It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

proof!!! nasa doctored photos of moon

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
Dr. Ken Johnston was the guy who handled and processed every single bit of photos, videos from the missions and he tells how nasa hired people to come in and doctor the photos and videos.....which means that it's possible that we never even went to the moon, it was so easy for them to fool us with certain things, why not all of it?????


But that doesn't make sense with the claims that Hoagland and Johnston are making. They never claimed that men have never been to the Moon, to my knowledge. They just believe that NASA is hiding evidence of ancient alien ruins and other such things. So that means they believe the Apollo missions went to the Moon.

I can't get the videos to work, but what I'd like to know is, has Johnston posted any photos online from his private album of 1000 Apollo photos? Photos that NASA supposedly told him to destroy, but he secretly kept them instead. I have yet to find any.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by patternfinder
Dr. Ken Johnston was the guy who handled and processed every single bit of photos, videos from the missions and he tells how nasa hired people to come in and doctor the photos and videos.....which means that it's possible that we never even went to the moon, it was so easy for them to fool us with certain things, why not all of it?????


But that doesn't make sense with the claims that Hoagland and Johnston are making. They never claimed that men have never been to the Moon, to my knowledge. They just believe that NASA is hiding evidence of ancient alien ruins and other such things. So that means they believe the Apollo missions went to the Moon.

I can't get the videos to work, but what I'd like to know is, has Johnston posted any photos online from his private album of 1000 Apollo photos? Photos that NASA supposedly told him to destroy, but he secretly kept them instead. I have yet to find any.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



my point is that if they were so quick to touch up those photos, they might have been quick to "produce" a fake video of the moon landing.....they had so many people devoting their lives to this that they had to produce something and apparently there were employees that "looked the other way" when they saw certain unethical things being done, this guy johnston being one of them, that there's no telling what they've gotten away with.....



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Nice find



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Look at 14:12. To the right of the left wheel you can see a footprint! >.>



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by patternfinder
Dr. Ken Johnston was the guy who handled and processed every single bit of photos, videos from the missions and he tells how nasa hired people to come in and doctor the photos and videos.....which means that it's possible that we never even went to the moon, it was so easy for them to fool us with certain things, why not all of it?????


But that doesn't make sense with the claims that Hoagland and Johnston are making. They never claimed that men have never been to the Moon, to my knowledge. They just believe that NASA is hiding evidence of ancient alien ruins and other such things. So that means they believe the Apollo missions went to the Moon.

I can't get the videos to work, but what I'd like to know is, has Johnston posted any photos online from his private album of 1000 Apollo photos? Photos that NASA supposedly told him to destroy, but he secretly kept them instead. I have yet to find any.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



my point is that if they were so quick to touch up those photos, they might have been quick to "produce" a fake video of the moon landing.....they had so many people devoting their lives to this that they had to produce something and apparently there were employees that "looked the other way" when they saw certain unethical things being done, this guy johnston being one of them, that there's no telling what they've gotten away with.....


I'm sorry patternfinder, I do not subscribe to your contention that the moon landing was faked. But I appreciate you creating this thread that brought attention to Ken Johnston and his access to the Apollo 11 lunar photos. As I've stated before, after much homework I'm fully convinced he is telling the truth about these photos. In my eyes, Ken Johnston is a hero. He stood up to NASA and their masters and wanted the truth to be known. I wish there were more men and women like him with the courage to be a truth-teller and not a butt-kisser.

However, I must take issue with those who say that the great conspiracy is of NASA faking the moon landing. Wake-up people! The truly great conspiracy is the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA conspiring to keep the evidence of extra-terrestrial life hidden from the public!

Publicly, NASA wants the world to believe that it is conducting space exploration in the name of science and for the betterment of mankind. When in reality NASA is doing nothing of the sort. I mean NASA says that all the original video footage that was shot by Apollo 11 was lost or destroyed. (WTF!)

