NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

reply to post by Stari

Hi, does anyone have the link to the original image of "data's head" from NASA public image archive? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I have searched through alot of images of Shortys crater and can't find the one image that shows the head.

I think you will find it was from Apollo 17, AS17-137-20997 to be exact.

You can find it here

Find the turkey rock and look north.

This post added to get to the next page.

Originally posted by Nohup
This thread appears to have veered off into the uncharted space of unrelated images and accounts, never to return to its original subject.

At this point, then, it appears that the "NASA Scientist" has not offered anything that might be called "disclosure." Or if he has, then I've apparently missed that Earth shaking news, because I would expect it to gain as much attention as, say, the Alien Autopsy film. Since it has not, I assume that if the guy said anything, it wasn't anything noteworthy, and yet another promise of disclosure fizzles like a wet firecracker.

I agree with nohup. I think the topic of the thread was exhausted, so to speak. The person was not a scientist but a technician, he in all likelyhood was not fired, and absolutely nothing was "disclosed".

I encourage posters to place the new interesting info (like the astronauts observing UFOs) in a new thread so it's easier to locate and follow. Let this thread die in peace.

I agree, there is nothing more to discuss concerning this without more info from the source, and it will take a while for this to pan out. Lets concern ourselves with updates based on reality, and forget the crybaby cover up bs until we have some more to go on.

Originally posted by buddasytem
I encourage posters to place the new interesting info (like the astronauts observing UFOs) in a new thread so it's easier to locate and follow. Let this thread die in peace.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I agree, there is nothing more to discuss concerning this without more info from the source, and it will take a while for this to pan out. Lets concern ourselves with updates based on reality, and forget the crybaby cover up bs until we have some more to go on.

I want to thank you both for your participation in this thread and your input.

I personally am sad to see each of you depart and wish you the best on your new threads.

To anyone else I will be posting here on this thread on the revelations and details of the Ken Johnston story contained with the book “Dark Mission” Copyright2007 Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara.

There are those who would seek to promote and embellish the 50 year old NAZA lie about the Moon, Venus and other planets. And they are welcome to their opinion. They weave and bob and attempt to insert what they call “mainstream science” and “we know this” when in fact it is ALL pure, unadulterated speculation. All of it.

Thanks again IgnoreTheFacts and Buddasystem, you are welcome back anytime. Unless, of course, this thread ‘dies in peace’. Ho Ho Ho!

reply to post by johnlear

They weave and bob and attempt to insert what they call “mainstream science” and “we know this” when in fact it is ALL pure, unadulterated speculation. All of it.

Yeah, that's right we use mainstream science, because it is repeatable and verifiable. You claim to know all this stuff, but never, not once, tell us the specific details about scientific instruments and procedures that puts you off. As if every scientist in the world is a part of your silly conspiracies..

What is it about the measuring instruments of mainstream science, which are (again) repeatable and verifiable, that leads you to believe that they are in on your conspiracies?

I mean, did they design a spectrometer to fool us all? Do all rulers lie to us as well? How about simple math, is that something you don't trust, either? I mean, does 2+2 really equal 4.167 in your world?

What's funny is you use the buzzword "mainstream" because you know that it is received around the tin foil hat crowd as being a negative word, as everyone here is "bucking the man" so to speak, and can't subscribe to anything "mainstream" or they might loose their grip on fantasy. Everybody wants to be cool, and mainstream is not cool, right?. So by using terminology that you know rallies woo woos to your defense you again don't have to bother explaining the details of your deceptions to those of us that see right through them.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Originally posted by johnlear
are those who would seek to promote and embellish the 50 year old NAZA lie about the Moon, Venus and other planets.

I find this to be quite a statement, John. There was a call from the mods to maintain a "scholarly" discussion on this and other threads and this is not it. I personally do not seek to promote any lies whatsoever. How do I know what is a lie and what's not? Through observing verifiable and repeatable facts. In view of this, most of things I hear from NASA are not lies and most of things I hear from you, well, you know...

They weave and bob and attempt to insert what they call “mainstream science” and “we know this” when in fact it is ALL pure, unadulterated speculation.

Right, and your story about the Giant Soul Catching Machine on the surface of the Moon is not a speculation?

I beg your pardon. I know that the Moon rotates around Earth in 28 days give or take, and it's not a speculation. I also know that this fact that most humans and animals are aware of, is not compatible with the fables that you like to tell. It is pretty lame on your part, sir, to come out and try to besmirch science. You yourself owe so much to it. Even the capability to boradcast your pure, unadulterated speculations to thousands of unsuspecting listeners.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

please disregard this post.........sorry

[edit on 16-11-2007 by spikedmilk]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by johnlear
are those who would seek to promote and embellish the 50 year old NAZA lie about the Moon, Venus and other planets.

I find this to be quite a statement, John. There was a call from the mods to maintain a "scholarly" discussion on this and other threads and this is not it.

