NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by tezzajw
John's shown a couple of times how he got his neutral point number of around 43K miles.

He got it by postulating 64% of Earth gravity on Moon's surface, because he believes that somebody is mining the Moon. I don't see any proof of anything in a belief. In fact, the 64% was probably derived from the von Braun's quote (of unknown origin, as I have said a few times).

Also, how does measuring the voltage of your car (subject to many possible experimental flaws) compare to directly substituting numbers into an equation?

Because, if you read the threads with enough attention, you will realize that John is trying to use a quoted result of a measurement he thinks somebody actually made, and which was reported (supposedly) by von Braun. Again I'm telling you that there is zero information on that measurement and how that happened if at all. It has been suggested that at some point it was convenient to switch to the Moon system of reference when claculating the trajectory; Moon's gravity becomes just one order of magnitude lower than the Earth's at about 40k miles. That's one possible explanation and it fits with my battery example.

Here is one of a number of sources for the neutral point (that point at which the gravity of the earth equals the gravity of the moon stated in miles from the moon).

This is Eugene Cernan's book "The Last Man On The Moon" written with Don Davis. Copyright 1999 Eugene Cernan and Don Davis. St. Martin's Griffin, New York. ISBN 0-312-19906-6 (hc) ISBN 0-312-26351-1 (pbk) LOCC TL789.8.U6A52435 1999 629.45"0092-dc21[b]:





Note: Cernan is using "old, classic, bad physics data."







You can clearly see that Cernan is wrong because he states "we were in the moon's firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out". What Cernan doesn't know is that he can't be in the moon's firm hold until he gets to 24,000 miles out established by the "new, classic, good physics."

Sorry Gene.

This is getting nowhere.

As we say in Texas, "You show 'em books, and you show 'em books, and all they do is chew on the covers."

How about figuring out how this poor Johnston guy got sucked into the 'sphere of influence' of Hoaglandia?

Originally posted by JimO
This is getting nowhere.

This thread is getting nowhere because Ken Johnston (remember him?) will not answer his emails nor respond to questioning.

I have emailed him, requesting clarification, at all of his extant email addresses. (He's closed a very many of them in the past three weeks.) And I have yet to receive a reponse.

My guess is that he is running scared.

Thank you, ATS, for existing.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Ah! Yes! The infamous "Sphere of Influence". Even NAZA screwed that up.

Here is another of a number of sources for the neutral point (that point at which the gravity of the earth equals the gravity of the moon stated in miles from the moon).

This is Michael Collins' book, "Carrying the Fire An Astronaut's Journeys" Copyright 1974 by Michael Collins. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York LOCCC TL789.85.C64A33 629.4'092'4 [B] 74-7211:




Note: Houston is using "old, classic, bad physics data."




You can clearly see that both Houston and Collins are wrong because Collins, relying on Houston states "...we are only 34,000 nautical miles (39,440 statute miles) from the moon …the earth's pull has become dominant."

What Houston and Collins didn't know is that the earth's pull became dominant at 24,000 miles from the moon established by the "new, classic, good physics."

Sorry, Mike. You should have checked with ATS experts before you wrote this book. :

Although the original topic was about 'disclosure', I'll follow the 'thread' as it wends its way along...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the LaGrange Points yet. (sorry if that is misspelled).

Since I've been an avid Science Fiction reader for a few decades I've run across this term a few times. I write this just before going to bed, so I'm a little lazy right now...I'm sure someone can Wiki this before I get to it...

reply to post by johnlear


As I said a couple of times before, the switch over from the Earth reference to the Moon reference happened not at the neutral point, but way before it, to provide better continuity of the trajectory calculations as the craft was approaching the Moon. The fact of the switch over was indeed communicated from Houston to astronauts and for them it was a symbolic moment, and it is despicted as such in the books you quoted. The exerpt below is from the flight journal. Note that "Sphere of Influence" is defined as the point where the lunar gravity can no longer be neglected (note "we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity").

