Absolute Disclosure

reply to post by guyfrom2007


That's not a skull....it's a Stormtrooper's helmet!

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Vandermast]

reply to post by schuyler


And anyone who has worked for or with NASA and NASA-affiliated scientists knows that it's utter rubbish. Mike Griffin's religion is golf, not mysticism.

Do you know about a phenomenon called Pareidolia ?

Thanks for sharing the meaning of this word. But I have heard about this before.

This skull like object and others that have been discovered on Mars images are not as vague as the images you have shown as examples.

Besides, this has been cited not only by the Dark Mission team but also by others.

Anyway I am not saying that this or any particular object is proof of life on mars.

What I want to point out is that NASA makes no effort to investigate what these objects are and give a more logical answer. Instead it only tries to criticize people who point them out.

Taken into account other facts that NASA ignores investigating curious stuff and instead drills through most unlikely stones and sand storms seems like they do not want to focus on any of these stuff.

That is such a waste of Tax Payer money. And that makes me somewhat agree with the Dark Mission team that NASA maybe Lying after all.

If anyone looks at the history of these images from Viking to MRO, it is very clear that NASA throws up images that are manipulated.

Why do they do this skulduggery?

Someone said here that the Chinese and Japanese are going to the Moon and later on Mars.

Why not Venus or Mercury or other planets?

Don't you think this renewed interest is probably because they are taking notice of the images that was presented here and elsewhere.

But I doubt they will share anything with the rest of the world. Instead they will try to blackmail the US into getting some kind of deal.

I have to agree, the images posted for examples were pretty poor, but I understand what the point is.

I think the most relevant stuff here is the small stuff. Why do they purposely manipulate photos to make it a different color? It can be proven without a doubt that this is the case. What is the point if you are not trying to cover something up? There are just too many things that don't add up, and there is no reasonable explanation why.

So seeing that this press con. is just a little under a week away then we don't have to wait months to find out who's crazy and who's full of crap or who's just marketing do we..?

My impression is.. Hoagland is for real. He's got new pictures he wants to show. I will give them a look see.

reply to post by tsloan


Bill you are exactly right.

Why Has NASA Concealed Their Confirmation of “ET Ruins on the Moon” … Ever Since Apollo?

Why Did NASA itself – over Thirty Years Ago – BEGIN the lie… that “NASA Never Went to the Moon?”

Why Has NASA Consistently Lied About the Color of the Skies on Mars?

Why Has NASA carefully Concealed Gil Levin’s 1976 Viking Discovery of Microbial Life on Mars?

Why Has NASA Continually Suppressed the reality of intelligently-designed “artifacts on Mars?”

Did NASA Also Find – and Then for over Thirty Years Carefully Suppress – the Apollo Astronauts’ Stunning Discovery of a Race of Intelligent Robots on the Moon … which They Also Secretly Brought Back to Earth?

Did NASA, by its Relentless, 30-Plus-year Suppression of the Greatest Discovery in the History of the Human Race – the Existence of Other Intelligent Beings in the Solar System – Somehow Contribute to the Assassination of President John Kennedy?

Your kidding right? If you're serious, I would very much like to see evidence to support these WILD claims. It would be incredibly fascinating if true.

reply to post by sputniksteve


Unless the information is brand new and nothing he has said before, I'd think the News Reporters were there to make fun of him. If he has new information that is for real, I'll admit it without hesitation. I'm not here because I don't believe. I'm here looking for proof, but if it is here it is hidden among so many lies I'd have to quit work just to find it.

That link that is missing was some detailed information about his deception. Strange it is not working. Anyone here working for or with him??? I'm not prone to fantasy. It was there yesterday. The word Hacked comes to mind. Could be anything. If it comes back up I'll post it again.

I never really considered it before, but people like him probably read these threads daily? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Here is a link to the home page. If it does not work, it is badastronomy.com
This is a blog by someone who appreciates truth.
Link

This is what NASA says Mars looks like.




Here is what Mars really looks like.



[edit on 25-10-2007 by aceace]

As everyone has more or less mentioned, these people that say they have hard physical evidence never produce it, and from that point on you can ignore everything they have to say and call them a crackpot. This includes ALL of them, from Phil Schneider to Hoagland and everyone in between.

If they have proof, bring it forward. Money or not they will be famous (or infamous) for the duration of humanity's existence.

Photos of crap on the moon will never make the public stir. Photos are never going to prove anything anymore.

Originally posted by KaiBosh
This includes ALL of them, from Phil Schneider to Hoagland and everyone in between.

If they have proof, bring it forward. Money or not they will be famous (or infamous) for the duration of humanity's existence.

So Phil missing half of his hand doesn't mean anything.... and then mysteriously dead a few months later? Whatever? You live on here to debunk and thats it. Just admit it.

You asked for evidence that NASA doctored Mars photos. I gave it to you. Now go back to sleep and leave us alone.

Originally posted by disownedsky
reply to post by schuyler

 

And anyone who has worked for or with NASA and NASA-affiliated scientists knows that it's utter rubbish. Mike Griffin's religion is golf, not mysticism.

Geez, I am truly disappointed. I really thought Nowak had a chance at heading it up, but I guess the thought of it just made her wet her pants.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

If they actually had the Smoking Gun they would be selling it to a good Publisher or Producer for millions instead of doing the marketing this way.

[edit on 10/24/2007 by Blaine91555]

As someone who works in the book industry, I can tell you that Dark Mission's publisher (Feral House) is a solid, independent, "art house" publishing company, focusing on the darker side of humanity. They have some very popular, quality books in their catalog. "Quality" meaning content and production value. Dark Mission is no exception.