Here we have the first man mission to a space body other than Earth--an incredibly momentous occasion for all mankind--and they lose or destroy all the video footage?! Either they are lying (which is what I suspect) or they are the most incompetent organization in history! No matter what the answer is, they deserve everyone's distrust. Neil Armstrong was right, NASA should be embarrassed. They have become irrelevant and will not become meaningful again until they tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth--like Ken Johnston.
edit on 29-9-2011 by 1questioner because: to delete an extraneous word



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
well, i think that the fact that they covered anything up is reason not to trust them on anything that they did.....in fact, in the second video at 14:12, where is the motor on the moon rover? what kind of motor did they use? was it combustion??? if it was how is it going to run at even close to stoichiometric ratio when there isn't any oxygen on the moon???? what gases replaced the oxygen??????even on the landing craft, what gasses did they mix with the fuel that would actually burn, they would run out way too quick if they used stored oxygen, they would never be able to carry enough to make it there and back......
edit on 29-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by missiongal
reply to post by Awen24
 

I have seen an hour long movie with all the moon landing photo's enhanced in full colour, I had a virus that wiped out my hard drive so i don't have a copy now of this movie i've done a google search but cannot find it, it was absolutely amazing what was in the photos they showed the sky air brushed out and then showed the sky horizon and you won't believe what I saw...


I've seen a few bits and pieces on YouTube that sound similar to what you're describing - but if you can find that video, I'd LOVE to see it... someone on here must know where to find it!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


No I do not believe Hubble is capable of this. It is my understanding that the design of Hubble is such that it cannot focus on an object as close as the moon. It was designed for deep space observation and never intended to look at objects this close to home.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Well “LOX” is a common oxidizer used on may space missions. And the rover was electric.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1questioner
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Before I disbelieve Ken Johnston, I want definitive proof that he did not work for NASA. In relation to this particular interview, I want definitive proof he does not have the credentials nor work in the position Jeff Rense said he did. Only when someone can prove conclusively Ken Johnston is complete phony and liar will I disregard what he has to say.


I've posted this elsewhere but it doesn't seem to get picked up by search engines.



This “Ken Johnston” character seems like a sweet guy and great theatre, but when anyone bothers to double-check, nothing he claims about his spaceflight career seems to check out with the evidence.

Now, I don't mind weird stories and weird story-tellers, because on occasion they produce progress towards unexpected insights and truths. But when they drag in honorable men beside whom I worked for years, and portray them -- long after they themselves are not able to defend themselves -- as liars and scientific frauds, it does raise my hackles.

Case in point: Dr. Thornton Page and the allegations of photo forgery to suppress evidence of alien activity filmed by Apollo-14 in shadowed regions of Tsiolkovskiy Crater on the back side of the moon. Page comes across in this story as a sneering villain on a planetary scale.

But I worked with him for more than twenty years, visited him and his wife Lou at their home in Nassau Bay, knew their family, interviewed him for television, and delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

So I took the trouble -- as nobody else bothered to do -- to just dig into the basics of Johnston's story. It didn't take long to determine, from mission records, that Apollo-14 never flew over Tsiolkovskiy Crater at all – that region was hundreds of miles to the south of their orbit, right on the horizon where Stu Roosa wouldn’t even have looked as he imaged the scientific targets below his spaceship.

And when Apollo-14 was circling the moon, the sun was 30 degrees above the eastern rim of the crater -- which would have left no portion of the floor in shadow, since the topographic relief is so gentle. Johnston said the crater’s floor was half in shadow, but none of it was. Doesn't that suggest the story is imaginary? Go verify this.

The story seems internally inconsistent. At one point the film (and I can't find any record of a 16-mm cine camera even aboard the CM during the LM absence period) is called 'Top Secret', and the next day, Johnston is borrowing a copy for general showing to ordinary employees in the Bldg 2 auditorium. Why Page should even ask Johnston for the film is a total puzzle since even Johnston admits HE had to go to the REAL archives to retrieve it.
Johnston reports 'learning to fly' in the Marine Corps. Yet his FOIAed military training records show NO aircraft ratings or any flight school graduation certificates. His entire military duty was as a junior NCO flight line electronics maintenance tech, honorable work – but all of it on the ground. Go check.

