Friday, December 21, 2007
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!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
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.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
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.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
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
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
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
Monday, November 19, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
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"
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.
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
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)
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
Monday, November 12, 2007
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.
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"
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.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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.
(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.
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.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
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
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
Thursday, November 1, 2007
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
More to come as I get it...
Mike
Update: Added some images from Russian television taken at the presser...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
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
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
Thursday, October 25, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2007
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)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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
-- MB & RCH
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Dark Mission Release Date Set
Feral House will Release "Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA" By Mike Bara and Richard C. Hoagland to bookstores on October 9th, 2007. Copies of the book should begin to arrive in your local bookstore on or around that date. Previously, Dark Mission has been available only through pre-order at Amazon.com and other major online retailers. Dark Mission currently ranks as the #1 best seller in Amazon's "Astrophysics and Space Science" category.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Ken Johnston Calls Again for NASA Vets to Come Forward
After reading all the postings to this blog for the first time, I was hoping to find that someone besides myself had come forward with more information andevidence. It would be nice to have more FIRST HAND experience and knowledge from others that would provide additional support for the events that I mentioned in my first posting.
Do Masons as a whole have any idea how DEEP their organization goes? NO, only those who have been selected and RAISED to the higher levels have ANY IDEA as to the knowledge and power that perhaps only 1 percent has access to.
It is frustrating to me when someone who wasn’t even born when we went to the Moon tries to claim that we never went there, because it is impossible for an astronaut in a space suit to crawl through the door in the lunar module. I can speak from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. I was one of the 5 test pilots for the Grumman Aerospace Corporation that built the Lunar Module where I had the privilege of helping to develop the procedures for ingress and egress of the LM. I wore the complete Apollo space suit assembly and made many trips in and out of the front hatch and have lots of NASA photographs and films of me doing just that.
Where do we go from here? It is just like trying to put together your genealogy. The first thing to do is find everyone you can who was ALIVE BACK THEN and get their statements recorded and notarized. Just like people at Roswell, NM had to do. As with any documentary, there was a lot going on behind the scenes. So many of the true Apollo scientists have started DIEING OFF and we absolutely have to get their memories recorded NOW. So, help us capture the TRUTH behind the truth, I issue the same challenge as before: “Now it is up to those of us who know the truth to stand together and shout it out loud for all to hear.” You can contact me through this blog and I will see that your story is told. We need to get together and start trying to find other people that were involved in the SPACE PROGRAM. People like me who know the truth.
Ken Johnston - Lunar Module Pilot
Monday, September 3, 2007
NASA Continues to Hide The True Colors of Mars
On August 5th, 2004, as the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit was making the slow climb out of Gusev crater on its way toward the so-called “Pot of Gold,” JPL commanded the rover to turn south and take a set of images of a nearby rocky outcrop and the plains (and rim) of Gusev beyond. The outcrop, nicknamed “Longhorn” by the MER-JPL team, contains a number of interesting “rocks” in the near field. Like the later Pot of Gold, the Spirit team has had a great deal of difficulty categorizing some of the objects seen in the images sent back.
However, what continues to intrigue us is not necessarily the inexplicable “geology” of the region, but rather NASA’s persistent commitment to deceive the public about the true nature and colors of Mars. As we have noted before -- and as will be further documented in Dark Mission -- NASA has a long-standing policy of altering surface images of Mars in order to make the sky and landscape appear to be an absurd “Technicolor red.” As we have established in previous articles, the Martian sky is blue, not red, and the red-shifting of the surface images from Viking to Pathfinder to now Spirit and Opportunity has resulted in the general public perceiving Mars as an alien, forbidding world.
In fact, it looks a lot like Arizona.
The latest proof of this came from the aforementioned images from the high rim of Gusev crater, cobbled together by NASA under image release PIA06770. We knew immediately that the red skies and rocks were phony (the caption calls it “approximate true color” – a NASA euphemism for “outright fake”), so it was simply a matter of adjusting the saturation and balance to bring out the real color of the scene. Fortunately, most imaging software contains a tool that makes this exceptionally easy.
By simply applying a color auto-adjust (or auto-equalize) tool, we can correct the deliberate red-shifting of JPL image processing and reveal the true colors of Mars, vs. the “approximate true colors” of NASA. This filter simply applies a flat equalization to the image – meaning that the image goes from over-saturated red to an equal balance in the primary red-green-blue channels – and more closely duplicates what the human eye would see if you were standing next to Spirit as the picture was taken.
Try it yourself. Download the official rover image from the JPL site, then, use the auto color-balance feature in your imaging software. We think you’ll be pleased and impressed by the results ... at least, until you also realize what NASA has been pulling all these years vis-Ã -vis the “real” colors of Mars ….
NASA apologists like “Dr. Phil” Plait have tried to muddy the waters on this question by claiming that it is really hard for NASA to get the color right, and that the inclusion of an IR band “pushes the images red.” Now try this tool and ask yourself how difficult it is to show the colors of Mars correctly.
