Chronology of Events – The Empire Strikes Back – Post 2

October 19th, 2007 - Later the same day that James Oberg sent his email to Kay Ferrari, Ferrari called Johnston at his home in New Mexico and, according to Johnston, pressured him to resign his position as a Solar System Ambassador. As stated in Post #1, the reasons Ferrari gave were “serious issues regarding Johnston’s credentials” (as raised by Oberg) and Ken’s so-called “crackpot accusations” against the agency (also pointed out to Ferrari by the links in Oberg’s email).

Of course, Ken has never made any “accusations” of any kind against the agency – he has simply reported honestly on what he saw on several occasions while working as a contractor at the agency.

Ferrari then went on to state that it was Johnston “being quoted [as] criticizing NASA in Hoagland’s new book, ‘Dark Mission,’” that prompted her to ask for Johnston’s resignation from the SSA Program.

Johnston was at first reluctant, but then agreed under pressure from Ferrari to consider resigning. At no time during this initial phone call did he tender his resignation from the SSA program. Later that same night, he appeared on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and described the conversation this way:

Transcript Coast to Coast AM Oct. 19th, 1997:

Ken: The only condition that was given was, you know, you ought to resign. I said “Ok, probably will.”

Again, this does NOT constitute an agreement by Johnston to resign, only to consider resigning.

As the day wore on and after consulting with family and friends, Johnston decided not to resign. He based this on the fact that JPL employees (who were paid by the agency, as opposed to being volunteers like he was) were allowed to express many diverse beliefs, and were even protected specifically from being fired for doing so. He then sent the following email to Ferrari, making clear his intention NOT to resign.

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:47:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ken Johnston" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more Subject: SSA Ken Johnston, Sr. To: kay.ferrari@jpl.nasa.gov

Dear Kay Ferrari,

After reflecting on our conversation this morning, I find that I have been placed in an untenable position with regards to the volunteer work that I have done for NASA/JPL over the past 4 years. During that time I have received nothing but the highest regards and reports on my efforts on behalf of JPL and the unmanned planetary program. Why this should be questioned now, based on third-party "hearsay," I fail to understand.

As you mentioned in our conversation, there are people all over NASA and JPL that have "all kinds of beliefs and positions on just about any subject." This fact made me realize that these people are paid employees of NASA and JPL, whereas I am an unpaid volunteer. Considering this position, and my rights of free speech under the FIRST AMENDMENT, I realized there is absolutely no valid reason why I should even consider resigning my position as a Solar System Ambassador. If I did, I would be undermining everything that NASA ultimately says it stands for -- certainly in terms of intellectual freedom to explore the cutting edge of science and the solar system.

Sincerely, Ken Johnston, Sr.

Within a few days of his phone call with and follow up email to Ferrari, Dr. Johnston’s profile had been removed from the JPL Solar System Ambassador page. This prompted Ken to email Kay Ferrari in response:

From:
Ken Johnston (lmpilot@yahoo.com)
Sent:
Tue 10/23/07 12:06 PM
To:
kay.ferrari@jpl.nasa.gov Kay Ferrari,

I just finished checking our SSA web site and found
that I don't exist any more.

Why was my data pulled?

Is there a grievance procedure?

Where do I start?

I see no reason why I should be punished for what
someone else puts in a book.

Please respond,

Ken Johnston,
SSA New Mexico
Two days later, Ken received the following response from Ferrari:

--- Kay Ferrari wrote: > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:34:13 -0700> To: Ken Johnston > From: Kay Ferrari > Subject: Re: SSA Data?

Dear Ken,

In the renewal agreement you signed on December 23, 2006, it stated that your volunteer position would be in effect for two years if all parties agree that the arrangement is working satisfactorily. JPL has chosen to accept your original resignation offered on October 19, 2007 and has thereby removed your information from the website.

