the back side of the moon.' He also testifies that he was shown pictures that CLEARLY showed structures towers etc. Karl then became scared for his safety. He would hardly be concerned for his safety if the were shots of New York now would he, he obviously thought they were lunar AND anomalous. He also waited 30 years before daring to go public with this. I was again presenting testimony that there may well be a cover up rather that commenting on procedure.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by PimanderNext we have Donna Hare. Donna, who only had secret clearance, was an aerospace contractor who worked on, among other things, the lunar mapping project. She was also shown unedited photographs. This time the photographs were 'UFO's' and she was informed that they would be altered before being released to the public. It sounds suspiciously like normal procedure for NASA as that is what she was told they always do.

It also appears that staff have been instructed to burn photographic evidence of black operations/E.T. activity. Donna met one guy who got his head bashed for looking at a picture of a UFO he was instructed to destroy. Oh yes, and the Apollo Astronauts allegedly saw E.T. craft on the moon which could explain why they might have had to fake a lot of the footage of the moon walks

Donna never said the photos she saw were from the moon. Did you imagine that, and then just decide to present it here as a fact to support your argument? Did you expect anyone to call you out on that inaccuracy? Or were you just careless with the facts based on your own enthusiasm? Or can you offer evidence that she did claim it was a moon photo she saw being retouched?

Yeah, it sure looks like people [mostly young single men?] told Donna -- a known UFO contactee buff even at the time [and a babe, from photo evidence] -- UFO stories, she says, like the one about Apollo-13 being zapped by UFOs because it was carrying a nuclear bomb to explode on the far side of the moon. Did you find that story credible?

I didn't claim she was talking about the moon. I said she was involved in lunar mapping. She was claiming to have been told inside information about a cover up involving filtering what the public are allowed to see. That is the theme I was following as my post was a response to Antar's story about a NASA feed being scrubbed.

Yes, some of Donna's stories are hard to believe, especially the one about the nuke! No she may not be the most credible witness. No she wasn't talking about lunar images either. However, the rumours of airbrushing of E.T. evidence, lunar or not, are reinforced by her claims. If you are wrong about her being mislead, even about one of her claims, then there is further corroborating evidence that the public have been deceived.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
Yes you could say they are all lying.

Not necessary. It's possible that people who imagine and conjure up fantastic memories of what they think they saw and heard are indeed collected together by similar themes. They don't have to be lying, they can be sincere as Billy Graham. The world is awash in delusional false memories in every field of endeavor.

The issue is this -- why do people with these kinds of stories ALSO have the most bizarrely unreal and demonstrably false factual claims about related topics? Shouldn't such unreal assertions on items that can be checked cast some calibration on claims from the same sources that CAN be checked?

You may be able to cite delusional false memories, but when the false memories corroborate one another and have a consistent theme, then questions will continue to be asked. There are also accurate memories in every field of endeavour. You seem to frequently fall back on delusions or mental aberrations when you have little else to fall back on.

Karl Wolf and Gary McKinnon do NOT have other bizarrely unreal assertions. In fact if there is a cover up, their assertions are probably quite the opposite. If the assertion that there is a cover up is correct, then the evidence from the sources may have been destroyed or hidden. Gary McKinnon decided to look at these sources himself and saw some of the evidence. Karl Wolf claims to have seen it too. If the proof is not public domain how can it be easily checked?

The bit about Greer was not me trying to change the subject and was not directed at you. I have cited a witness used for the disclosure project and I have seen too many threads descend into a slanging match about Greer.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Pimander
All I ask of you all is to think long and hard before you believe everything NASA says.

No argument here. We're in agreement. Where we differ is in your apparent refusal to apply that same standard to testimony of individuals making claims of massive mendacity and coverup. For example -- Ken Johnston. Has any information posted here made you wonder whether his comments can be accepted at face value?

While I do think that NASA (not everyone involved obviously) and certain intelligence agencies have probably kept the public in the dark about black project technology and/or E.T.'s, I'm not a complete fool. I certainly have not at any point accepted anything Ken Johnson said at face value (or anything at all for that matter). In fact there seems to be a lot of doubt, which I share. In that vein, would you mind posting the FOIA request information release about him or a link to it?

I have done a bit of NASA bashing on ATS and presented the organisation as just a waste of money. I have been a bit of a devils advocate as I suspect something has been kept from the public and I don't like it. I do think that NASA waste ridiculous amounts of money. However, I do not think all the expertise should be thrown away. NASA badly needs reforming. In my opinion that needs to start with being completely truthful. However, I am aware that this issue is probably closely linked to secrecy about many things NASA may not have the final say about, such as wider disclosure or secret non-NASA projects so I may well be being a little unfair.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by The Shrike
How do you know what NASA alters if you don't have a before and after photo. I mean where a photo shows something that's not natural or human, not simple touch-ups to remove some film processing flaws although such photos have also been published.