Thanks for the post BS. So I can assume you think the word 'scholarly' means "same old mainstream propaganda".

Right, and your story about the Giant Soul Catching Machine on the surface of the Moon is not a speculation?

Well, let me ask you BS. What would be your best argument against the tower shown in LO-III-84M NOT being a Big Soul Machine On The Moon?

I beg your pardon. I know that the Moon rotates around Earth in 28 days give or take, and it's not a speculation

Well. at least thats a start BS. Many people don't even know that much.

But thanks for the post and your input.

Originally posted by Nohup
At this point, then, it appears that the "NASA Scientist" has not offered anything that might be called "disclosure."

This so far is true... There is no word of what was said at the Hoagland Nasa "scientist's" disclosure...

There has been more disclosure on the CNN front and again an offshoot also at the NPC So why if this is National Press can we not get the details ?


Oh well...

In the meantime a little trip back in time... here is some REAL disclosure for you

Watch this video...

Google Video Link

Now we all know that you can't see stars in NASA photos of the Moon...

And we have all heard the skeptics reasons...

Well in the above press release taken just after they got back Micheal Collins cannot remember seeing any stars...


Well I guess his memory improved a lot... since in his new book "Carrying the Fire" he makes THIS remarkable statement...

``Outside my window I can see stars, and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars. To compare the sensation with something terrestrial, perhaps being alone in a skiff in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a pitch-black night would most nearly approximate my situation.''

scholar.lib.vt.edu...

So what is the reason for this turnaround? Surely both versions cannot be true... So either he had a memory lapse... or he outright lied in the press release...

Now another twist to the story....

Browsing around APOD (NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day) I found an composite image of what the sky would look like on Earth IN THE DAY TIME if there was no atmosphere....



antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So that leaves me with two possibilities...

A) NASA airbrushed out all the stars in the Moon images
or
B) The atmosphere on the Moon is dense enough so you cannot see Stars in the daytime...

What President Bush thinks about Disclosure...

reply to post by WolfofWar


You said it, stealth tech. Don't you think it's odd no other nation has figured it out yet except us? Maybe we do have a 40 or 50 year lead in this area. Or do we have something much much more, that came from somewhere else!

reply to post by zorgon


Watch the video again, Zorgon. What Michael Collins said was that he didn't remember seeing any stars during the time that they were photographing the solar corona.

reply to post by zorgon

The lack of stars is not an attack on the things you believe. It is a simple fact of Photography and if you were to actually pick up a camera and learn the basics you would never be able to use that as evidence again without lying. Do you really want to prove something so badly you are willing to to be intellectually dishonest enough to venture that far from the truth to get people to believe. Very disingenuous. I had kept a small space in my thoughts available for the fact there might be artifacts on the Moon. This sort of thing drives me away. Purposefully misleading people does not help any argument.

Pick up a camera and learn the truth. Unless the truth is not what you want. I think you already know the stars argument is pure fabrication and ignorance of the truth. At least with the pictures there is a possibility. It is a shame you have chosen that path.

If you are in fact familiar with cameras and how they work; shame on you.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Watch the video again, Zorgon. What Michael Collins said was that he didn't remember seeing any stars during the time that they were photographing the solar corona.

You need to watch the video again tuning Spork.

Michael Collins only says five words:

"I don't remember seeing any."

But thanks for the post.

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

Narrator: Collins wants us to believe that during his entire trip to and from the moon he never bothered to look out the window

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Pick up a camera and learn the truth.

Well that would do me little good because to be able to test whether or not my photos would show stars on the Moon... I would have to BE on the Moon

Personally I think the matter of no stars to be very important... I find it interesting that all of a sudden NASA is posting images of Stars in space...

I can also take a picture of a sunset and catch Venus with no problem... I cannot accept that there is not one star in any photo of the Moon... I have seen the stars from the top of Bryce Canyon on a cold clear winter night...

I do not believe that they would not have taken one shot, EVEN IF they needed to do a time exposure... just because of how fantastic it must look..

Yet Neil says...
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.

So what would be so different up there? Supposedly NASA says no atmosphere... then posts the APOD image of what the sky SHOULD look like without atmosphere...

You can call 'foul' all you like... I don't buy the 'official' version... With all the antics like the golf ball etc that these astronauts do... surely ONE of them would have made an effort to record the stars

Something is not right here





[edit on 17-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics.

To me and my poor understanding of the English language this sounds like he could not see the stars without some means of blocking the stronger light sources, i.e. the Sun and the reflecting surface of the Moon.

I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

To me, this sounds like Armstrong is saying that he did saw some stars but he can not remember what starts did he saw, and Collins says that he does not remember seeing any in the same situation, not during the whole time.

I can also take a picture of a sunset and catch Venus with no problem... I cannot accept that there is not one star in any photo of the Moon... I have seen the stars from the top of Bryce Canyon on a cold clear winter night...