Kay Ferrari Coordinator

Of course, as we have already established, Ken never “offered” his resignation from the SSA program on October 19th, 2007, or at any other time. Further, he specifically sent Ferrari an email clarifying this position six days previously. Nonetheless, he then received a certified letter from Ferrari and JPL the next day “accepting” this mythical resignation that he never tendered (See Above)

As you can see, the registered letter was mailed October 22nd, 2007, three days after Ken’s phone conversation with Ferrari and his subsequent email sent to her declining to resign – and which she never acknowledged. The termination letter is back dated to make it appear that it was written on October 19th, even though it clearly wasn’t.

Next: A Question of Credentials

Chronology of Events - The Empire Strikes Back

The following is the first in a series of posts to provide viewers of this blog a specific chronology of events surrounding Dr. Ken Johnston’s involuntary termination from JPL’s Solar System Ambassador Program.

The entire sequence of events which led to Dr. Johnston’s termination began with an email from NBC science reporter James Oberg to Kay Ferrari of JPL’s SSA program on October 19th, 2007. As you can see from the signature, Oberg sent this email in his capacity as an NBC science reporter.

Here is that initial email:

From: "Jim Oberg" To: Cc: , ,"james oberg" Subject: question re ambassador Ken JohnstonDate: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:45:04 -0500X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138X-Source-IP: sccrmhc12.comcast.net [63.240.77.82]X-Source-Sender: jeoberg@comcast.netX-JPL-spam-score: 0.00%To: Kay Ferrari:

Hi! I'm checking out some stories attributed to New Mexico Solar System Ambassador Ken Johnston, described at<http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/profiles/Ken_Johnston.htm>http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/profiles/Ken_Johnston.htm, that NASA photos from Apollo show alien structures on the Moon which NASA is covering up, and that Richard Hoagland is correct about NASA and its astronauts lying to the public.See <http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran1.html>http://www.enterprisemission.com/tran1.html and<http://darkmission.blogspot.com/2007/09/kenjohnstoncalls.html>http://darkmission.blogspot.com/2007/09/ken-johnston-calls.html

and <http://www.lunaranomalies.com/corbtroy.htm>www.lunaranomalies.com/corbtroy.htm etc etc

Some criticism here: <http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/english/issue_2/ukhoag22.html>http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/english/issue_2/ukhoag22.htmlGeorge Noory, ;Coast to Coast' (all night show, formerly 'Art Bell' show)<http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/12.html>http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/12.html
"Ken Johnston, who worked for NASA for 23 years, appeared in Hour 2, and described screening Apollo footage and seeing a cluster of lights in a moon crater accompanied by a plume of steam. But then two days later when he showed the footage to some officials, the crater material had been seamlessly removed. Perhaps even more surprising was Johnston and Hoagland's supposition that astronauts who went to the moon may have had their memories altered or blanked in order to suppress their knowledge of what they saw there."

Is he still an 'ambassador' in good standing, and did you ever make any effort to verify any of his professional/educational claims as published on your website?If he was 61 in 2007, as the data indicates, he was born in 1946, so "in the 1960's" he would have been about 20. To learn to fly jets in the Marines, and then serve out his service commitment (3 to 4 years), and then become a Grumman LM pilot instructor by 1969, he'd have had to begin flight training at about the age of 17, I figure -- which doesn't seem credible, since he's have had to have been a commissioned officer before that step. What am I overlooking here?He also says he examined original Apollo imagery in the Lunar Receiving Lab at JSC. Please correct me on this as needed, but I thought that film was transferred from the quarantine facility (and LRL) to the regular Bldg 8 photoprocessing lab for development and printing -- NOT handled by a temporary facility within the LRL area? Have I got that wrong?

Thanks!

Jim Oberg<http://www.jamesoberg.com/%3Ewww.jamesoberg.com
NBC News space consultant

As stated in the Enterprise Mission press release of 10\30\2007, Ferrari stated that it was Oberg’s email which prompted her to call Johnston and request his resignation. To quote: “JPL’s ultimate decision to fire Dr. Johnston was initiated, according to Ferrari’s phone call, ‘by an initial inquiry to JPL from James Oberg, of NBC News.’ Oberg is a former NASA contractor and a colleague of Johnston’s at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center during the Apollo Program in the 1970’s. According to Ferrari, Oberg, in his e-mails, raised ‘serious issues regarding Johnston’s credentials’ and his ‘crackpot accusations’ against the agency.”