Imagine how simple the challenge is: supply one before and after photos. Just one!

What, something like this you mean?
(snip)
Sorry, I know it isn't ideal but there's your one before and after photo. Or perhaps the original is an artefact?

And there is no need to process film any more. The images are digital these days. As for the old stuff, it would be polite of NASA to show us the versions that haven't been touched up when trying to explain why they need to 'process' images for public consumption. Then we could see for ourselves that there is nothing to hide...

If there is a cover up then anything very obviously anomalous will have been filtered out. I suspect anything not obvious will be too doubtful for you. Hmmm?

I thought you said you were impressed by some photographic evidence at a conference in Culver City anyway?

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
There was a guy with a table covered with lots of overlappin' poster-size NASA photos. AND they showed anomalies, structures! Real ones! Not the junk you see posted here and elsewhere by Zorgon, Mike Singh, John Lear, et al. I was impressed, to say the least!
(snip)

Knowing what you saw that day, do you really want to go on record and say that NASA have not tried to keep anything they have photographed 'up there' from the public domain? Surely, as a sceptic, you can't be sure of that? There are people who would testify before congress that they have seen the images.

Go here and see the threads regarding the Zeeman Crater. You didn't do a search which would have saved you the trouble of embedding that video. But as you can see you didn't find the "smoking gun" you thought you had.

Try to think what impressed you on the day of the seminar as shown on the flier. Since that date I've been impressed by a ton of other stuff and if my life depended on it I couldn't remember them. I tried to find the guy and was not successful until the early '90s when I was attending UFO forums beginning with alt. And one day I saw a reply by the guy who said "Hey, I remember you from the seminar." But, again, I cannot remember what transpired after that and I do not have anything to refer to. So, yes, I must have been impressed with what I saw but I'm sorry I didn't know that the future required that I take any action when I was looking at the photos. But no one to this day has shown anything that stood out like what I must have seen. But who knows, maybe one of these days.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've come across a long 2003 radio interview with Ken Johnston, here:
(snip)
He specified AS12 48 7071
"faceplate of Alan Bean, you're going to see an artifact and its shadow on the surface"
(snip)

Here is the helmet portion of AS12 48 7071. It shows a reflection near the top edge, right of center, which needs explanation.

Additionally, here are a couple of photos with the 2nd one being a closeup of the main. No one has yet offered an explanation of these bizarre reflections. You can see the photos in Google Images in higher resolution than my digital photos from my LCD monitor. Its number is AS17-134-20387HR.

Jim, how do you explain these reflections? If you can't, can you ask someone that might not mind discussing this?

AS12 48 7071
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e50d447ee21.jpg[/atsimg]

AS17-134-20387HR
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a06f110dae9a.jpg[/atsimg]

AS17-134-20387HR - Closeup
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a1fb1178ebbb.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Pimander
NOTE TO MODS: Sorry to use this many quotes but there are so many points to respond to I don't see any other way to be clear about what is being said.

Thanks for the clear and calm responses. Very helpful in identifying areas of agreement or at least parallel work. Please give me a few days devoted to personal matters.

Jim

PS: One topic I'm on high priority is appealing a NASA refusal of a FOIA request of mine dealing with US astronaut safety aboard Russian spacecraft. It's a topic dear to my heart because I went to Congress in 1997 to testify about the decay of the NASA safety culture under Russian influence, and left my day job at the Johnson Space center soon thereafter -- never looking back. As part of my subsequent criticisms I became the only newsman ever denounced by name in a NASA press release for crackpot opinions (which were closer to the truth, as it turned out, than NASA coverups). That's why it really dismays me to see some folks here tarring me as a tool of NASA coverups! [grin]

Originally posted by The Shrike
Antar said: "It is so possible that NASA fixes what they share with the public, it is the only thing they can do to keep people from knowing we are not alone before they are given permission to broadcast as it is."

And you agreed with:
Pimander: "I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear that. Yes, it's very possible that what is released is 'fixed'."
(snip)
Yet neither one of you supplies a before and after photo to support your opinions. I think that based on the lack of evidence these are baseless opinions.

The trouble is, if the before images are not public domain then you're asking us to do the impossible. In fact, as mentioned above, you have probably seen better examples of anomalous structures on the moon than I have. You had already stated earlier in the post:-

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
However, I don't see how you can say or support claims by others that NASA has destroyed or airbrushed or otherwise doctored photos. If they're been destroyed then you don't have an argument because you don't know which photos they did that to. If that's the case there's a possibility that negatives may still exist. But are you willing to get involved in finding those negatives? You'd never get near them.

