NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure, page 15

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:22 PM

link

Originally posted by zorgon
.........We say Helium 3 and so does most of the world hence the new 'space race'

But Helium 3 is generated by the sun converting regular Helium to H3... its been doing this for thousands of years and the stuff is on the SURFACE... no deeper than three meters...

Now one thing everyone over looks in their zeal to debunk...

HE3 requires HELIUM to be formed from...

HELIUM is a gas, ergo it is in the ATMOSPHERE

So since there are over a TRILLION tons of HE3 on the moon, with a net value of 5.4 billion per ton... with enough energy that 25 tons would power the entire USA for 1 year ... and the fact that it is a clean non poluting source of fusion energy.......

There is a problem that i have with the atmosphere on the moon and that is because HE3 couldt be made on the moon because of the fact that there isn't an atmosphere ? Any thoughts or do i make a mistake ?

Further i have to say that I hope that there are buildings on the moon, ancient or not.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by webstra]

ZeuZZ

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:47 PM

link

whatever Gary McKinnon found, NASA have certainly done a very good job of shutting him up after the interview he did for the BBC which he told them what he saw on the computers. I remember watching it on the mainstream news and was impressed that something like this would get on mainstream TV. he really does divulage all, anti gravity, alien spaceships, the lot. Its rare as NASA have awknowledged that he did definately hack in (although guessing passwords can't really be described as hacking!). watch it here; www.youtube.com...

Anyway he's not coming out any time soon whatever he found, thats for sure. I expect that the same thing is going to happen to this guy.

rizla

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:01 PM

link

What would produce a breathable atmosphere on the moon? There are no trees or plants.

If there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon, why is there no sign of vegetation or other forms of life?

If there is an atmosphere, breathable or otherwise, why don't we see weather?

Jadefire

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:15 PM

link

Hello all!

I'm really quite interested about the contents of this book, and I'm considering ordering it online later this weekend.

I'm just a bit iffy on the credentials of the author Dr. Ken Johnston. I can't find any information proving that he ever worked for NASA. Can anybody confirm or deny this, or is he just another person claiming to work for a place that he quite possibly never held a job at?

On another note; has anybody read the book? What did you think? Worth buying?

Tuning Spork

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Jadefire
I'm just a bit iffy on the credentials of the author Dr. Ken Johnston. I can't find any information proving that he ever worked for NASA. Can anybody confirm or deny this, or is he just another person claiming to work for a place that he quite possibly never held a job at?

Not only have I not been able to find anything on Ken Johnston working for NASA, I can't find anything on his various claims, such as there being "five lunar module test pilots".

On another note; has anybody read the book? What did you think? Worth buying?

A couple of members in previous pages of this thread said they were reading it. Some said it was a fascinating read, but at least one, if I recall correctly, said it had no information or photos that were any more compelling than what's already been presented on ATS by John Lear, i.e.: highlighted rocks, mountains and craters that are claimed to be man-made structures like a "nuclear reactor" and a "parking garage".

EDIT to add: If you've seen my post near the bottom of page 13 you'll remember that Johnston/Hoagland completely misrepresented the reason why Johnston is no longer one of hundreds of volunteer "Solar System Ambassadors".

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Donoso

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:44 PM

link

reply to post by rizla

Simply put:

Because there is none. The visual evidence wouldn't be hard to find at all, once could look up at the moon any night to witness what they claim to be there. Oh but wait! There's OBVIOUSLY an illusion placed over it so we can't see it.

Artificial structures built by reproducing robots? Sure. Physicists agree that the best way to find life is to populate possible host planet's moons with such devices.

Breathable atmosphere? Trees? Veggies? That's just too far fetched. John should have stopped while there was some plausibility left in him.

zorgon

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:05 PM

link

Originally posted by SpaceMax
An atmosphere on the moon!
Where can I find the spectrograph data?

Well this is NOT a thread about the atmosphere on the moon... not sure how it got back to that... but I will answer your question..

Not easy to be sure...

Now the problem is not in establishing that there IS an atmosphere, merely how much... and I get a lot of conflicting data..

However I cannot at this time PROVE John's theory but I can certainly supply you with 'main stream science's version...

In 1996 November and December, remote FUV observations of the lunar atmosphere were conducted using the Berkeley spectrograph aboard the ORFEUS-SPAS II satellite. The main goal of the observations was to
measure the distribution of Ar above the lunar dayside for the first time and to search for another predicted atmospheric constituent, Ne.

