NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by WolfofWar
So we have a fired scientist, with no proof of his claims, and motivation to lie to help sell a book for cash.

Unfortunately,that is my concern too.
If someone would just come out and present the facts without anything to sell.
This guy will be used to a large pay cheque so his motivation IS in question.

I wish honesty wasn't a sellable commodity

Originally posted by KSCVeteran

John Lear:
One chapter of my amazing books would prove almost all that hoagland is saying.
Aliens would not be wondered about any longer!
Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet. KSC, Florida

Thanks Clark and I know that you could confirm what Hoagland/Bara are saying and a lot more! A lot more! Its getting you to talk! All I am saying is that we are there now and have been for 45 years

Good to hear from you Clark.

If KSCVeteran is really who he said that he is, then this is looking very promising. Looks like we have people from the inside right here on ATS that want the truth to be know.

Go Clark C. McClelland!

Go Ken Johnston!

While I cant speak for all of ATS, there will be a lot of us here that are behind you all of the way and got your back.

[edit on 11/1/07 by housegroove23]

Originally posted by Vector J

Whoa there john. You can't have a substantially thicker atmosphere on one side of a stellar body than on the other. Atmospheres, generally speaking are fairly uniform across a surface, air doesn;t tend to congregate in one place. Or are you trying to say it's being forcibly held there? In which case, I'd love to hear your opinion on how on earth that would be possible... Vector J

Thanks for the post Vector J.

Look. Do me a favor. I get tired of writing the same thing every day. Let me respectfully suggest that you search every post I have made on Peter Andreas Hansen, do a little research yourself and then come and ask questions.

Your indulgence would be greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Sorry, I need ALOT more evidence then that.

Of course you do Nancy, but this story is just getting started...

As to the safety issue... that is not in question...

The Associated Press said it had been trying, unsuccessfully, to get the data released through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Just how sensitive the information is seems clear in a document from NASA denying that FOIA request. NASA said "release of the data ... could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers."

NASA denying an FOIA request??

And when that fails let go for 'stall tactics'

[ex[In a statement, NASA administrator Michael Griffin said, "As a general practice, I believe that NASA research and data should be widely available."

The administrator has now taken steps to make sure the safety survey data is preserved and the agency is looking into whether it can release it. A NASA spokesman told ABC News the data is still being analyzed, and that an analysis won't be finished until the end of the year.

ABC News

So now we have two major angles to follow;

One story dealing with outright with holding and deleting vital data;
and the other a long time 'insider' about to blow the whistle..

So he is writing a book.... we call that freedom to publish here in the USA. If writing a book invalidates any evidence... I suggest we go out and burn all the books... especially those that disagree with the skeptics viewpoint...

I came across this article while looking for more news... It is an older story but quite relevant to what's going on...


WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2003
NASA Safety Panel Members Quit
Nine Experts Were Criticized By Congress, Columbia Accident Board

In the wake of the Columbia accident, which killed seven astronauts on Feb. 1, the safety panel was criticized by members of Congress as being ineffective.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said in its report that the ASAP lacked influence. Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee said the ASAP failed to spot potential danger signs in the operation of the space shuttle and that NASA should reconstitute the panel.

CBS News


[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by KSCVeteran

One chapter of my amazing books ..

Exactly my point

We get promises of 'disclosure' 'evidence' 'amazing proof' all under the threats of what would the U.S government would do to prevent the spillage of all this info.

Aren't you running scared?
Wouldn't it be safer to pass the proof to numerous third party sources to distribute freely,thus taking away the confidentiality and the need to 'shut up' the original 'leak'?

Or is it just to make it more exciting to sell books?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Vector J

Whoa there john. You can't have a substantially thicker atmosphere on one side of a stellar body than on the other. Atmospheres, generally speaking are fairly uniform across a surface, air doesn;t tend to congregate in one place. Or are you trying to say it's being forcibly held there? In which case, I'd love to hear your opinion on how on earth that would be possible... Vector J

Thanks for the post Vector J.

Look. Do me a favor. I get tired of writing the same thing every day. Let me respectfully suggest that you search every post I have made on Peter Andreas Hansen, do a little research yourself and then come and ask questions.

Your indulgence would be greatly appreciated.

just to follow that up, I don't specifically know why johnlear believes this, he seems to believe many things. But the claim that the atmosphere must be uniform doesn't take into account the gravity of the Earth-moon system. Since the moon only ever shows us one face, there is a difference in tidal forces from one side to the other. This difference shows up in calculations of the escape velocity for particles in the moons atmosphere. Bottom line? It is a possibility that johnlear is right on this one.

Originally posted by AGENT_T

Unfortunately,that is my concern too.
If someone would just come out and present the facts without anything to sell.
This guy will be used to a large pay cheque so his motivation IS in question.

I wish honesty wasn't a sellable commodity

Thanks for the post AGENT_T.

I admire your principles but would question your grasp of reality.

Thanks for the post.

Shuttle launch date set despite safety objections
BY WILLIAM HARWOOD
June 17, 2006

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, overruling objections from the agency's chief engineer and safety office, cleared the shuttle Discovery for launch July 1 2006 on a mission to service and resupply the international space station. The flight also will clear the way for the resumption of station assembly later this fall and deliver a third full-time crew member to the international outpost.

Spaceflight Now

NASA
Need Another Space Agency
Never A Straight Answer

and as Robert Bigelow says...

"No Access to Space for Americans "

[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by johnlear


Hi John. Interesting thread.

One thing I'm not clear on.

