NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

[-RA-]

Not sure what to make of this one. Its a very popular recent story on various websites.

The former manager of the Data and Photo Control Department at NASA’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the manned Apollo Lunar Program, Ken Johnston, has released quite a number of sensational statements recently in the USA. The specialist said that U.S. astronauts found ancient ruins of artificial origin and a previously unknown technology when then landed on the Moon. Astronauts took pictures of the objects that they found, but NASA ordered Johnston to destroy the images. Johnston did not follow the order. He said that the U.S. government had been keeping this information a secret for 40 years.

Johnston's startling Apollo allegations have recently appeared in a new book, "Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA," co-authored by former NASA consultant and CBS Science Advisor, Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara, an aerospace engineering consultant. According to Kay Ferrari, JPL Director of the SSA Program (in a phone call to Johnston last week), 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. When Johnston refused, citing First Amendment protections of free speech afforded all NASA employees, even those at JPL, Ferrari apparently decided to remove him arbitrarily from the SSA Program this week without cause.

obviously its a quite far fetched sounding story, but it is being made by people who acually worked at NASA. The fact there is a book being written on this does not help his cause either. But that is no real reason to discount his allegtions. If that were true i might as well never read another book.

main story from http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/99895-moon-0

First reported on the net here; http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,204242.shtml
and then here http://www.sys-con.com/read/450055.htm and here; http://www.enterprisemission.com/NPC2007.htm

Dr. Ken Johnston, former Manager of the Data and Photo Control Division at NASA's Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the manned Apollo Lunar Exploration Effort in the 1970's, was abruptly terminated Tuesday morning, October 23rd, from NASA's prestigious "Solar System Ambassador" (SSA) Program at JPL. The firing was direct reprisal for Johnston's published account in a New York Times Best Seller, "Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA," of how NASA ordered him, 40 years ago, to destroy key Apollo lunar images and data -- rather than allow them to be preserved for academic study and public view. Johnston will testify at an Enterprise Mission sponsored National Press Club news conference this Tuesday, October 30th (Zenger Room, 9:00 AM) , how he disobeyed these NASA orders, secretly preserving the critical Apollo images. Johnston will then show some of the "missing" Apollo frames -- which confirm the existence of long-rumored "ancient artificial ruins and technology on the Moon," discovered by the Apollo astronauts but legally classified under the 1958 Space Act by NASA for over 40 years.

Johnston will be joined by Richard C. Hoagland, former NASA consultant and CBS News Science Science Advisor during the Apollo lunar missions. Hoagland is coauthor of "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA," and head of The Enterprise Mission. Hoagland will present an imaging analysis of Johnston's 40-year-old rescued Apollo images, comparing them to modern versions apparently currently being "leaked" by other "whistleblowers" on official NASA websites. He will also demonstrate and analyze one of the secret technologies retrieved by the Apollo crews, relating to the artificial control of gravity.

According to The Enterprise Mission:

This is an era of increasing concern for ever more government secrecy and expanding classification. Hoagland and Johnston will demonstrate that this “less than forthright NASA decision-making” actually began a long time ago.

Citing specifics from the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Hoagland will present startling evidence that, contrary to assumptions made by politicians, members of the press and public for almost half a century, NASA is NOT a “civilian” space agency, but is in fact “a defense agency of the United States”.

I also noticed that “Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA” is currently #230 in world top sellers, and is the number one on Amazon’s list for “Astronomy,” and “Space Science” and many other categories.Surely someone who makes allegations such as this should be sued by NASA, not just fired from their job and left to continue?

 

[Evo]

RA, none of those links are legitimate news sources. Do you have any legitimate sources? I'm busy right now and no legitimate sources come up for this. If you don't have any, I'm deleting the thread.

Anyone can go nuts, what or who they used to be means nothing. Good example is that astronaut that drove cross country with adult diapers, a wig, trench coat, mallet, etc...

 

[-RA-]

On the NASA safety report... there are many news services carrying this already... They claim that some of this data is going to be purged at the same time as the other data reported in the mainstream press.