ORFEUS II FAR-ULTRAVIOLET OBSERVATIONS OF THE LUNAR ATMOSPHERE

Observations of Sodium in the Lunar Atmosphere during International Lunar Atmosphere Week, 1995
Source

A Spectroscopic Survey of Metallic Species Abundances in the Lunar Atmosphere SOURCE

An Hubble Space Telescope Search for Magnesium in the Lunar Atmosphere

They told me Hubble wasn't able to image the moon... how about that??? SOURCE

OBSERVATIONS OF SODIUM IN THE LUNAR ATMOSPHERE
www.lpl.arizona.edu...

NASA Lunar Atmosphere fact Sheet
Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ;
Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+)
Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+)

Source

Sodium content hence the SAFFRON SKIES

SOURCE BOSTON UNIVERSITY

And here is a 1961 JPL/NASA study excerpt citing a Russian observatory spectrograph analysis in 1955 (the one that first recorded the bright glow of Aristarchus)

So it seems that every major institution KNOWS about the LUNAR ATMOSPHERE The only point of contention is how much

You know, the light goes through the prism, breaks into wavelengths, itty bitty dark lines show you what a material is made of kind of thing. (It's the way we know what stars and other things are made of)

You know that is very insulting, your insinuating we don't know what a spectrograph is. As your new here I will let it slide ONCE

I really need to know what this atmosphere is composed of.

Why, Planning a trip?

One other thing,

I can't seem to figure out how when a star or planet passes behind the moon, this atmosphere is apparently invisible, as the star or planet just disappears without any distortion at all. They just wink out. How is that possible?

Do you have any facts and figures to show me how high and how dense an atmosphere would have to be yo show this effect? Until you can show me this data I can easily see that an atmosphere low to the ground, free of water vapor and dust (most of the time - don't forget that NASA says the Moon sunset/sunrise rays are caused by levitating dust) may not be sufficient enough to show this effect.

However even NASA has a tracking document that does indeed contain observations of this effect

Speaking of lies, I just signed up here, and noticed that Rule #1 states-
1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.
It's a relief to know that the data you provide WILL be accurate and truthful!

Sounds like a threat LOL You sure know how to make friends fast

[edit on 2-11-2007 by zorgon]

zorgon

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:21 PM

link

Originally posted by SonicInfinity[/i
I have yet to see ANY proof in this topic about "disclosure".

So the statements from the Astronauts don't count?

Random User indeed

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteenPart of the responsiblity that is acquired with this is for the Clearance holder to keep his/her mouth shut. He ran his mouth off about Classified material, and was thus fired.

And yet all the skeptics here scream for "proof" and wonder why no one steps forward on CNN with documents....

Originally posted by stompk
How are they getting back and forth? Couldn't be the shuttle.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by zorgon]

Tuning Spork

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link

Zorgon. Welcome back!

Could you respond to my post on page 13, please? I'd love to read your thoughts.

zorgon

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link

Originally posted by thelibra
The confusion appears to be mutual, John. The very first link in the original post by Zorgon is a link to english.pravda.ru...

I don't see the confusion or the problem...

This article was not on CNN or any other major news source..

Is Enterprise Mission any more credible than Pravda? Both had the same version... (Maybe because it was an EM press release) as well as several other website... and the Book is real and has already been bought by many... so it is obvious the story carried by Pravda was true....

I see many people quote Wikipedia as a credible source, but anyone can edit that Schools here in Las Vegas do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a sources so where is the difference?

Most of the topics we discuss are rarely carried in the main stream news and all we have as a source is 'less reliable' sources... Usually they are checked out like we are doing here...

The other part of my OP was about NASA covering up a MAJOR safety issue... and THAT WAS carried in mainstream media... but we all seem to have swept that under the table here

I appreciate you 'doing your job', but I only posted the Pravda article after finding other sources... and as I said before... Pravda like Wiki has no copyright issues.

For future reference please be so kind as to post a list of unacceptable news sources so I might reference what is acceptable or not

Thanks

[edit on 2-11-2007 by zorgon]

Jadefire

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link

Thank you for the response Tuning Spork.

The Dark Mission website (www.darkmission.net...) claims that:

Despite Johnston's adamant refusal to resign, Ferrari subsequently ordered the removal of Ken's profile from the JPL website. Fortunately, we preserved a copy of it here.

(With "here" linking to: darkmission.net...)