Grumman public affairs official Lon Rains checked for me their documents on their test pilots for the LM, and you can verify this with him. Johnston is not on the list. Nor is he named in any of the Apollo program histories of the testing of Lunar Modules in the vacuum chamber in Houston or in all other activities with flight vehicles [such as he claimed in his rambling narration at the NASM]. His name is not mentioned. He appears as a technician in the August 1969 NASA phone book, but not assigned to the astronaut training team, as he claims.

His subsequent job in the Lunar Receiving Lab was as a shipping clerk, according to co-workers. He had several sets of Apollo photographs to show to scientists who were being sent the samples. He never had control over the original photos [he seems to have explained that ambiguously], and the one set he kept, that he donated to his college, was subsequently lost and he has not been able to locate it, last I've heard [from the chief archivist at the college Johnston gave it to].
He was never ordered to delete or alter images from the master archives, nor did he even have the access to do so -- he was told to clear the shelves once his team task [and he was a honorable footsoldier in that team, with nobody working for him] ended when moon landings ended and he was laid off.

The "Dr." title that is often used was also highly suspect, since it traces to a mail-order certificate from a PO Box in Denver that names a non-existent 'Reform Baptist Seminary', signed by a businessman who is still involved in other mail and internet projects..The 'seminary' was shut down as part of a mid-1980s Colorado Attorney General's task force crackdown on bogus diploma mills.

 

edit on 30-9-2011 by JimOberg because: too long



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Here's the rest.



Decades later, Johnston claimed that PhD on the bio he sent to the volunteer outreach program at JPL. They trustingly listed it in their own website as an example of the education level of their unpaid volunteers. It was my query to them regarding verifiable corroboration of the claim that led to JPL's simple and obvious query to Johnston -- and his immediate offer to resign, which JPL accepted and quickly deleted the offending educational claim. Johnston soon called back to withdraw his resignation but JPL would have none of it -- why should they give him a pass on one the major crash-landings in federal employment, claiming a bogus degree?

We’ve all seen more than our fair share of tall tale tellers from all walks of life, and for myself, I rarely detect any signs of deliberate deception in them. What I often see is an enthusiastic incremental dramatization of original interesting stories into forms so distorted they become useless for the purposes we all pay attention to them for -- for indications of genuinely anomalous experiences and apparitions whose recognition could be an epochal historic event.



All of this can be verified independently, so instead of me posting stuff I found [and you can bet I'll be accused of fabricating it], other folks ought to go and find it. And report back.

After all, the default judgment in any dispute is 'status quo', and somebody claiming to show need to CHANGE it has the burden of proof to establish their credentials and arguments.

When a person shows a consistent pattern of exaggeration and self-aggrandizement and confabulation on narratives regarding events that can be independently verified, IMHO it is reasonable to suspect that the pattern holds for extraordinary claims about events that CANNOT be verified.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Don't forget the man's anomalies sucked. They were weak.

If I was going to debunk him I'd focus on that too. Any BSing he did can be focused on but also he didn't produce in regards to the lunar anomalies he spoke of.

Then he claimed the majority of his anomalous images went missing. 'The dog ate his homework'. But he handed the images over to the place they allegedly went messing from, so I guess you could say he fed the dog his homework. It reeks.

I was very disappointed. I can tolerate a bit of spin so long as he comes up with the image data, but he failed to do that - and that was what the whole shibang was about anyways; Johnston producing these images, but all he provided was crap and excuses.

People who produce crap anomalies ruin it for those of us who have an interest in genuine phenomena. They are worse than the people who do no legwork at all.

*Anyhow, keep up the good work Jimbo. It is good to know you are still in the game.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 





well, i think that the fact that they covered anything up is reason not to trust them on anything that they did


Fallacy logic.

Just because Columbus may not have been the first to discover America, (well duh! because it was inhabited), doesn't mean America doesn't exist. Such a basal conspiracy signature. Grow up someday.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Does anyone care to present the argument that claims from Ken Johnston, in light of his record as I described it recently, still should be given any credibility at all? Or have his knee-jerk defenders all run away?




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join