AP Broke the story so this is mainstream...
U.S. government hides alarming air-safety report
Rita Beamish | The Associated Press October 23, 2007 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-airsafety2307oct23,0,575234.story

NASA mum on plane data that might scare you
CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/22/nasa.air.safety.ap/

NASA won't disclose air safety survey
YAHOO NEWS http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_us/air_safety_secrets

NASA refuses to release flight safety survey results
ABC http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3765351They don't seem to want to deal with the recent Ken Johnston incident in the mainstream media, but he was definitely sacked. Whether it was for that reason we will have to wait and see what he says. I am looking into this a bit more, I'm sure there's more info on him, but it is a very recent story. If Ken Johnston has actually said this, it is a big story.

 

[Evo]

As I thought, this has nothing to do with finding ancient ruins on the moon.

Common sense dictates that the moon is not now, or has ever been habitable. PF is not the place to be bringing up all of these nonsensical things you seem to want to post.

May I suggest that PF is not the place for you and your beliefs? I think there are many online forums where your findings would be greatly welcome. We are a scientific community and honestly, we just don't have the time or desire to keep debunking this nonsense.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found this site, which seems to have the pictures of two of the "artifacts":

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=4614

 

[Evo]

Good work detective Zooby.

 

[-RA-]

May I suggest that PF is not the place for you and your beliefs? I think there are many online forums where your findings would be greatly welcome. We are a scientific community and honestly, we just don't have the time or desire to keep debunking this nonsense.

i'm not quite sure how you deduced my what my beliefs are from the post, i was asking you about what your interpretaion of this story was. I did not say at any time that i believed it, i just relayed the facts that i have seen online for you to critique, as i could not find an answer to this myself.

Thanx zoobyshoe for claifying that. Its so hard to separate fact from fiction these days with the amount of crap circulating the web. But i am curious as to why NASA does not do more to refute allegations such as these. The book is now rapidly becoming an international bestseller and NASA must be fully aware of the allegations. Their public relations department must be pretty depressed, as millions of people now think that NASA is engaged in an ongoing cover-up about bases on the moon and alien techonology. Cases such as Gary Mckinnons don't help their image, whether he did actually find what he claimed, or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

I suppose it depends on how seriously you take the claims

 

[Evo]

i'm not quite sure how you deduced my what my beliefs are from the post, i was asking you about what your interpretaion of this story was. I did not say at any time that i believed it, i just relayed the facts that i have seen online for you to critique, as i could not find an answer to this myself.

RA, it's from every single one of your threads, which are always prefaced with "not that I believe this, but..." RA, we didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

PF is NOT the place to be reposting every scam and fraud you find on the internet. Honestly, I'd suggest you stop this now. We have a rule against posting crackpottery.

 

[zoobyshoe]

i'm not quite sure how you deduced my what my beliefs are from the post, i was asking you about what your interpretaion of this story was. I did not say at any time that i believed it, i just relayed the facts that i have seen online for you to critique, as i could not find an answer to this myself.

As far as I have seen, despite the fact you bring up a lot of questionable subjects, you've never been the least bit resistant to being corrected or having things explained by hard science. I think that's great and I don't understand why anyone else is bothered.

 

[Moonbear]

Why should NASA waste their time refuting such outrageous allegations? Most people have the sense to know it's complete nonsense, and NASA knows that nothing they say or do will change the opinions of the conspiracy nuts...attempting to refute it would just be taken by them as more evidence of a cover up.

As long as we have the First Amendment, people are free to publish books filled with nonsense. It's a trade-off we have to accept to ensure those who publish factual information are free to do so as well.

 

[Evo]

As far as I have seen, despite the fact you bring up a lot of questionable subjects, you've never been the least bit resistant to being corrected or having things explained by hard science. I think that's great and I don't understand why anyone else is bothered.

Because we aren't here for the purpose of debunking already debunked internet scams.

If it is something with true scientific merit worth investigating, that's one thing, when it's nonsense that can be easily looked up on snopes or skepdic or quackwatch or any other number of credible debunking sites, there is no reason to post it here.

 

[Mk]

Thanx zoobyshoe for claifying that. Its so hard to separate fact from fiction these days with the amount of crap circulating the web. But i am curious as to why NASA does not do more to refute allegations such as these. The book is now rapidly becoming an international bestseller and NASA must be fully aware of the allegations. Their public relations department must be pretty depressed, as millions of people now think that NASA is engaged in an ongoing cover-up about bases on the moon and alien techonology.