Ferrari then went on to state that it was Johnston “being quoted [as] criticizing NASA in Hoagland’s new book, ‘Dark Mission,’” that prompted her to ask for Johnston’s resignation from the SSA Program.

In other words, were it not for Oberg’s email to Ferrari (and several other JPL press officers), Johnston would still be part of the SSA program. The fact that Oberg hides behind the following statement: “Fact. I did not ever urge anyone to alter in any way Ken's status in the Solar System Ambassador program” does not change the reality that his email is the sole reason Ken is no longer with the SSA program.

Even though Oberg did not specifically call for Johnston to be terminated from the SSA program, he certainly knew what would happen when he sent his email to Ferrari and the JPL press people. As the email shows, he called into question Johnston’s credentials without bothering to check them himself.

If Oberg was acting as a responsible, impartial reporter, the obvious move would have been to simply go directly to the source – Dr. Johnston himself – about his credentials.

Oberg, however, instead of going to Johnston, went to his “bosses” at JPL in an obvious attempt to get him trouble, if not overtly fired. He certainly knew when he sent the email to various JPL sources that they would launch an investigation prompted solely by his email.

We leave it to readers to decide if a responsible journalist would seek to undermine the position of an employee by questioning his credentials in a prejudicial letter to his bosses rather than inquiring directly to that person as a first step.

Stupid Blog Post of the Week

It's hard to believe that somebody besides Jim Oberg won this award, but Expat managed to trump him this week. Here goes:

expat wrote:

"Since you write in your TOS post "Criticism of our data and arguments is certainly allowed", I have a few points:1] On page II of the introduction, you make much of the fact that Sec 305 (i) of the Space Act includes the clause "The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Ch 17, Title 35 of the United States Code". Are you aware that Title 35 is exclusively concerned with US Govt policy in respect of patentable inventions by Govt employees, and has no conceivable application to photography of the moon or artifacts retrieved from the moon? If you are aware of this, don't you consider it would have been more honest to point that out in your text? If you were not aware of this when you wrote your intro, I have now made you aware of it and you can verify it with a few google-clicks. Will you add a correction at next edition?"

Are you aware how completely wrong you are?

According to this section of the Title 35 code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000100----000-.html

“When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates—

(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery [emphasis added].”

Obviously, any bona fide alien artifacts discovered by Apollo, either in the form of NASA photographic evidence of same, or actual samples of ET technology brought back from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews, would clearly fall under the authority of Title 35, according to this specific language. So, again -- you are completely, utterly, totally wrong.

I guess I don’t need to make a correction for the revised edition after all, do I expat?

But, I really appreciate you pointing everyone else to this key section of the Space Act, which makes our legal case air tight -- against NASA's supposed "scientific openness," certainly when it comes to any genuine "extraterrestrial technology" it clandestinely discovered and brought home.

"2] As we well know, media of every kind from every country in the world had access to Public Affairs Offices in every one of the NASA Centers dring and following Apollo. In light of this, which photographs are you claiming are "never before seen", and how would you know that they had not been examined or published by any of the world's media?"

There are a number of frames, like various versions of AS10-32-4822, which were blacked out in the photographic catalogs and\or pilfered from the desk of the NASA administrator back in the 1970’s that have never before been published. We know this because we have been the only ones in possession of the originals. It’s all in the book.

"3] Your statement that Farouk El-Baz was "the most powerful figure in the whole Apollo Program" is in error. Dr El Baz's title was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee, 1967-72. He also had an important function in astronaut geological training. Did you not know that the offices of Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, Administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight, and Director of JSC (held at the material time by George Low, George Mueller, and Bob Gilruth respectively) had infinitely more influence on the management of Project Apollo than any committe secretary? Low, Mueller, and Gilruth -- not to mention Administrators Webb and Paine -- could have eaten El-Baz for breakfast if they had so desired. Now that I have reminded you of this fact, will you add a correction at next edition?"

