It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JimO
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.
Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Originally posted by JimO
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.
Well, what's the hold-up? Do tell.
And, after all this, neither I nor JimO get applause?
Are there any Mods paying attention to this thread...?
Originally posted by johnlear
I notice that neither one of you has satisfactorily addressed the neutral point issue other than to throw in the old "Sphere of Influence" horse puckey.
But thanks for your input as useless, pointless and irrevelant as it is.
I don't think that is the issue, the photos he illegally took from NASA are obviously NASA photos, and if they are those that we have been seeing published by Hoagland then we already knew them as real NASA photos.
Originally posted by johnlear
The issue is whether or not the photos he took were real Apollo photos and I'm satisfied they were.
I don't think that he has been "pounded", when anyone makes the transition from anonymity to public figure he/she must know that life will never be the same.
This useless and senseless pounding of a man who is helping to uncover NAZA secrets is pointless but typical of those who intentionally or unintentionally, as the case may be, help the government in its coverup of the truth.
John, the topic of this thread is NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure. We've already established that he was not fired. We're trying to determine whether or not he can even rightly be called a scientist.
"Remind" you, John. Have you read the book at all?
You and JimO are simply wasting everybodies time with useless and irrevelant information.
"SHOW ME THE MONEY..."
The next question everyone asks is "Where's the beef?"
"Bear in mind that there is no one single staggering, definitive picture that drops everyone in their tracks."
"NASA ordered him to destroy key Apollo lunar images and data more than 40 years ago, rather than allow them to be preserved for academic and public study. Johnston will testify how he disobeyed these NASA orders, secretly preserving the critical Apollo images -- and the never-officially-published lunar discoveries recorded on them."
"Our evidence suggests that NASA has tried to ensure that none would get out."
"At the very least, if you follow this article all the way through, you will end up seeing very clear examples of image tampering that our colleagues in Russia independently discovered."
"Here is one intriguing case that escaped NASA's censorship... brought to new life thanks to simple Photoshop techniques to enhance brightness and contrast."
"The mass you see in the above images is not caused by a lens flare. The astronaut's shadow in the first three images shows that the sun is coming in at a right angle to the camera axis -- thus eliminating the potential for such a mundane explanation."
"thus eliminating the potential for such a mundane explanation."
"Lens flares require the light source to be either in-frame or directly outside of it in order to illuminate the camera lens".
"In this case, it is impossible to illuminate the lens, due to the right-angle offset position of the sun."
"The top left shot, seen here once again, is an original print -- saved from destruction by our senior Enterprise Mission correspondent Dr. Ken Johnston."
"The top right image is an enhancement of Dr. Johnston's 'rescued' print -- lightened and contrast-enhanced -- showing what you find buried in the emulsion of the black layers of the supposedly airless lunar sky".
"Three vertical geometric 'pillars' seem to appear in the middle of the enhanced image, as well as a clearly obvious 'crossbar' up near the top."
"The bottom left image is an enhanced version of the previous shot... only this time it's taken from NASA's own version of the 40-year-old photograph, currently posted on official NASA websites. As you can see, the detail has been sharply diminished. The formerly blue 'comet-like' feature now seems red, due to a long-term degradation in the emulsion of the photograph. The stunningly regular geometry is also muted, leaving only the horizontal 'crossbar' as a sharp geometric figure."
"This is from an entirely different photograph, taken from an entirely different angle!
"This image also can be found -- currently -- on official NASA websites!"