“Professor Fulcanelli” Fails Basic Logic Test

For several weeks in October and November, a negative review on Amazon.com by somebody calling himself “Professor Fulcanelli” hovered near the top of our customer reviews section. Leaving aside for a second the significance of the pseudonym, this person, whoever he is (and we think we know) has chimed in on our very successful book “Dark Mission – The Secret History of NASA” with a review pompously titled “Dark Mission fails basic fact checking.”

In his review he then lays out a series of “facts” that he claims “do not seem to stand up to a pretty basic fact checking.” In reality almost all of his claims of factual deficiencies are either not based on facts at all, but are simply his opinion (and we all know what opinions are like), or they are simply dead flat wrong. Based on this, Amazon.com subsequently removed the “review.” But, since James Oberg has cited it as if he considered it a substantive review, I couldn’t help but respond to the idiocy it contains.

Now, everyone has an opinion and “Professor Fulcanelli” is certainly entitled to his. But to pretend that his anti-Dark Mission diatribe is based on factual errors in the book is quite frankly laughable. Let’s go over his issues with the book one by one and compare his claims with objective reality:

First, he recites a few passages from page 251 of our book concerning Runway 33 at Cape Canaveral, then drags in a few more sentences from an article on the Enterprise Mission web site. Forgetting for the moment it is intellectually fallacious to use passages that aren’t even in the book to attack the book in a “review,” let’s examine what he then goes on to claim.

In the web article, we wrote:

“And the Cape itself, "Cape Canaveral" translates to English as the "Cape of Reeds." And what ancient Egyptian god was associated with reeds?

Osiris, of course. They may have just as well called it the Cape of Osiris.”

Professor Fulcanelli then goes on to make the following citation:

“According to Wikipedia, ‘The name "Canaveral" (Cañaveral in Spanish) was given to the area by Spanish explorers. It literally means "canebrake". The name can be interpreted as "Cape of Canes"

This is of course irrelevant in the extreme, since the passage he cites is from a web article and not our book, but he is still wrong. First off, the Wikipedia article he uses to bolster his claim does indeed contain the quote he included, but like so much of what is on the Wikipedia website, it is unreferenced. So his sole source for claiming that Cape Canaveral means “Cape of Canes” rather than “Cape of Reeds” is a sentence from an article on a web site that is well known for its inaccuracy that does not even contain a reference.

Now, to be fair, we do cite Wikipedia once in the 171 references and citations in Dark Mission, but that was a last minute addition and will be replaced in the revised edition. However, this does not change the fact that an unreferenced Wikipedia citation hardly qualifies as an authoritative source.

Had PF actually been interested in getting to the truth, he might have gone to any number of Florida history sites (like this one: http://www.great-florida-vacations.com/florida-fun-facts.html) which show that “Canaveral (as in Cape Canaveral) means ‘place of reeds or cane.’” In addition, if he knew anything about reeds or cane, he would know that they grow in identical environments, and are almost always found together, and in fact are from the same general family of flora. In short, where you find cane, you usually also find reeds.

So undeniably, our facts in this case are categorically correct, and his claim is completely wrong, not mention it’s not even in our book.

Next, he cites yet another unreferenced Wikipedia source to claim that the Cape was selected for NASA’s launch site simply because of its southern location. We find that amusing, since we never argued otherwise. However, NASA could have selected any number of spots along the Florida east coast to build their launch facility and still had the same benefit, and they (just by coincidence) selected an area that is symbolically associated with the Egyptian god Osiris.

Again, he is entitled to disagree with us as to whether this is significant, but that is still just his opinion, not a factual deficiency.

PF then goes on to make another spurious “factual finding” regarding the designation of Runway 33 at the Cape:


"The numbering depends on upon the compass headings. The same runway has two different numbers depending upon the direction of approach of the aircraft, in KSC's case, nos. 15 and 33. The entire complex (pads, mobile launch platforms, crawlers, roads, VAB) is designated 39. Unlike the other launch complexes (34, 37, etc.) 39 has more than one pad, hence A & B.