This statement is not “in error,” within the context of our book. Since we place a great deal of emphasis on the landing site selection, and since El-Baz had the greatest influence on that, he was a lot more important than the guys who oversaw the design process of the spacecraft. Who do you think had more influence on picking the landing site for Apollo 11? Low? Mueller? Gilruth? Or El-Baz?

I see no reason to correct a “fact” which is merely your uninformed opinion. Nice try though.

Perhaps you should do more thorough research before embarrass yourself further.

I'm Baaaack!

Ok, I just got back from my trip to Las Vegas and LA. The lecture went really well. I'll be getting back to issues on this blog over the next few days.

JimO,

I'm now ready to address any grievances you have against me regarding the issues you keep bringing up. If you could just put them into a concise, bulleted list so I can address them one by one, rather than have to troll through numerous emails and blog posts, I would appreciate it. You can either post it here or send it to my private email. Please express a preference as to whether you'd like a public or private response. I'll have it for you in a few days, after I get caught up on bills and such.

Mike

Press Conference News and Notes

Looks like we made the front page of the Pravda RU web site: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/31-10-2007/99895-moon-0

More to come as I get it...

Mike

Update: Added some images from Russian television taken at the presser...

Quickie Press Conference Update

I spoke with Richard briefly this evening. He's exhausted, as am I (I'm travelling) and he said that the press conference went really well, with special attention from the Russian News networks. That's about all I know. He promsied to call tomorrow with a blow by blow.

I'll be in Vegas and LA all this week, so updates will be brief and comments may take awhile to moderate. Please be paitient, we'll have more news soon.

Mike


UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly's radio show called today and may have Richard on at 1:07 eastern if we can make the connection.

UPDATE UPDATE: According to Richard, the US press was scarce, as the Washington Post sent a reporter but as yet hasn't written a story. As I mentioned, Bill O'Reilly's office called, but Richard has been unable to establish contact.

The foriegn press was a different story. They showed up in droves, especially the Russians, who sent no less than 4 TV networks to cover the story and interviewed Ken and Richard for hours on end. They seem facinated by the Kennedy-Kruschev aspects of "Dark Mission." We'll have more after I get to LA on Friday.

Mike

The Empire Strikes Back

As we expected, NASA has responded to the success of our book "Dark Mission" by lashing out at us and those close to us. The response came in the form of a direct personal attack by "science reporter" James Oberg of NBC news, who wrote to Kay Ferrari of JPL last week and made a series of spurious accusations against Ken Johnston for his public role in supporting "Dark Mission." Subsequently, Ferrari asked Johnston to resign his position as a JPL "Solar System Ambassador." Johnston refused.


Despite Johnston's adamant refusal to resign, Ferrari subsequently ordered the removal of Ken's profile from the JPL website. Fortunately, we preserved a copy of it here.

Ferrari made it clear that her request was made specifically because Johnston is quoted in "Dark Mission," not because Johnston has different opinions on space issues of the day. In fact, JPL employees are guaranteed a right of free speech in their agreements with the laboratory and members of the SSA program are encouraged to express their own opinions in helping to promote space exploration to the public.


Oberg's involvement is particularly disturbing, since as a "science reporter" covering NASA he is supposed to take an impartial stance regarding any controversial news stories about the agency. Instead, by sending Ferrari the information on Johnston and questioning his credentials (which Oberg, as a former colleague of Johnston's, knew full well were valid), he has taken an advocacy position in favor of the agency.


We certainly hope that NBC News has the journalistic integrity to question why one of their employees is taking a partisan position in a news story he should theoretically be covering. Indeed, NBC should consider recusing Oberg from any involvement in covering our upcoming press briefing in Washington DC.

New Panorama Confirms NASA's Color Problem

We have now found a color panorama (PIA01907) which actually shows the rover color calibration dial and the Martian sky above. Once again, when we correct the color so that the dial appears as it does on Earth in normal light, the sky on Mars goes from the absurd NASA "Technicolor red" to a fairly normal "Arizona Blue."