Flight Dynamics officer advised us moments ago that while the crew is sleeping at 59 hours, 19 minutes, 45 seconds, we're scheduled to cross that mythical line known as the lunar Sphere of Influence, the point of which we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity on the spacecraft. Our displays here in Mission Control shortly after that point are generally switched over to Moon reference from Earth reference.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the LaGrange Points yet. (sorry if that is misspelled).

Spelling is correct, except for the capital 'G' . See also

en.wikipedia.org... .

That's "good physics", and therefore maybe the reason no-one has mentioned it here

Originally posted by z-bar

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the LaGrange Points yet. (sorry if that is misspelled).

Spelling is correct, except for the capital 'G'

. See also

en.wikipedia.org... .

That's "good physics", and therefore maybe the reason no-one has mentioned it here

Truth be told, I solved the equations found on this page earlier this morning :
www.phy6.org...

and the result isn't very different from a simplified inverse squares calculation... However, if you look at the eqiupotential surface plot on the Wikipedia page (just as an example, as it depicts the Sun and the Earth), you'll see that you can go quite a bit further from the smaller celestial body and still be on the same level of the potential. So yes, it's illustrative.

Here's another pair of messages I've submitted to Bara's blog -- with little expectation he will post them. Ity might be fun for readers here to actually try and locate the origin of Johnston's PhD 'deploma'.

------------
Message submitted Nov 28 // 11:52 AM CST

Let's review:

Thread started October 6, 2007 – Ken Johnston Answers Commentators Questions

Paragraph 3 line 6-7: “I hold …two advanced degrees from the Reformed Baptist Seminary, one in Theology and the other PhD in Metaphysics.”

Step one: Locate the “Reformed Baptist Seminary”, and ask if they grant PhDs at all. Academic dean Dr. Robert Gonzales says they do not (he does not even have to look of “Johnston” on a list, since the degree claimed by Johnston has never been granted by his school).

Step two: Bara posts “Stupid Blog Post - #2” on November 21, 8:23 AM, presenting a ‘deploma’ (right click the image, select ‘properties’, and read the file name – ‘deploma’) from a school NOW called “The Reform Baptist Theological Seminary” in Denver, Colorado.

Document image is here: bp1.blogger.com...

Deduction: Johnston merely misremembered or misspoke when he claimed the school was called the “ReformED Baptist Seminary”. In any case, Bara’s posting is tacit admission that Johnston’s original claim of the school’s name was untrue. Easy enough to fix – and no big deal, it’s why VERIFICATION is always a sensible, prudent policy.

Step three: some posters launch vicious verbal assault on Dr. Gonzales for being lazy, incompetent, arrogant, and a liar to boot.

Deduction: Dr. Gonzales’s statement was actually totally accurate, as Bara conceded in posting the corrected name of the school – another school entirely.

Step four: Having caught one error (of undetermined origin) in Johnston’s claimed credentials, just to be cautious, check out the nature of the PhD program at the institution called “The Reform Baptist Theological Seminary” in Denver, Colorado. I encourage anybody interested in the dispute to perform this step independently. The first step, I suggest, is to find it. Go and try.


===
submitted Nov 28, 12:01 PM CST

Completion of USMC jet school during the Vietnam era incurred a six year 'duty commitment' to actually fly airplanes and get a payback for the expensive program. What I can't figure out is why, a year after completing the PRE-flight portion of training, Ken is suddenly a civilian, working for Grumman -- where he becomes a "test pilot" who somehow never gets off the ground again. Now, those circumstances strike me as suggestive of significant issues that are being withheld by the parties involved.

reply to post by JimO


And I'm still at loss as to how the (most likely fake) degree in theology that Johnston claims to possess relates to his ability to make determinations in the realm of space flight and extraterrestrial photography. Blah.

And I'm still at loss as to how the (most likely fake) degree in theology that Johnston claims to possess relates to his ability to make determinations in the realm of space flight and extraterrestrial photography

Well, this "deploma" is pretty cheesy looking, I suppose the printer was hungover on this particular New Years Day. Being MetaPhysics, I guess he merely needed the "essence" of the topic to qualify his expertise.