It is my opinion that there is no way that the powers in charge here are going to let the ‘breathable atmosphere on the moon’ become public knowledge.

Who cares if it became public knowledge? I mean why would the powers in charge not want this to be out?

If they're worried about being called liars, just call it 'new research'.

Puzzled.

Originally posted by Eddy_Jordan
It is a possibility that johnlear is right on this one.

Uh.....no. The tidal forces exerted by the Earth would haul whatever thin atmosphere there is on the moon to the side facing the Earth. Just like the Moon's tidal force raises the ocean level and atmospheric depth, right here on good ol' Earth.

zorgon......I looked at the sources on your first post here....Pravda? Really? You may as well use The Star for all its journalistic qualities. And the other sources are "press releases" from PRNewswire? You realize of course, that press releases are by design and nature....slanted? They have absolutely zero objectivity?

Heard all these big promises too many times to count. I will flag this and commend the OP for his research but as they say I ain't gonna hold my breath here.

Despite Concerns, NASA Will Launch Shuttle as Scheduled
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: October 17, 2007

After an all-day meeting in which engineers debated technical issues that could affect the mission, managers decided to keep the shuttle’s Oct. 23 launching date for a mission that will take a key component to the International Space Station.

N. Wayne Hale Jr., director of the space shuttle program, said there were still questions about the degrading of a coating on 3 of 44 panels on the leading edges of the Discovery’s wings. While not fully understood, Mr. Hale said, the problem appeared to be an acceptable risk.

Noting that the shuttle is an experimental vehicle that should never be considered completely safe to fly, Mr. Hale said managers who heard all the arguments voted to fly on schedule, although some had a few reservations. Mr. Hale said the decision was not made to keep the shuttle launching program on schedule, a criticism of the space agency that was voiced by investigators after the 2003 Columbia accident.

“We are not going to let schedule drive us into making a decision,” Mr. Hale said at a news conference late Tuesday after the meeting at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “The preponderance of evidence, in my mind, is that we have an acceptable risk to go fly.”

NEW YORK TIMES

the shuttle is an experimental vehicle that should never be considered completely safe to fly,






[edit on 1-11-2007 by zorgon]

I did a search for "Hoagland" on CNN.com, and found a story on the even burried in "Science & Space".....I tried to see how simple it would have been to navigate on my own, and it seems rather impossible without doing a search for it...The back page of all back pages.

I heard that Bill Richardson, Gov. of NM inquired to some degree about UFO instances over his state.....so I emailed him information on the happenings, thanking him for his attention to the topic, and asking him to consider looking into this topic....Sometimes, though, you don't know which politicians you can count on.....Back during his term Jimmy Carter inquired about UFOs and how they relate to the US military, and we can see how far that got us.....

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Eddy_Jordan
It is a possibility that johnlear is right on this one.

Uh.....no. The tidal forces exerted by the Earth would haul whatever thin atmosphere there is on the moon to the side facing the Earth. Just like the Moon's tidal force raises the ocean level and atmospheric depth, right here on good ol' Earth.

Partly right, the forces would pull the atmosphere (made up of however many different gases) towards Earth and indeed many of those particles would reach the escape velocity, resulting in a thinner atmosphere on the Earth facing side of the moon.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Eddy_Jordan]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Uh.....no. The tidal forces exerted by the Earth would haul whatever thin atmosphere there is on the moon to the side facing the Earth. Just like the Moon's tidal force raises the ocean level and atmospheric depth, right here on good ol' Earth.

Thanks for the post MrPenny. My opinion is that tidal forces/tidal lock are imaginary forces that were fabricated to account for the moons rotational lock.

It is pure speculation whether or not the moon by itself causes earths tides.

In fact, since the moon is probably a space ship it may be something inside the moon that is causing earths tides. Or something else altogether.

But thanks for the post, everybody has an opinion.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Vector J.

Look. Do me a favor. I get tired of writing the same thing every day. Let me respectfully suggest that you search every post I have made on Peter Andreas Hansen, do a little research yourself and then come and ask questions.)

John, I'm not Vector J, but your posts are fairly easy to find, so I availed myself to them. Here's one of your statements:

As far as the story of atmosphere on the moon I am sure there is one. Not as thick as earth but breathable for a little while.

That in fact puts a lower limit on the thickness of the lunar atmosphere. Here in Earth, Mt.Everest is an example of a location where humans can survive for a strictly limited amount of time. Now, there pressure there, as is well known, is about one third of the sea level pressure. Now that, Sir, is still a heck of a lot of air. It is entirely inconceivable that such amount of gas went unnoticed for millenia of observations, in particular during the eclipses. It is perplexing how you chose to ignore that type of simple logic.

Next to this statement:

And its thicker in different places on the moon.

That's impossible without breaking laws of physics.

Originally posted by zorgon
Even was posted at BAD ASTRONOMY…

Oh you mean the same Bad Astronomy where both amateur and professional astronomers make fun of you and Johns theories?

John Lear madness on Coast to Coast
Leery of John Lear
John Lear's 9/11 hologram theory (if it were any stupider, I'd bake a cake)

shhhhh!
You might not want to be sending folks over to that site…

Originally posted by Eddy_Jordan
Partly right, the forces would pull the atmosphere (made up of however many different gases) towards Earth and indeed many of those particles would reach the escape velocity, resulting in a thinner atmosphere on the Earth facing side of the moon.

Eddy, you imply that the gravitational constant on the surface of the moon changes significantly from one location to the other. This is an error on your part.