Runway information:

"Runways are identified by numbers that indicate the compass heading of the runway centerline to the nearest 10º. For example, a runway aligned on a heading of 183º (nearly South) would be Runway 18. Its opposite end would be Runway 36, representing the reciprocal of 180 degrees."

(The examples given below are the exact numbers of the KSC runway) "Number designations are painted on each runway. These are determined by the runway's magnetic direction. Assume, for example, that a runway is oriented in a southeasterly direction with a compass heading of 145°. This is rounded up to the nearest ten degree number (145° in this case becomes 150°) and the final zero is dropped.

This runway's number becomes 15. Similarly, if we consider the position that is 180 degrees opposite this, the resultant compass heading is 330°. Because this number doesn't need to be rounded upward, we simply drop the final zero and the runway becomes number 33. An aircraft using this runway would be taking off in the opposite direction from that in the first example." End of Quote.

In short, runways are numbered in reference to magnetic headings and launch sites go from number 1 to over 40, so 39 or 33 or any other number in that range has to come up somewhere. These are not some arbitrary numbers that are picked by NASA to fit some nonexistent Egyptian/Masonic/Nazi symbolism as implied in the book.

It was really great that he could do all that research, but again, it is completely irrelevant to a review of our book, since A) we never said that magnetic headings were not a factor in numbering runways, and B) the pad 39a and 39b references don’t even appear in Dark Mission.

Our point, or course, is that NASA built the runway with a magnetic heading of “33” deliberately, just as the launch pad at White Sands was designated “launch pad 33” deliberately. Once again, he tries to chide us for not fact checking something we never even said.

At least the next claim is about something that is actually in Dark Mission…

Now let's take a look at Page 249, quote: "In fact, throughout antiquity there is a pattern of paying special homage to the number "thirty-three." Clearly, the authors of the Old Testament believed that the number itself was the key to many things, that it somehow held tremendous power. Some Biblical scholars have referred to Jeremiah 33:3 as "god's phone number," the moment of darkness for Jeremiah, where God shows him how he can be reached and how the powers he possesses can be accessed: "Call on me in prayer and I will answer you. I will show you great and mysterious things which you still do not know." End of Quote.

It is called cherry picking, fudging the data, and taking things completely out of context, if the quote above can be called "the data" to begin with. Throughout antiquity, one can find numerous numbers. No credible biblical scholar has ever claimed that number 33 is special in any way. The authors of the Old Testament believed in many things that are gibberish, including that the Earth is flat and that children should be stoned to death for misbehavior. But regardless of any of that, there is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testaments that gives special treatment to 33 or 19.5.

Why didn't Hoagland and Bara mention that almost every book of the Old or New Testament has 19:5 and or 33:3 chapter/verse combination? Why not quote from those? Almost all of them talk either about God or prayers to God. The majority of text in the Bible is about God's promises, prayer to God, etc. Is this a big surprise? We are talking about the Bible after all. None of it, however, says or even implies that 33 is special.

Once again, in this section he expresses his opinion that the number 33 has no significance in antiquity, along with his obviously intense anti-Semitic bias. But once again, this is not a fact that can be disputed or is in contention; it’s just his ill considered opinion. We simply noted that the famous verse known as “God’s phone number” is numbered 33:3. As to the idea of looking through all the 33’s and 19.5’s in the Bible, that’s a project I’ve had in mind for years and will eventually sit down and do. The point is, this is not “fact” that is in dispute. “God’s phone number” is Jeremiah 33:3, period, just as we wrote in the book.

Now let's take a look at Page 250, quote: "So if "thirty-three" is a key code to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods," why do we see Sirius at 19.5- above the Apollo 11 landing site, instead of 33s? How do the two numbers connect--if at all?" End of Quote.

But 33 is not a key to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods." Where does God say in the Bible that 33 is a key number to anything? Where does God even mention number 33 in the Bible?