Wow, you're right man. I never thought about that before.

As far as I have seen, despite the fact you bring up a lot of questionable subjects, you've never been the least bit resistant to being corrected or having things explained by hard science. I think that's great and I don't understand why anyone else is bothered.

I agree; it irritates me when I see people that say "PLEASE DEBUNK THIS! I KNOW IT IS A HOAX BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY"—as if they are holding the blind belief. Know what I mean? So that it comes that the day we actually see x, we'll blow it off without any reason behind our decision: "WE KNOW IT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE EVERYBODY WAS WRONG BEFORE"

 

[-RA-]

it just seems odd to me that NASA seems not bothered at all the the majority of the population now thinks they were created by the NAZI's and Mr Von Braun and part of an ongoing conspiracy to conceal the 'truth' (whatever that may be, depends who you read).

I have noted your point evo, and will try to refrain from posting anything that is against established opinion. I do try consider this when i post. I have the impression you think i have some sort of agenda behind my posts. Well i can assure you now that i don't have an agenda i have always had an inquisitive mind ever since i was young, that's why i decided on my physics and philosophy degree and why i choose to spend much of my time on the internet working out a lot of these claims. Never in history has a communicton system this powerful been created, so it does follow that new things will be found out on the internet that have not been public before.

 

[-RA-]

attempting to refute it would just be taken by them as more evidence of a cover up.

That is a valid point. They would stand the chance of making the situation worse by refuting the stories, but surely there comes a time when public opinion has been changed so much they have to respond, no matter how outrageous the allegations are.

 

[Moonbear]

it just seems odd to me that NASA seems not bothered at all the the majority of the population now thinks they were created by the NAZI's and Mr Von Braun and part of an ongoing conspiracy to conceal the 'truth' (whatever that may be, depends who you read).

Because it's NOT a majority of the population that believes those conspiracy theories by a long shot. It's really pretty simple online...if it smells like B.S., it probably is B.S.

 

[-RA-]

You can't really claim these are minority opinions anymore when amazon ranks this book so higly in sales.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #118 in Books (See Bestsellers in international Books)

Popular in these categories:
#1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Physics
#1 in Books > Science > Physics
#1 in Books > Science > Astronomy > Astrophysics & Space Science

That is a heck of a popular book for a book that is not endorsed by the majority of the population. It might all be rubbish, but it is still very damaging to NASA, and in my opinion they should respond in some way to put this all to rest.

 

[Moonbear]

It may have a lot of sales, but that doesn't make it a majority buying it. What's the current population of the US, and what's the number of sales of that book? You're also assuming everyone buying it believes what it says. Some may be reading it out of curiousity, or for humor, or because they didn't realize what they were buying until they got it and started reading and realized how nuts it is.

You seem to be the only one here making the claim it's damaging to NASA. Here's the only response you need on it...it's untrue. There. Done. End of story. Why should NASA waste our tax money to respond to a bunch of nuts?

 

[Thrice]

Wait... you're telling me we did go to the moon?!

 

[Thrice]

Anyone can go nuts, what or who they used to be means nothing. Good example is that astronaut that drove cross country with adult diapers, a wig, trench coat, mallet, etc...

There were no diapers :(

 

[Astronuc]

The specialist said that U.S. astronauts found ancient ruins of artificial origin and a previously unknown technology when then landed on the Moon. Astronauts took pictures of the objects that they found, but NASA ordered Johnston to destroy the images.

Oh, man! They weren't supposed to find those. Darn! Our cover is blown. I told them we should have gone to the dark side. But Nooooo. Those Grebulons never listen.

Ancient ruins of artificial origin?! Who comes up with this stuff?

 

[-RA-]

You seem to be the only one here making the claim it's damaging to NASA.

I don't think that the fact that this sort of publicity is damaging to NASA can be disputed, you certainly can't say that these million or so people that think NASA has a hidden agenda are not damaging their public perception. They are obviously not damaging their reputation in the minds of sensible people who dismiss it, its just that the vast majority of Americans are not sensible! If you read the majority of the reviews they seem to be lapping it all up and taking it all pretty seriously.Although he was previously respected in his position at NASA, the more i look into Dr. Ken Johnston the less I believe him. It occurred to me what did he think was going to happen when NASA found out about what he was telling the public about NASA's secret agenda? Give him a promotion?! His firing is starting to look more like a planned publicity stunt. I'll wait and see what amazing relelations he makes in the near future, that should be an amuzing read.