That means - that his profile would still appear on the internet archive (web.archive.org...), right?

Edit: Nevermind, there are no records using this.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by Jadefire]

zorgon

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link

Originally posted by RWPBR
IIRC Helium in our atmosphere is the result of the decay of radioactive elements in the earths crust.

Thanks for that.... I had not looked into it on Earth

Originally posted by pmexplorer
My thoughts exactly. The longer this goes on the more it's credibility will be damaged, I do not mean to rain on the parade as it were, I was as excited as anyone when I signed in and saw this topic multi flagged and the likes of Zorgon posting here but as 'theySeeAll' put it, the only disclosure so far does not seem like anything overly significant or life changing or worthy of mainstream news exposure imho.

I fully agree... Before this came to light I have been hearing rumors that Hoagland had something big... yet I have not even found the press conference yet... surely there should be some news of it by now...

It seems no one else here has yet found it.. (assuming you are looking) Right now I think Hoagland owes John and me a free signed copy with all the publicity this will send his way... It was not and is not my intent to help him sell books... Unfortunately there is no way to discuss the topic without drawing attention...

But I especially was hoping 'this time we have a live one' Maybe if Ken Johnston had come to ATS.....

zorgon

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link

Originally posted by spikedmilk
can anyone elaborate on "datas head" and how it supposedly is giving NASA information?

"Data's Head" is Hoaglands 'artifact" I posted the original NASA images in the Moon Thread some time ago. You will have to ask Hoagland about that one...

Here are the originals...
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Be patient though I just talked to my server and they are doing work on the equipment my site is hosted on....

Jadefire

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link

Turning Spork, in regards to your post on page 13, I have proof that Ken Johnston was an ambassador for the JPL.

Please visit this link (www.google.com.au...).
If you click on the first link - it will not show his name. However, if you click "Cached" it will show his profile on the bottom - he has clearly been removed.

This is because Google takes a few weeks to update their cache.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by Jadefire]

zorgon

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link

Originally posted by Aelita
I agree with you. Instead of "Denying Ignorance" the ATS presents itself as promoting ludicrous fantasies of John Lear and ignorance that he embodies.

LOL You guys truly amaze me... I start a thread that has nothing to do with John Lear... it was about a scientist that Richard Hoagland is professing to have secrets to reveal... and before long you guys all come in here and start something against John Lear

Pravda is no good... Enterprise Mission and Mike Bara's site? well that is the source of this..

Selling books? Seems like but again what has that to do with John? It's Hoagland and Co making the bucks... and the story, true or false...

The flags on this thread are for the interest the topic generates nothing to do with John Lear

You guys toss around "Deny Ignorance" as if you know what it really means.. and you quote the T&C yet I bet you if I go through all your posts I will find comments directed against John that are knowingly false and malicious to boot...

I don't know how many threads I see the same 'skeptics' making the same 'attacks' no matter what the topic is... You guys must have very boring lives...

Aelita

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aelita
I agree with you. Instead of "Denying Ignorance" the ATS presents itself as promoting ludicrous fantasies of John Lear and ignorance that he embodies.

LOL You guys truly amaze me... I start a thread that has nothing to do with John Lear... it was about a scientist that Richard Hoagland is professing to have secrets to reveal... and before long you guys all come in here and start something against John Lear

Wait a second, dude, it was John Lear who came to this thread with a bunch of BS. The rest is a natural reaction of a working mind.

Pravda is no good...

Trust me, it's not. I can read Russian and that source is just not up to snuff.

I go through all your posts I will find comments directed against John that are knowingly false and malicious to boot...

I'll speak for myself. I find a statement that the pressure in the supposed lunar atmosphere is very much different between our side and the dark side pretty idiotic. You can call it malicious if you will, but unless you accept that the very basic laws of physics somehow don't apply to the moon (especially if John says so) you can't argue that he's posting a grave case of BS. Call me a skeptic for that. I just feel that to explore things outside of the ordinary you must have a good command of the ordinary, and John doesn't have any of that.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by Aelita]

Tuning Spork

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link

Originally posted by Jadefire
Turning Spork, in regards to your post on page 13, I have proof that Ken Johnston was an ambassador for the JPL.

There is no dispute over that Johnston was a Solar System Ambassador. The dispute is about the reason why he no longer is an Ambassador.

He claims that Kay Ferrari requested his resignation and that he refused, and that he then was, essentially and unceremoniously, expunged from the program.