If one wants to make a case for access to the power of the God, it makes much more sense to quote Matthew 21:21, quote: "Then Jesus told them, "I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, `May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen." End of Quote. And Matthew 21:22, quote: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." End of Quote. But obviously, 21:21 and or 21:22 does not fit into the whole "33 is somehow significant" fantasy, so they cherry picked Jeremiah 33:3 and took it completely out of context.

Unfortunately, here PF really begins to break down. We never said anything in Dark Mission claiming that God said in the bible the number 33 is significant, nor did we make reference to any biblical passages as unlocking the power of the gods or God. The quote from page 250 is a reference to the earlier discussions of tetrahedral or hyperdimensional physics, not biblical passages.

Next, he goes after our reference to one of the mathematical connections between the numbers 19.5 and 33:


Page 250 Continued, quote: "Engineer and probabilities expert Mary Anne Weaver (who would later do some crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model") has studied the possible mathematical linkage between the two numbers. She first pointed out that one of the basic trigonometric functions of a circumscribed tetrahedron, the sine of 19.471--the canonical "circumscribed tetrahedral '19.5 angle" at Cydonia--is .3333. That would be merely interesting if it were the only mathematical link between the numbers, but there is another, even more "symbolic" link." End of Quote.

What Mary Anne Weaver said is irrelevant. And here is why. According to Weaver's website, she is NOT a probabilities expert and she has admitted - on that same website - that her paper (the so-called "crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model"") is flawed, because it contains mistakes which she does not have resources and or knowledge to fix. It states plainly on her website, quote "I am not a statistics expert." End of Quote, and, quote "THERE ARE ERRORS IN THIS STATISTICS PAPER THAT I HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO CORRECT. They do undermine the conclusions of this paper." End of Quote.

Of course, there is no mention of any of this in the book, which seriously undermines author's credibility, don't you think?

Sadly, here the “Professor” descends into self-parody. Once again, he cites facts which are indisputable, then seems to want to take issue with them. Whether or not Mary Anne Weaver is or is not a “probabilities expert” is irrelevant to the question of the mathematical link which is cited. The sine of 19.471 is .3333, exactly as we wrote in Dark Mission. Remind me again where this is a failure of “basic fact checking?”

As to Mary’s credibility as a probabilities expert, the fact is in her daily job she calculates probabilities all the time. As to her statement that she is “not a statistics expert,” we never said she was, as the quoted passage from Dark Mission clearly proves. She is however an engineer who does probabilities calculations on an almost daily basis.

Now, as to her quote regarding the conclusions of her paper, PF is right, we don’t deal with it in Dark Mission, but his characterization that her paper “is flawed, because it contains mistakes which she does not have resources and or knowledge to fix” is once again simply fallacious. She spent a great deal of time on the paper and simply doesn’t have more time to spend on a revised version of it.

Now, we actually disagree with her assessment that any minor mistakes she may have made “undermine the conclusions of this paper.” We have no doubt that it is a somewhat flawed piece of research, but the question is, how flawed? PF doesn’t tell his readers that her initial conclusions put the odds in favor of our Ritual Alignment Model being correct at 19 billion to one. Yes, that’s Billion, with a “B”. Or the number 19 followed by nine zeros.

So, let’s assume that her calculations were off by 50%. We personally think the error rate is far smaller than that, but let’s use it anyway. That reduces the odds against chance from 19 billion to one all the way to 9.5 billion to one. As Captain Kirk once memorably put it; those are pretty good odds, Mr. Spock.

But let’s take it further. What if she was off by 70%? Then, the odds drop all the way to 5.7 billion to one. 90%? Only 1.9 billion to one in our favor. I could go on, but you get the point. Even if Mary Anne was 99.999% percent wrong, we still are looking at odds of 19 million to one that the ritual alignments we cited are beyond any chance occurrence. And PF thinks there is something nefarious because we didn’t go into this in depth in Dark Mission? Now that he mentions it, I’m going to make sure I include this study in the revised edition.