As to the reasons why NASA continues to deceive the American public in this way, well, that is all covered in “Dark Mission.” But if you doubt that NASA does this deliberately, we’ll give you a chance to prove your position. Try to find an image – any "real color" image (not one taken through false-color IR filters) – from either of the Mars Exploration Rovers that shows both the color calibration wheel and the Martian sky in the same frame.
Good luck. And, stay tuned.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
You Asked For it, You Got it -- "The Martian Skull"
Last year, an independent Mars researcher named Joseph Skipper found an object on one of the Mars Rover images that resembled a skull. He posted several version of the image on the web, and speculated about the possibility it was the skull of some unknown humanoid creature. His full story and images can be found here.
Our own take is that this image is quite convincing. It certainly does resemble a skull, with a rounded cranium, two round eye sockets, an ethmoid bone division between the eye sockets, and a significant amount of symmetry. As far as we know, no other pictures of it have been found, but it is certainly intriguing.
It also fits quite nicely into our own Mars Tidal Model. Creatures caught in the catastrophic flooding that would have followed the separation of Mars from its parent planet would have been buried under tons of mud and silt, which would eventually be worn away by the constant winds of Mars, leaving only the preserved, fossilized remnants of what may once have been a vast civilization on Mars. It is this link, more than any other (and described in detail in "Dark Mission") which inclines us to consider that this may be a genuine artifact -- not just of a ancient dead Martian civilization, but of its inhabitants.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
A NASA Veteran Speaks Out
My name is Ken Johnston and it has been 12 years since I first contacted “The Enterprise Mission” at a conference in Seattle, WA and told them my story.
I worked at NASA in Houston, TX for almost 17 years and in addition to being one of the five Lunar Module test pilots and Astronaut Consultant Pilot, I also worked at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. At the LRL I was in charge of the “Data and Photo Control” department where I kept five copies of every picture and negative taken during each of the moon missions.
After Apollo15 I was directed to destroy all but one set of the pictures and negatives. After discussing it with my supervisor I made the decision to take one set of everything and deposit it at the Oklahoma City University science department. I then did as I was told and destroyed all but one other set.
I told this story to Richard Hoagland and the Enterprise Mission team at that Seattle conference, and that I had a private collection of NASA Apollo photographs that backed up what I was telling them. The next day about 5 people along with Mr. Richard C.Hoagland came to my house to see the pictures that I had told them about. What an experience I had and what a shock they had. My wife pointed out several anomalies in some of the photos and then everyone in the room went wild looking for more strange things in the pictures.
Personally, I know that there are a lot more people like myself that have solid data and personal experiences that will back up a lot of what is published for the first time in this book "Dark Mission".
What is needed right now is for others to come out of hiding and bring out into the light their information so that at last we can tell the truth for the world to see. I could name at least a dozen people that I worked with at NASA that were in direct contact with every member of the Apollo Mission flight crews and other key personnel that controlled the data produced from each mission. I think that if Richard and Mike could use this ‘blog’ as a place where others could come forward with their stories, we could accomplish the goal of this book, GETTING THE TRUTH OUT!
How would you suggest that we go about it to find the others out there and make them understand that the only way for them to be safe is for them to come public with their information? That way if any threats or accidents were to happen to any of them, it would raise an even bigger red flag about what’s been going on. Now it is up to those of us who know the truth to stand together and shout it out loud for all to hear and understand.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
NASA by Far the Biggest Government Censor on Wikipedia
According to an article on Govenment Executive.com, NASA is far and away the biggest Wikipedia editing source when it comes to US government agencies. A website called Wikiscanner keeps track of just who is editing what pages, and NASA is the clear winner with over 6,800 Wikipedia pages edited.
One has to wonder; why is NASA so intent on filtering the Wikipedia content that the general public has access to?
Until the Wikiscanner search for individual pages is enabled, we won't know exactly which pages they are editing, but with 6,800 edits, they must have a whole team devoted to holding the NASA party line over at Wikipedia.
-- MB
One has to wonder; why is NASA so intent on filtering the Wikipedia content that the general public has access to?
Until the Wikiscanner search for individual pages is enabled, we won't know exactly which pages they are editing, but with 6,800 edits, they must have a whole team devoted to holding the NASA party line over at Wikipedia.
-- MB
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Book is Off to the Printer!
"Dark Mission" went to the printers this past Wednesday, August 15th and copies should start appearing in stores in mid-to-late October. Look for it at the front tables of Barnes and Noble stores, as they ordered copies for front table display. You can also pre-order through Amazon.com. See the link on the main page.
-- MB
Welcome to the Dark Mission Blog!
Richard and I will be using this space to keep you updated on all "Dark Mission" related news and notes.
-- MB
-- MB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)