It's no secret that big companies don't take risks, not just with books, but with films, video games, food products, music, and pretty much any consumer product. A book accusing the overall most well respected government agency of a such a lie is a huge risk no matter how convincing the evidence. Besides, mere evidence and facts aren't enough these days to convince people of anything. Need I remind everyone that most Americans believe in creationism and a young Earth, regardless of what science tells us? It's hard getting a lot of creationists to even look at let alone consider the evidence (of something else, not limited to evolution), and this is the same problem we have with questions of artificial structures on the moon and Mars. A mass publisher is meaningless.

The Skeptical Inquirer article by Gary Posner was a character assassinating hit piece filled with half truths and lies. Here is Richard Hoagland's response, which I encourage you to read for balance:

Response to Skeptical Inquirer

It includes answers to criticisms of Phil Plait (www.badastronomy.com) as well.

Cheers.

Originally posted by curiousbeliever
It would be unfortunate to hear if Hoagland and Johnston myseriously die over the next week, though...

[edit on 24-10-2007 by curiousbeliever]

FYI Ken Johnston was just fired by NASA on October 23 for his story being published in Dark Mission. A little odd, since Johnston began telling his story years ago. It even appears in Hoagland's last book, Monuments of Mars. Why not fire him when he first made his accusations?

Ken Johnston Fired

Haha, what?! I am here to debunk? I am here to get the truth. Your circular logic is exactly what these people prey upon. Phil Shneider has several fingers missing. Phil says it happened when a Grey hit him with a death ray. OMG! That is proof!

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Do you see any tigers? OMG! That is proof!

Please people, we all want disclosure, and PROOF. We don't have it yet, and we may never have it.

I think they may have found the lost tapes of Apollo's flight to the moon. What do ya'll think?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ytsejames
FYI Ken Johnston was just fired by NASA on October 23 for his story being published in Dark Mission. A little odd, since Johnston began telling his story years ago. It even appears in Hoagland's last book, Monuments of Mars. Why not fire him when he first made his accusations?

For this post I am not taking a position on the efficacy of his statements, but having worked in civil service/government positions for a very long time, I'd like to address the issue of firing an employee.

It can be difficult. It is strewn with rules that are hazardous, and in the end, it is usually a folly. The civil service system does not always produce the best managers or the best HR systems, so attempts at firing someone can often result in a fiasco. Employees are not without protection, but it can be extremely peculiar at times. I've had a stint in HR, having written a couple of staff manuals myself, and I've also made my share of mistakes that would leave a professional shaking his or her head in amazement.

The bottom line appears to be that they have to "get you" breaking a written rule you had to have known about. Preferrably, you should have signed a statement saying you read the foregoing and agree that if you violate any of the provisions set forth herein you will be terminated. I was involved as a manager trying to SAVE one of my employees because she violated a very minor 'rule' that had been 'officially published' in a staff newsletter, buried in the midst of a long-winded several-page document that no one ever read. The HR Director was dead set on firing her. I resisted saying it was ridiculous to hold her to a single sentence that had been printed in an obscure place a year prior. But the HR Director was a 'piece of work' and considered his honor was at stake. The ONLY thing that saved her, frankly and unfortunately, was that she was African American, so they were afraid she would bring suit as a protected class. I wrote her defense for her, which the administration accused me of and which I denied. I'm sorry I used the 'race card.' It was all I had to save her, a good employee, from a totally unfair termination that was slipping out of my control. the whole thing pitted me against a narcissistic personnel manager that should never have been hired in the first place. The entire affair hurt me as a senior manager. Things were never quite the same after that. (I quit as soon as I could. My boss got fired for screwing up my replacement. Revenge is best tasted cold.)

Now, I've seen cases where they DID manage to GET someone. A police chief was fired because the city could prove beyond a doubt that he made three two-minute phone calls on the statewide "SCAN" telephone system provided for city and state business for something private. (A call to his wife? A dentist appointment?) It didn't matter. He 'violated a rule' and that was a firing 'for cause.' They didn't like him. They just waited for an excuse. Then they pounced. They couldn't get him on the substance of their complaints, so they got him on some minor details.

This is what I suspect happened in this case. Johnston had been a thorn in NASA's side for years. He obviously was disloyal to NASA in their eyes. Somehow he managed to skirt the letter of the employment law to stay employed. I would just bet that they quietly 'changed a rule' when he wasn't paying attention, something that was once 'OK' but suddenly was a violation of policy, and when he 'screwed up,' they pounced. It was a trap set years prior.

It's the same thing here at ATS. There are Terms & Conditions. If you 'violate' them you can be banned. There was a change recently where it is now a violation to make public a U2U sent to you privately. You may not have seen it because the only place it was 'published' was in the admin forum (Q&A I think). Of course, it IS in T&C now, but if you haven't read it lately, you wouldn't know. So you could very easily find yourself in a situation because you didn't know. Now, if anyone were banned and had the wherewithall to take this to court, there is a pretty good chance that ATS would lose. Case law is well-established on the ownership of received letters: They are owned by the recipient. But ATS would use the argument that this is a private organization, therefore they can make up any rules they want. Of course, you would have to expensively litigate the point with the chance of losing, and that's how lots of people and organizations get away with a lot of abuse. FOR THE RECORD: I have no problem with this ATS rule and happen to agree with it.

But, I just wanted to set forth some of the issues. I'm just speculating. I have no inside information. But this situation is typical. I would think Johnston could appeal this decision and make a lot of publicity with it. It looks like it has already started.


[edit on 10/25/2007 by schuyler]

Blaine do you have anything disproving anything that Hoagland has presented by chance? I couldn't find anything about him on Bad Astronomy blog by the way, do I need to search for it or was it suppose to be on the front?