Finally, poor Professor Fulcanelli steps into one last logical quagmire of his own creation…

But Hoagland and Bara don't stop there, they go on to claim that NASA has orchestrated two Apollo landings to coincide with, wait for it, Hitler's date of birth of April 20th. (Page 253). How can they prove that? They cannot, of course.

Of all the really stupid things he put in his “review,” this has to be the capper. First, we never said that two “Apollo landings” took place on Hitler’s birthday. On the pages he cites we clearly write that NASA landed two missions on the Moon on Hitler’s birthday, Apollo 16, and Surveyor 3. These are indisputable facts.

Obviously, this poor buffoon hasn’t even read the book, at least not closely. While the title of his review claims to be about fact checking, not one of the “facts” he cites are anything more than his opinion, and all of the actual facts that he quotes from our book are indisputably correct. In the end, his review simply points out his own lack of thoroughness and intellectual acumen, as he consistently misinterprets the obvious and fails to understand what he reads. In fact, it is so utterly stupid, so devoid of anything even approaching intellectual discourse, that I at first thought that expat must be the author.

As the saying goes, I’d match wits with him, but he’s only half prepared. I shall pillory him no further.

Welcome Back!

And Happy New Year to Everybody. I'll be updating comments and adding new stuff over the next few days. Hope you all had a safe and happy holiday season.

Mike

First Annual Dark Mission Blog Christmas Presents List

Some of you have been naughty (Jim) some of you have been nice, but you all get Christmas presents from me this year. Here’s the list.

To James Oberg – A life sized poster of the Tin Woodsman from the Wizard of Oz.

Expat – A life sized poster of the Scarecrow.

To Ken Johnston – A copy of The Red Badge of Courage.

To The Hoagy - The Nobel Prize for Physics you so richly deserve.

The Fool – An autographed copy of my “Who Mourns for Apollo” articles.

To Biological Unit – A DVD of Schindler’s List.

To "Dr. Phil" Plait – A full “Plait” of crow for your Christmas dinner, you charlatan.

To my brother – The book contract you so richly deserve. May this year Bring you Starbound Light

To Lee Ford, Mike Kohary, Joe Cipale, my ex-wife, and all the other naysayer’s I’ve endured over the years; a copy of the New York Times Bestseller lists from November 2007 and a copy of Rush Limbaugh’s See, I Told You So

That's it! Enjoy the holidays and see you next year! There are several surprises coming that I'm sure some of you are going to find most unpleasant. Can't wait for 2008!

Stupid Blog Post of the Week, Vol. # 3



Expat wrote:

“Is Plait correct in writing that the "glass" feature superimposed on the photograph of Al Bean is actually a reflection of the Hasselblad iris? It does seem a more probable explanation than the one you offer. Was Bean equipped with some type of glass-cutting tool so he could escape from this structure?”

Uh, no.

This is yet another example of the stupidity and dishonesty of not only Plait, but the abject morons who regularly inhabit his site (I’ll let the readers decide how this applies to expat). Given this, I’ll take it slowly so even the likes of Plait and expat can follow along…

Nowhere in any publication do we argue that the hexagonal “glow” around Bean is part of the glass structures we discuss in the image presented. The caption in the image linked in his article does not even mention this pentagonal shape, and certainly doesn’t, as Plait claims, imply in any way that the shape is anything but a standard Hasselblad lens flare. In fact, the caption specifically states that Bean (and the lens flare around him) is “standing in front of a massive tier of ‘glass-like ruins’ – towering above and behind the lunar module ‘Intrepid.’” So obviously his claim that we are arguing that it is part of the far distant glass like ruins is a complete distortion.

In reality, we are well aware of what Hasselblad lens flares look like. Here is another example from Apollo 11. Here is yet another example from Apollo12. We have known about these lens flares since we first started looking at Apollo photography in the early 1990’s.

It is hard to imagine how a thorough or fair minded individual could innocently distort this into claiming, as Plait does, that our caption is referring to the lens flare as “glass-like ruins.” Clearly, obviously, we are not. This is simply another in a long line of false assertions by Dr. Phil. In fact, the only thing he gets right is the fact that the pentagonal shape is a lens flare. Somebody must have told him so, since judging by this page, he not very good at getting even the simplest things right.

