Johnson Space Center Shooting:It stinks!

Why would the media report on an event like this, only to bury it literally an hour or two after being reported live? When I was watching it all unfold live on TV, it just didn't sit right with me. I'll be honest and say that only a few months before that event, I'd discovered the whole 9/11 coverup and it kind of delved me into the oft-sktizoid world of conspiracy theories and paranormal blah blah. Most of it is bull#, to me... but there are cases that stick out in my mind across the board of conspiracy theories, and one of them is Gary Mckinnon stubling upon non-airbrushed photos of UFOs while he was hacking his way through NASA's computer systems... and something in the interview with him on Project Camelot's site stood out to me recently, and made me remember the NASA shooting. He said that this particular computer which contained UFO pictures was in building 8 of the JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, which I assume is the building where they do photographic work. Building 44, however, was a "satellite" tracking & communications center. As we all know, satellite is a very general word that describes ANY objects that are orbiting earth.. All reports say that the shooter was a "nice guy" and a "good employee" all the way up until the day of the shooting... and him along with the three or so hostages were seen sitting and having lunch together earlier that day. It just seems very suspicious to me that a good employe, nice guy would just all the sudden SNAP and reign misery down upon his friends/colleagues. It happens, but not normally, and NASA employees no doubt would've undergone extensive psychological tests and background checks before initial employment. They wouldn't have hired a potential snapcase with emotional problems to work in sensetive areas of a government facility. "He just snapped" is such an overused excuse to cover up truth, it's not even funny... plus the fact that before the shooter "killed himself", he scribbled a message of some sort on a whiteboard, which authorities have never revealed. I have always been very suspicious of what actually happened with this shooting and what the motives were. I don't buy that they haven't found any motives and just decided to stop investigating it because they deemed it unimportant. Something motivated him, and being fired just doesn't seem like a valid motivation. He had no history of being mentally disturbed or violent. He probably made enough money to be able to retire. He was old enough to!
If anyone has any information or theories as to what this incident was all about, please feel free to elaborate. Seems like even the conspiracy world has forgotten about this potentially significant event.

I'm not saying that this is evidence of anything, but maybe someone should investigate into it a little more, because I smell a dead rat. A big fat dead rat that the exterminator intentionally left, hoping no one would notice.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by indierockalien]

I am just replying to my own message to put this back up in recent posts, because I think it's important.

But, quite obviously, no one else does !

Obviously... but is that any reason not to continue to ask the question?

reply to post by indierockalien


Events like these are strewn through history. Look how the death of James Forrestal was swept under the rug.

rdolan.hostcentric.com...

Please discuss the topic at hand and not the reasons there have or have not been replies to this thread.

This is your one line post warning.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


Thank You,

yeah that dude was definitely "suicided". I'm wondering whether or not the Johnson Space Center thing had anything to do with either A) UFOs, or B) the extent to which the Star Wars program has been being implemented. I'm sure they would've kept this whole event out of the media if they could have, but the thing kinda uncontrollably spilled out onto the world stage, if only for a brief moment.
They did a good job of cleaning it up, though. I think even less people remember this than the amount of people that actually remember seeing live footage of building 7.

reply to post by indierockalien


Until I read your post about it, I had not heard of the shooting at the Space Center. It's the real stuff that you don't see or hear about that interests me, not the fluff that the networks present.

the only reason I think this is so important is because it was a major shooting event just like a day or two after the Virginia Tech shootings at a high security government compound. Either way, it should concern people. Whether there's a conspiracy or not, it's a major breach of security. Deserves at least a little more scrutiny than "Oh that's not as interesting as Freddy being [snip] probed by Zeta Reticulans."

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5-9-2007 by elevatedone]

Oh I understand completely about that there ARE more important issues out there, but I think that every once in a while, there are brief stories that are presented and then swept away which deserve someone dragging them back out from under the carpet and asking "Why did this happen?" because maybe they could provide a small unanswered piece of the puzzle, and dude come on, this is a tantalizing piece of forgotten recent history and I think there is a missing piece that could be recovered from this. A shooting at NASA? Some normally good employee just flips and kills everyone? He has lunch with the people he just so happens to take hostage a couple hours later? Something's not right.

reply to post by indierockalien


I don't disagree with you. In fact, I believe that operations at NASA aren't so rosey. Here is a portion of an interview with George Noory and Richard Hoagland about the deteriorating NASA program.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 5-9-2007 by DamnedDirtyApes]

oh and just to clarify, I wouldn't bank on a UFO/black-ops connection. It's a possible theory. maybe I shouldn't have thrown it out there for fear of people calling me names on this site haha.

i wonder why they didn't bring the NASA shooting up when talking about NASAs bad rep as of late?

[edit on 5-9-2007 by indierockalien]

reply to post by indierockalien


Good question. I thought it was interesting that Richard Hoagland calls NASA the false-front western town, and that they are not the real game in town. It's possible that all the dissent within NASA has a reason. Why not implicate the black-ops programs? The whole NASA program, one that we are to believe that their work is focused on the betterment of humanity and the continued exploration of space, is a fascade if we take what Hoagland says to be true. I wouldn't doubt that we've all been snowed.

I think Richard Hoagland is suspicious. I'm not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about in some aspects, but he's connected with groups like the ARE and the Freemasons and he WAS a consultant for NASA and a speaker at the UN... I dunno, either he has inside info, or he is disseminating dis-info mixed in with real info, or it's all fabricated disinfo, or he really does know what he's talking about and he's just made some slight errors in his research. Ya know, I just can't believe anyone connected with this field of UFOs and conspiracies fully, because they're always promoting a book or selling something. I mean, look at the Disclosure Project. This seemed to start out on a good note, but then after nothing came of it, the dude is obviously now just banking off the gullibles that still pay attention to and latch onto what he has said in the past. I don't wanna hear from a bunch of frickin people who have crap to peddle to me after their lectures. I wanna hear from people who have nothing to gain because then there's only two possibilities: either they are insane, or they are of sound mind and really have experienced something incredible. If they even have one item to try selling off their story, then they lose so much credibility, and I think I insulted Jim Sparks by saying that to him once. I can't 100 percent believe his story when he has a best selling book to promote.
Sorry, that was off topic, but yes I wonder why Richard Hoagland avoided this subject at hand. All I can think of is that he still has something to gain from not trashing the institution wholeheartedly.

he just trashes it enough to gain the confidence of the audience he's accumulated.

but I have my doubts that he's completely dropped all affiliation with NASA. I'm sure they paid him decent money for whatever purpose he served, and maybe still does serve.