Kay Ferrari -- contradicting the words put into her mouth in Johnston's press release -- says that she contacted Johnston after being told of his man-made-structures-on-the-moon theories. Rather than talk to her about it, he offered to resign as an Ambassador. She accepted, confirmed the circumstances in writing, and that was that.

Now Johnston is claiming that he was unduly "fired" from a job that he was never even paid to perform.

Since Kay Ferrari is the one who's not selling something, I'm inclined to take her word over Ken Johnston's.

Tuning Spork

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link

Originally posted by zorgon
LOL You guys truly amaze me... I start a thread that has nothing to do with John Lear...

Then why did you post it in the John Lear forum?

laiguana

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link

When is he going to disclose his information? In a book that one must PURCHASE? Sounds like a scam to me.

zorgon

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link

Originally posted by Dewm0nster
Do you have any actual proof of this?

What kind of proof are you looking for? Its funny how skeptics are always ready to state that because you cannot reveal your source, that the source does not exist...

(I will also post this in the 'Secret Space Station' thread as it is relevant to that topic]

Recently in the shuttle thread someone brought up "cloaking devices" This was said as a joke, a tactic skeptics like to use to hide their ignorance...

Okay so PAY ATTENTION..... CLOAKING is for real...

What I am about to post will cause repercussions I am sure... and there are some on here who will cringe and probably make a few phone calls (you know who you are) The skeptics will bristle and gaffaw...

Army tests James Bond style tank that is 'invisible'
SOURCE

Adaptive Camouflage
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
Aug 01 2000
[Note: Needs Registration... you may not get accepted...I don't know]

NASA Tech Briefs

I have forwarded both of these to my source and there are already some interesting 'events' triggered by these releases... (mainly due to patent issues)

Imagine for a moment a 'spray' that used nanotech... when you spray this 'paint' onto something, then 'beam' energy at it... the object so protected takes on the surrounding color IE a plane in the sky looks like the sky its flying in...

Imagine for a moment that this 'beam' energy was created when you power up HAARP...

Imagine this 'material' was developed in space...

Yes I know I have quite an imagination...

BUT
Those that KNOW are choking on their coffee right about now...
The Skeptics will call me crazy... but hey they already do that...
But those that want to know will take the hints and do some real digging...

Now here is a little note from the holder of this patent...

I am free to talk about any of my published US Patents which are in the public domain. I am, however, under an edict from DoD under the NSA to 'report any inquiries relative to the 'stealth patent'. I had a phone call from a person who identified himself as an 'Undersectetary of Defense' and the person read a statement to me which I later found was excerpted from the National Security Act, as amended. I was 'ordered' to report any inquiries of any kind, by anyone, to DoD relative to that case (patent). I've only had to do that one time in 20 years when a group of Isreali's, based in Philly, contacted me relative to undertaking collaboration on some 'project' in Haifa. I reported this as instructed and the group 'disappeared' shortly thereafter.

No I will NOT give you the patent number...
No I will NOT give you the name of this person...
(actually those that have followed my posts would have a clue as to who this is
)

I WILL recommend that if you do follow up you heed the above note because now you are tugging at the Tigers Tail, and he is looking back at you with big teeth

"My sources" or some other story covering why they can't present any of us with the REAL facts.

If YOU ever did any REAL research you would understand this... but all you do is come in to threads like this and toss around the T&C's (wondering if you actually read them
)

With posts like this, would it be fair for me to start posting about the five story, purple giraffe living in my back yard? Y'know- He's behind the fake moon landing.

That would be posting deliberate false information. Posting info from a confidential source is not false information... News reporter protect their sources as well and have gone to jail in that support, so stop being so childish and ignorant. When the DoD come visit your house, you will understand...

I'm for disclosure as much as everyone else on this board- But, where are the facts?

Are you really? Then tell me what have YOU done to find out any facts? Have you called NASA, or the DoD and asked them questions? Have you ever once filed even ONE Freedom of Information Act request form? Just how much DO you want disclosure? Are you willing to cross the line and look into Military websites in the not so easy to access (though still public) sites where they track who you are?

If you can answer yes to any one of these then I may believe your statement... otherwise you are just a hypocrite demanding others do the work and take the risks...

NOTE: The above statement is not directed at any one person... just a generic YOU if the shoe fits... and there are many in here with the same shoe size..

Continued.... stay tuned for Part Two

[edit on 3-11-2007 by zorgon]