For instance, he goes on to claim that “Hoagland and Bara actually held a press conference for the book.” Gee, that’s funny. When the press conference in Washington DC was held on October 30th, I was in sunny Las Vegas, throwing down at the craps tables and ogling the go-go dancers at the Luxor. Kind of amazing that such a thorough researcher like Plait would miss something as basic as that, right? Wrong.

On the same page in which he makes his false assertions about the Apollo image on darkmission.net, Plait then compounds his own mendacities by linking to an earlier “debunking” of our work on the THEMIS Cydonia IR images (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/artifacts.html). He claims that the ruins shown on the images are “jpeg compression artifacts,” which somehow created the ruins. What he fails to inform his readers of is that the jpeg images he links to are merely browse versions, and uncompressed jpeg browse versions at that, made from earlier full size, uncompressed Tiff images. Oh, and the original source data those Tiff’s were made from? Also uncompressed Tiff’s. And guess what? Those same ruins appear on the uncompressed Tiff’s in all their glory. Kind of hard to get “compression artifacts” from lossless uncompressed Tiff’s, isn’t it Phil?

I also find it interesting that despite the presence of the full size Tiffs on the Enterprise Mission web site, Plait chose to link only to the browse jpeg versions and never tell his readers that the Tiffs even existed. Must have been an honest oversight on his part….

Riiiight….

By no means have I perused all of Plait’s web pages concerning our work. Frankly, doing so makes me nauseous, since every page I have read has been full of distortions, fallacious reasoning and outright lies. Suffice it to say that I have worked with Richard C. Hoagland for more than ten years now, and I have found that his critics consistently fall into one of two categories: liars and idiots. Plait is one of the rare few who has the distinction of being both.

I shall pillory “Dr. Phil” no further.

New Article Posted Under "Deleted Sections" Area

I've just posted a new article dealing with Mars Express images under the "Deleted Sections" area of Dark Mission.net. The link is here: http://www.darkmission.net/marsexpress-1.htm.

I hope you enjoy it.

Ken Johnston Still Under Attack

Despite our recent posting of Dr. Ken Johnston’s credentials, certificates and awards, including his doctoral certificate from the Reform Baptist Theological Seminary of Denver, granted in 1985, NASA shill James Oberg has continued to attack Ken on several fronts. From the ridiculous accusation that Ken was not “in charge” of the photographs in his possession at NASA’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory, to attacking the doctorate itself, Oberg has been -- inexplicably for a guy who says he wants to “move on to other things” -- persistent. By his own account, Oberg has been burning up the phone lines trying to find something – anything – to discredit a man he has known for over 30 years, while continuing to pretend he’s never even met Ken Johnston.

The purpose of these vicious and personal attacks is multi-faceted, and designed to achieve several nefarious goals.

Any objective observer would have long-since concluded that Ken is exactly who he says he is, and that he has provided more than sufficient documentation verifying his resume. Yet, in his unrelenting attempts to assassinate Ken’s character, Oberg has hidden behind the lie that he is simply doing what any other journalist would do in his shoes. In reality, Oberg’s attacks have nothing to do with journalism. Oberg has no intention of ever writing anything for NBC or MSNBC on the questions raised by Dark Mission or the testimony Ken has given. He’s simply using this as an excuse to attack an honest American who served his country with honor in the Marines and at NASA in order to satisfy the blood thirst of the creeps who inhabit the CSICOP (now “CSI”) end of the spectrum, and to serve those at NASA who are threatened by Ken’s testimony.

This is clearly proven out by the pettiness and irrationality of the specific attacks themselves.

For instance, Oberg continues to argue that Ken was not “in charge” of the photographic datasets in his possession at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, despite the memo from NASA’s Dr. Jeffery L. Warner, which states that “the data and photo facilities in Room 105 that is run by Ken Johnston… is an order of magnitude better than when I left it.” It’s hard to understand how someone who “runs” a data and photo facility is somehow not “in charge” of the data and photos that he is given oversight of. Only a twisted agenda like Oberg’s can manage to turn this into some sort of “discrepancy.”