It's also illuminating to google the names listed as school officials.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Not to be a "negative Nancy" by lets look at this guy. He's a scientist who was FIRED from NASA, and wrote a book. He has no presentable proof of any of his allegations, allegations which come out only after he writes a book, not while in the office he once held, perhaps just trying to make a few quick bucks.

I mean, I can work for Lockheed Martin, get fired, then go write a book and claim that lockheed Martin was reverse engineering Extraterrestrial technology to put into stealth bombers, it doesn't make it true.

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

Sorry, I need ALOT more evidence then that.

I have to agree with your logic on this. However, you should seriously reconsider the order in which you start your statement. Instead of "was fired, and then wrote a book" you may want to say, "wrote a book making some major assumptions/claims, then was fired". That's quite an important sequence.

What I mean is, if he was fired first and then wrote this book then he is going to be out for blood and revenge.

Granted, without any real proof it all comes down to he said/she said once again.

As usual it makes for a great topic of discussion. As usual I go back to my own reality to continue to make enough money to feed my family and put a roof over their heads while the big questions remain unanswered.

Originally posted by dariousg
Instead of "was fired, and then wrote a book" you may want to say, "wrote a book making some major assumptions/claims, then was fired". That's quite an important sequence.

Just to pick nits, he wasn't "fired" at all, nor did he "write a book".

Johnston was a source for Dark Mission, but not one of the co-authors. When Kay Ferrari of the Solar System Ambassador program was contacted by JimO regarding Johnston's curious claims, Ferrari contacted Johnston about this. Johnston offered to resign from the program rather than answer her questions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Edit: fixed link (I hope)

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Originally posted by JimO
It's also illuminating to google the names listed as school officials.

The only name I could definately make out is Charles Lee Meininger. Neither a google nor a yahoo search turned up anyone of that name.

However, I'm presuming that the "dean of the seminary" name in the upper right is William T. Conklin.

Here's what I found on William T. Conklin of Denver, Colorado:

William Conklin (Anti-IRS.com)

William Conklin claims to have won multiple cases against the IRS. However, Mr. Conklin is truth impaired. In fact, as noted below, he has lost every case on record. He argues that "the income tax is voluntary" and that "the Fifth Amendment...is the best issue that has ever been raised in the Freedom Movement".

Pennsylvania Attorney Dan Evans on his brilliant site The Tax Protester FAQ debunks Conklin rather easily:

You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

Mr. Evans goes on to state the following about Mr. Conklin:

William T. Conklin claims to be successful in fighting the IRS, and has described himself as a "known tax protester like Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington." Conklin v. United States, KTC 1994-259, Case No. 89-N-1514 (D. Col. 1994). Unfortunately, his claims of success are contradicted by the public record, because he has lost every case on record. See, e.g., Conklin v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 41 (1988); Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1992-318; Church of World Peace, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-87; Church of World Peace, Inc. v IRS, 715 F.2d 492; United States v. Church of World Peace, 775 F.2d 265; Conklin v. United States, 812 F.2d 1318; Conklin v. C.I.R. , 897 F.2d 1032; Tavery v. United States, 897 F.2d 1027; Tavery v. United States, Civ. No. 87-Z-180, USDC Colorado.

A posting on the Netscams message board states the following about Mr. Conklin:

Posted by Brian on July 27, 19101 at 15:07:08:
Bill Conklin from Denver, Co. takes a $900 fee up front to supposedly help people with irs problems, he doesn't know his butt from a hole in the floor, he is a royal rip- off artist taking advantage of innocent folks who believe waht (sic) they see on his web site or hear from. Please don't let this con artist make you his next victim!

Take Brian's advice. Bill Conklin is a fraud and the further you distance yourself from this charlatan the better.

www.etaxes.com...


I wonder how much Conklin bilked Ken Johnston for that "PhD in MetaPhysics deploma".