 

[-RA-]

Oh, man! They weren't supposed to find those. Darn! Our cover is blown. I told them we should have gone to the dark side. But Nooooo. Those Grebulons never listen.

Yeah, stupid grebulons, they always screw everything up

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think that the fact that this sort of publicity is damaging to NASA can be disputed, you certainly can't say that these million or so people that think NASA has a hidden agenda are not damaging their public perception.

The vast majority of the public probably doesn't even know about the sensational story of 'ancient ruins of artificial origin' on the moon. And NASA would seem to give credit to most people - the majority of the public who either are sensible enough not to believe it or don't even worry about it.

They are obviously not damaging their reputation in the minds of sensible people who dismiss it, its just that the vast majority of Americans are not sensible! If you read the majority of the reviews they seem to be lapping it all up and taking it all pretty seriously.

Sensationlism in pop science! It sells! Nonscientific journals don't have to worry about their credibility. They just have to sell their magazine/journal and make money.

Never in history has a communicton system this powerful been created, so it does follow that new things will be found out on the internet that have not been public before.

Unfortunately, the internet gives nonsense peddlers a wider audience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can safely ignore anything from Hoagland - he is a well known crackpot whose ridiculous theories change by the day. When the evidence proved his Mars nonsense was nonsense, he suddenly relocated his alien bases to one of the moons of Jupiter. Enterprise Mission is his website so that can always be ignored as well. Pravda is the Russian equivalent of the National Enquirer and is never valid as a source here at PF.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I have seen, despite the fact you bring up a lot of questionable subjects, you've never been the least bit resistant to being corrected or having things explained by hard science. I think that's great and I don't understand why anyone else is bothered.

I'll go further than the others: Even asking the question shows a disturbing lack of judgement. Part of being intelligent is knowing what questions to ask/pursue and which questions to ignore. Stupid conspiracy theories don't deserve even a second look by RA, much less in-depth treatment(debunking) on PF.

 

[Integral]

The initial story contains a contradiction which puzzles me.

It is stated that NASA ordered this fellow to destroy the photos, He didn't, so NASA has kept them hidden for all these years.

the contradiction is why would NASA store pictures that they wanted destroyed? The delete key can be used by anybody. What am I missing?

Next why is it that this story from Pravda, this has got to be one of the most unreliable source worldwide, I dis believe it for that reason alone.

 

[Moonbear]

The initial story contains a contradiction which puzzles me.

It is stated that NASA ordered this fellow to destroy the photos, He didn't, so NASA has kept them hidden for all these years.

the contradiction is why would NASA store pictures that they wanted destroyed? The delete key can be used by anybody.

Hence demonstrating that simply possessing decent reading comprehension skills is sufficient to identify that the story is a lie without needing someone else to debunk it for you.

 

[Astronuc]

One could add another inconsistency. The first manned landing on the moon was 1969, only 38 years ago, with others coming later, so NASA couldn't very well keep them hidden for 40 years.

Moon landings:
Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969. First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.
Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969. First precise manned landing on the Moon, within walking distance of Surveyor 3.
Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971. Commanded by Alan Shepard, the only one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts to walk (and golf) on the Moon.
Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971. First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.
Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972. First landing in the lunar highlands.
Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972. Final Apollo lunar mission, first night launch, only mission with a professional geologist.

 

[Integral]

I am very curious about the career of this Johnson, who was fired. It claims that he was involved in the Apollo programs.?

Let me tell you about my Mom's friend, Chuck, He was a quality control engineer for NASA during the Apollo era. Chuck is, fascinating to talk to, he has lots of story's from his career with NASA, but he is now 85, and LONG retired. I am sure that nearly everybody that was involved with NASA during the Apollo era has been retired for 20+ years.

So who got fired and when? If they were fired in the last 5 yrs it seems very doubtful that they had anything to do with Apollo.


.

 

[D H]

People who were in their early twenties in the early 1970s are just past 60 or so now. I personally know several people still working at NASA who cut their teeth on the Apollo project.