Furthermore, it wouldn’t matter if Ken had been merely the janitor at the LRL during the Apollo Program, much less “in charge” of anything. All that matters is that he was, in fact, in a position to have access to the official Apollo photographs he has now provided to the world (as Dr. Warner’s memo, among many other documents, clearly establishes); that he was subsequently ordered to destroy these photographs (a story we recount in “Dark Mission”), and that he chose instead to preserve some of the images -- to the ultimate betterment of mankind.

So given these indisputable facts, why is Oberg still pursuing a subject he claims he’d rather not be spending time on? Perhaps the answer lies in the legal entanglements which potentially arise from NASA’s original order.

One unspoken motivation for Oberg’s bumbling attempts at intimidation and highly invasive attacks on Ken’s character may be the desire to discredit him as a potential first-hand witness. Given the highly questionable legality of the order given to Ken to destroy key Apollo photographic data, a future courtroom appearance or Congressional inquiry is not out of the question. Several former NASA employees, all probably drawing pensions from their days at the Agency, are potentially implicated. That these same ex-NASA employees are now (according to Oberg anyway) denying that Ken Johnston was ever actually involved in the management of any LRL facilities or in charge of any photographs is hardly surprising. However, given their signed memos to the contrary (from over 30 years ago), it’s clear that they are most likely simply trying to cover their own rear ends, since they are directly threatened by Ken’s first person testimony regarding what they ordered him to do in those critical Apollo years.

This relentless smear campaign will also have a chilling effect on anyone else inside NASA thinking about coming forward. If they were to do so, as Ken has, and tell the truth about what they saw and did at the Agency all those years ago, they can expect the same sort of threats, intimidation and character assault that Ken has now experienced. Oberg, from his position as science reporter at NBC news, has already shown -- by getting Ken fired from his position as JPL Solar System Ambassador -- that he will use his power as a “journalist” to wreck the reputation of anyone who dares stand up to the NASA “family.”

However, as an obviously unintended consequence of Oberg’s one-man smear campaign against Ken, we now know that there were several other NASA photo labs, most notably “Building 8” at NASA’s (then) MSC in Houston, where early generation Apollo photographic prints and negatives were also stored and analyzed. So the question now arises, who was in charge of those official NASA photographs? And were they also ordered, as Ken was, to destroy their sets of photographic data from Apollo around the same time Ken was given his specific orders?

Perhaps someday (Congressional), inquiring minds will want to know…

But we must not lose sight of the most significant underlying reason for Oberg’s increasingly desperate efforts to attack Ken Johnston -- to distract readers of this blog (and anyone in the mainstream media) from the real, far more significant policy questions that are raised by Dr. Johnston’s disturbing first-person testimony. Namely, why was he told to destroy four priceless sets of lunar surface and orbital photography from the Apollo missions, and what was on them that NASA was so interested in hiding that they refused to allow the photos to be preserved or simply donated to academic institutions, to whom they would have been invaluable?



What Ken’s meticulously preserved first-generation prints showed was massive artificial “scaffolding” towering over the astronauts as they worked around the Lunar Module “Antares,” on Apollo 14. Later comparisons with Apollo 12 images from that landing site (only 122 miles away) confirmed these same towering glass-like structures, literally “over the horizon,” -- as seen from both landing sites. But without confirmation from NASA’s own image archive, some 30 years (and who knows how many photographic generations) later, Ken’s heroic act of disobedience might have gone unrewarded. As it is, thanks to the scanning efforts of NASA’s own archivists, we can now confirm that these artificial structures are clearly visible in NASA’s current database posted on its own official websites – even if they are degraded by the passing of more than a generation since Ken obtained his original prints and refused the orders by NASA Headquarters to destroy them.