I am suggesting that there has been some deception. Unlike Antar though I am not hung up on the idea that it is has to be space aliens. If it's anomalies that we are being deceived about then it may not be 'proof that we are not alone'. There are alternative possible explanations for why the public have been mislead.

If there has been little cover up of anomalous images then I find it equally fascinating that the following is true. The witnesses I cite, if they are being truthful, appear to have been deliberately deceived. There is an interesting discussion about this type of activity in this thread. Don't worry about the projectors bit, the rest of what is discussed is important to a topic we are both interested in.

NOTE: That does not mean I do not take the idea that there are space aliens or inter-dimensional visitors seriously. I just think that there is much more to this topic...

NOTE2: I am massively suspicious about some of the Apollo footage but that has been covered elsewhere...

Originally posted by Pimander
(snip)
The trouble is, if the before images are not public domain then you're asking us to do the impossible. (snip)

On the contrary, all I'm asking for is irrefutable evidence. If X says that he or she has seen airbrushing by NASA, then in order to support the comments, which by themselves are just hearsay, I expect to see a before and after photo to prove the allegations. If a before photo cannot be produced then how are we to conclude that NASA is indeed airbrushing whatever out of the photos? I've looked at thousands of NASA lunar photos in their publications, in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, on the Internet since the early '90s and never has anyone offered a before photo. All kinds of claims, no evidence. So, because of the lack of evidence I cannot give any credence to claims of airbrushing by NASA.

And, no, I have not seen true lunar anomalies. I have seen a couple of photos that seem to show something but it's been in small photos. One would have to get large, poster-size photos to make any credible claim. Now, I say in another thread that I did see what look like lunar anomalies in poster-size photos but that was back in 1984 and I cannot back what I thought I saw.

The 2 "anomalies" that I've talked about are more illusions than actual anomalies. IOW, pareidolia more than reality.

reply to post by The Shrike

I expect to see a before and after photo to prove the allegations

before - www.hq.nasa.gov...

after - www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Adept_Zero

Originally posted by The Shrike
(snip)
There was a guy with a table covered with lots of overlappin' poster-size NASA photos. AND they showed anomalies, structures! Real ones! Not the junk you see posted here and elsewhere by Zorgon, Mike Singh, John Lear, et al. I was impressed, to say the least!
(snip)

Argh, this is a terrible tease! This is exactly the kind of thing I am always looking out for - stuff I haven't seen before.

Who was he? Will there be another convention or anything else where he will display these images again? Because these are something I really, really need to see. I cannot stress that enough.

The tease is here. I cant find any references to the guy anywhere except in that OP unfortunately.

I found the guy, thanks to a MUFON director who got others involved with the search. I spent an hour talking to the guy about what he found on those poster-size photos. He suggested I get the poster size photos but it's too much of an expense to order the photos from NASA and then just store them after I satisfy my curiosity. He is a businessman and so I don't want to identify him for others to bug him. So, in a limited way I'm satisfied and will not pursue it any longer.

The way I see it, if there are non-earthling beings on the moon, and the limited evidence indicates that there must be, I do not entertain the thought that they would be so foolish as to allow our probes to see either them or their possible surface constructions. Of perhaps they've fashioned their structures to resemble natural formations. This is why I say that no one has yet to offer a lunar photo showing a real anomaly. Except in those poster-size photos I saw and my memory fails me as to what it was that I saw and there is always the possibility that the guy with the photos made errors and I also made errors.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by The Shrike

 

I expect to see a before and after photo to prove the allegations

before - www.hq.nasa.gov...

after - www.lpi.usra.edu...

Nice try, easynow, but you know darn well that the photos you provide a link to is not what we're discussing. We're discussing NASA lunar surface photos that are claimed to show alien anomalies/structures. The photo you submitted shows an object that could have been a film emulsion glitch, or not. But you'll notice that it's out of focus meaning that it's close to the camera lens. If it was of something of importance, image details would be visible. As it is, NASA did not remove the before photo because it's harmless and no one could make any claims that it's an alien object, alien meaning non-human. They improved the photo as whatever that is is an eyesore and ruins the beauty of the image of the earth. There are other similar photos of stuff that's come off the various spacecraft and the photos taken by astronauts have been explained so that claims of :alien" are ruled out.

Originally posted by Pimander
(snip)
NOTE2: I am massively suspicious about some of the Apollo footage but that has been covered elsewhere...

edit on 11/1/11 by Pimander because: typos as usual

I'd like you to expand on your comment about your suspicions of Apollo footage. Perhaps you'll start a thread and include examples of the footage you may find questionable, should be good for discussion. It doesn't matter that the subject may have been covered elsewhere, your POV will individualize it.