And have you seen them during the day? That is what most people say, we can not see any stars on the Moon photos because they were taken during the day, and the camera was programed for surface photos, not for star photos.

I cannot accept that there is not one star in any photo of the Moon...

There are some photos that show the stars but they weren't taken on the Moon's surface, they were taken in orbit.

All images from the Apollo Image Atlas.

Originally posted by ArMaP

To me, this sounds like Armstrong is saying that he did saw some stars but he can not remember what starts did he saw, and Collins says that he does not remember seeing any in the same situation, not during the whole time.

Thanks for the post ArMaP. Collins was not in the 'same siutation' ever. He was 60 miles above in orbit.

and the camera was programed for surface photos, not for star photos.

Cameras aren't programmed for surface or stars. Maybe you are talking about f-stops and exposure time. The film used in the Hasselblad was more sensitive to light than any other film yet developed, something on the order of magnitude of 10. If any stars had been visible from the surface of the moon they would have shown up on the film. It wouldn't have mattered what the f-stop or exposure time was.

The reason the crew said they didn't see stars is that the NAZA lie in those days is that you couldn't see stars in a vacuum which, of course, is total nonsense. One day a NAZA supposed 'expert' gave me a lecture that the only reason we could see stars from earth is that our atmosphere 'refracted the starlight' and made the little iitty bitty star visible.

But now, of course, there are too many Astronaut books out with reference to the 'magnificent stars in space' that NAZA is having to back pedal big time.

But the real reason the Apollo Astronauts couldn't sees stars is it was daytime, the sun was up and the sky was bright. Not black. Black is what was airbrushed onto all Apollo photos and fabricated into video shots.

That is why the 700 reels of high definition video disappeared because there was no way to airbrush the color of sky out of them and if NAZA wasn't able to airbrush the color of the sky out of the videos people would know there was an atmosphere and the whole moon 'lie' would start to collapse.

That is one reason so many of the still photos were 'faked'. Not because they didn't go but becaue of the color of the sky.

This is the reason that when Alan Bean was interviewed by Discover Magazine in 1994 and asked, "What do you see when looking up from the surface of the moon?" that he responded, "Black patent shoes."

What happened here is that when he was 'hypnotized' to forget much of what he saw on the moon, the hypnotist told him, "The sky was black, as black as patent leather shoes."

Unfortunately that was the wrong suggestion because all Bean remembered was the 'patent leather shoes' not the 'black' he was being programmed with.

This is apparent in Dr. Mitchells comment when asked what is was it felt like to be on the moon and he responded, "Somehow I couldn't resurrent the feeling I had while there."

Same thing with Aldrin who said when asked what it felt like to be on the moon, "For Christ's sake, I don't know. I just don't know. I have been frustrated since the day I left the moon by that question."

But the reason the Apollo astronauts didn't see stars on the moon is because the daytime sky on the moon is not black. Its too bright to see stars.

For a good belly laugh on how ridiculous the concept of 'no atmosphere' on the moon is, google up yourself a picture of Alan Beans painting "Sunrise Over Antares" and look at the bright yellow sun being refracted by the moons atmosphere.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlearCollins was not in the 'same siutation' ever. He was 60 miles above in orbit.

Thanks for the correction, as you can tell by my answer I am not acquainted with who did what on those missions.

Cameras aren't programmed for surface or stars. Maybe you are talking about f-stops and exposure time. The film used in the Hasselblad was more sensitive to light than any other film yet developed, something on the order of magnitude of 10. If any stars had been visible from the surface of the moon they would have shown up on the film. It wouldn't have mattered what the f-stop or exposure time was.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say, but sometimes I can not remember the right words in English (and sometimes even in Portuguese).

I think that a bigger sensitivity would not make the stars visible, bit I am not an expert in photography, I leave that to my sister.

The reason the crew said they didn't see stars is that the NAZA lie in those days is that you couldn't see stars in a vacuum which, of course, is total nonsense.

That's interesting, I never heard that reason before, I always heard the explanation that the stars were not visible because they were in the sunshine.

That is why the 700 reels of high definition video disappeared because there was no way to airbrush the color of sky out of them and if NAZA wasn't able to airbrush the color of the sky out of the videos people would know there was an atmosphere and the whole moon 'lie' would start to collapse.

Does that mean that the dark sky that we could see on the original moon landing on TV was also airbrushed in almost real time?

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon, you are really unbelievable. The two sources you include from Collins do not contradict each other in any way. He clearly states in the press release that they didn't see stars while on the daylight side of the moon.

The quote you linked to refers to his impressions of being on the dark side of the moon, including seeing stars surrounding the silhouette of the moon. No solar reflection to hide them.

And you posit that he may have been "outright lying" when you don't seem to have paid any attention to the context of your own sources.

I know you are a hard worker on this forum, but you've got to stop being so shamelessly sensationalistic.