So again, why does NASA keep modifying the color images taken from the surface to make Mars appear alien and forbidding?

(We will be posting a full size version of this image later on Dark Mission.net)

A Note About Terms of Service For This Blog

Everyone,

This blog is for a serious discussion of the issues raised by our book "Dark Mission." As the moderator, I'm not going to allow endless circular discussions, smart-ass postings with no meaningful contribution to the discussion, or repetition of the same arguments over and over again after a question has been asked and answered. I've been a bit lenient to this point, but if your post does not appear it is because I have it deemed it to fall into one of these categories.

Because our book is off to a good start, I expect the amount of ad hominem attacks and rabble rousing by our critics to increase. I will not allow this blog to degenerate by allowing this sort of behavior.

Criticism of our data and arguments is certainly allowed, as long as it is informed criticism that invites a serious response.

These are the rules. If you don't like it, don't post here.

A Message From the Authors

Several people have emailed us complaining about the lack of books actually appearing in bookstores. Our publisher, Feral House, has printed and delivered books to their distributor's warehouse, and in fact has already ordered a second printing. The books are currently on their way to fill orders from Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and other outlets. This delivery process takes from a few days to two weeks, depending on the physical proximity to the distributors warehouse and other factors. We expect bookstores and Amazon customers to begin receiving their copies as early as next week. We implore you to be patient and allow time for the distributors to do their jobs. Please do not complain to Feral House, they have already provided the books, which is all they can do at this point. We know that all our readers will be pleased with the final product when it arrives early next week.


-- MB & RCH

Hyperdimensional Sales Numbers

Thought some of you might find this amusing.

Ken Johnston Answers Commentors Questions

For the most part I have been researching material for another book, but I will be more vigilant in checking this Blog and responding.

My apology for not getting back and responding to some of your statements. For the most part, I appreciate your comments and agree that we need more of the “common” folks to tell their stories so that we can piece more of the puzzle together.

Now for “The Wizard of OZ” coming out behind the curtain. I wasn’t aware that the person questioning my "first hand experience" didn’t know how to type“Ken Johnston” into the Internet and find out about my entire history. However for the record; I am now 65years old. I hold a BS in Aerospace Engineering from Oklahoma City University and two advanced degrees from the Reformed Baptist Seminary, one in Theology and the other PhD in Metaphysics.

I worked at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX from 1966 through 1980 for several prime contractors. During the first half of the Apollo program I worked for the Grumman Aerospace Corp. as a Consultant Pilot and Astronaut Liaison officer. I substituted for the Astronauts during over 3,000 hours at the controls of the Lunar Module space craft. There were 5 of us with Grumman that were the test pilots on the LM. One of us had to be in the spacecraft at all times when there was an astronaut present to answer any questions they might have and to help teach them how to fly it. The five of us went through the same training that the Astronauts had including physical fitness, zero-g training, avionics, propulsion, astronautics, etc.

After the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon most of us engineers with Grumman got (RIF) laid off so I moved over to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory where I became the Manager of the Data and Photo Control department which put me in control of all mission photography,which is how I managed to be able to get a set of pictures donated to my Alma mater. Later I worked on the Shuttle Space Suit assembly as an engineer and test subject where I flew hundreds of parabolas in NASA’s KC-135, also known as the “Vomit Comet”. I have done vacuum chamber tests and underwater Zero-G tests. While in the USMC I flew faster than twice the speed of sound in the F-4 Phantom back in 1964. I have flown at over 60,000 feet altitude and know what it is like to be up where the air is really thin. Later I worked for Martin Marietta at Vandenberg AFB during the construction of the Shuttle Launch facility called “Slick 6”. In 1984 I went to work for the Boeing Company where I retired in 1998 as a Boeing 737 Flight Instructor.

So I hope this answers some of the questions regarding my first hand experience. I am new to blogging and as a rule I am not much of a computer expert in getting in and out of the blog’s. I hope you will excuse my faults and I will try to be more responsive in the future. Keep up the good work.