So again, the issue is not “Ken Johnston,” an American hero who served his country when called and who was a true pioneer in the development of the Apollo program itself, but rather the data he preserved and showed the world.

As to Mr. Oberg, who, not satisfied with getting Ken fired from his well deserved position as a JPL Solar System Ambassador, has continued to attack Ken and complain about his own treatment in these pages, we have only one thing more to add. Oberg has continued to insist in both private emails and public forums that Ken -- and indeed our entire premise -- should be rejected, because in his mind we made an “error” in our second press release promoting the October 30th National Press Club event.

Forgetting for the moment that I had nothing to do with the composition of that press release (I was merely the contact person listed on it), Oberg has also attacked me personally because the press release mentions that Oberg was “a colleague of Johnston’s at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center during the Apollo Program in the 1970’s.” Note that the release never said that Oberg “worked on the Apollo program itself, or anything else implying that he was directly involved in Apollo when employed at NASA. Oberg, however, has continued to insist that he was never even at the (Johnson) Manned Spacecraft Center “during the Apollo program.”

Oberg buttresses his argument by writing that he started at JSC (the renamed “MSC,” in 1973) in late July, 1975 -- after the splashdown of the final Apollo mission, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). He actually states his “start date” at JSC as July 28th, one week exactly after the splashdown of the Apollo-Soyuz mission.

This is, at best, a Clintonian prevarication.

As anyone who has ever worked in aerospace well knows, programs don’t “end” with the splashdown of a spacecraft or final flight of an aircraft. They go on for months, and sometimes years, afterwards. There is data to be gathered, scientific and engineering reviews to be published, and lessons learned to be applied to the next program.

Apollo was no different. In fact, the Apollo Program Office continued to stay open well beyond the July 21st splashdown of the last Apollo spacecraft. This official NASA history (SP-4209) shows that the Apollo Program Office was still open as late as October, 1975, when it was refitted to accommodate the shuttle program, which Ken and James both worked on.

It is not surprising to us that James Oberg continues to make outrageous charges and false claims about Ken, or is deceptive about his own employment history in a lame attempt to cover up the simple fact that he and Ken Johnston, indeed, both worked together at Johnson “during the Apollo Program.” We implore our readers to cut through the noise created by Oberg’s ongoing fallacious claims, and focus instead on what’s really important here – the amazing Apollo lunar ruins that NASA has tried, and now obviously failed, to keep secret for so long.



And to focus on the courage of one real American -- who has dared to stand up to an unending barrage of personal attacks at the hands of one of NASA’s own “hit men,” for simply trying to tell everyone the truth.

Stupid Blog Post of the Week - #2



JimO said...
Where's his PhD diploma?Where's his certificate of graduation from flight school?Where's his certification of Lunar Receiving Laboratory work in anything related to photo or image management?Doesn't this blizzard of secondary, peripheral paperwork look like a snow job to anybody else?
November 20, 2007 8:14 AM

The Fool said...
What about "Dr" Johnston's fake degrees? Why has THAT not been addressed, if it is important to verify "credentials"?
November 20, 2007 8:53 AM

Robert Gonzales Jr. said...
Ken Johnson claims to have two advanced degrees from Reformed Baptist Seminary. I am the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (www.rbseminary.org), and I can assure the readers that he did not obtain any degrees from our seminary. Either there is another institution that goes by that name (of which I am unaware) or Ken Johnson is giving false information.
November 15, 2007 8:22 AM

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Enjoy your turkey (or crow, as the case may be).

This final posting now marks the close of this Spanish Inquisition against the credentials and credibility of Dr. Ken Johnston.

-- Mike

A Question of Credentials - Post 5

A Question of Credentials - Post 4

Ken's reciept for his application to the astronaut corps.

A personal endorsement for his application from Neil Armstrong, and another one from astronaut Jack Swigert.

A personal letter from Apollo 15 astronaut Jim Irwin, expressing his support for Ken's candidacy.

A Question of Credentials - Post 3

A Question of Credentials - Post 2

A Question of Credentials - Post 1