[edit on 29-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

For Meininger I found his obit, he 'spent a lot of years in radio broadcasting', his sister said. No church work. And Whitsit is listed as president of an auction house. I hadn't recognized 'Conklin', that might be a stretch...

JimO,

Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the above post. I found Conklin's name on this message board: www.baptistboard.com...

About 3/4 of the way down, written by rlvaughn on 06-14-2001, 2:52pm:

Finally (unrelated to previous posts), have you ever heard of the Colorado Reform Baptist Church? Melton's 1989
Encyclopedia of American Religions mentions it, but I have never seen it mentioned elsewhere. It is not "Reformed", but Arminian and involved in social activism. Supposedly had about 28 churches and it's Bishop was William T. Conklin of Denver, CO. Thought you might have heard of it since you're out that way.

Granted, it could be a different William T. Conklin of Denver, Colorado. Or rlvaughn, of course, may have been misinformed. But after reading the above snippet, I presumed that that signature was Conklin's.

I'm half tempted to contact Conklin through his website, anti-irs.com... . He actually provides a phone number in addition to a fax number and email address. But, maybe that'd be a job for ol' JimO...?




[edit on 29-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Seems to me, 'Ken Johnston' has been debunked. Not to be a critical thinker here, I admit I didn't do the research, but I must ask the question: Is what I read on this forum, even with the references, and the horrible "Deploma"...is what we see/read here on ATS accurate? I mean, I know we try to be as truthful as possible (at least I do)...


Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything, and if I missed the definitive proof, apologies...

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Tuning Spork, you are an exemplary internetinvestigator!!!

Conklin is EXACTLY the guy who founded and ran the 'Theological Seminary'. We talked by phone this morning.

Here's a note I've just posted on Bara's blog:

submitted 2:30 pm CST, Friday, Nov 30

Well, now that I have located and talked with the man identified on the 'deploma' as "Dean of the Seminary", I have a much better understanding of what the piece of paper represents. To begin with, he insisted that a 'Doctor of Metaphysics' degree is NOT a 'PhD' and nobody has any right to term it as such. We also discussed what the requirements had been for obtaining this piece of paper from the corporation he had set up and operated for about a decade, in the 1980s.

Time to take a deep breath and step back. Cool off. Ken Johnston, despite (as Mike has stated) not agreeing with most of the fundamental claims in Dark_Mission, has been sucked into this conflict with his specific Apollo-era allegations. Maybe deeper than he had originally intended.

It's time to ask Ken to clarify, in the light of highly inflated claims made by others about him, three things:

1. What was his real degree of responsibility and authority over Apollo mission imagery while he was doing his duties at the Lunar Receiving Lab? How many people (if any) worked for him? Did he have any responsibility for 16-mm motion films? I have already talked with Dr. Mike Duke and Dr. Jeffrey Warner, mentioned in the certificates, and with the chief of the LRL, Dr. Bryan Erb.

2. Dark_Mission portrays Ken as a "Marine fighter jock" and "test pilot". Realizing that graduation records from military flight school are on the public records, Ken should specify the level of flight training he actually achieved, including what (if any) aircraft he ever actually flew (as pilot). Flying simulators and ground trainers, alas, does not count as 'flight time' in most official books.

3. Dark_Mission and this blog refer to him as "Dr. Johnston". Ken should specify what it actually took for him to obtain the certificate posted here, and on what basis that certificate as written justifies use of the academic title (especially as the school involved doesn't seem to ever have been accredited -- according to the guy who founded it!).

I urge him to be forthcoming on these details, rather than wait for somebody else to publish the public record information (albeit often difficult to obtain) that differs in so many substantial ways from the widely-circulated claims (many of them NOT Ken's fault).

Then we can properly assess the testimonial evidence that Ken has offered about this controversy.

Please forward this note to Ken for his own consideration of a response. Stop exploiting his enthusiasm and generosity (and genuine contributions to the space program in many ways) for promoting a cause that he actually may have little in common with. And less and less, as his reputation is exploited for book promotional purposes.