Ken Johnston (NASA Whistleblower) at the Smithsonian

Originally posted by mcrom901
here are a few examples of lunar photos which 'talm' had purchased from an auction house.... apparently belonging to a dead general....
(snip)

AS10-31-4527



the anomaly which is visible in the above pic @ bottom left..... has obviously been edited out in the below nasa version.....

(snip)

I do not see any "anomalies". I do see what are the results of using emulsion film which is subject to film processing anomalies including dust, scratches on the negatives, hair from film processing personnel, etc. What you call an anomaly can be seen in tons of photos all resulting, again, from emulsion film processing. Why don't you wait until you see a real anomaly before you use the term?

While NASA published a lot of photos with those emulsion film processing anomalies perhasp once in a while one was removed to make the photo look better. But not to hide something that wasn't there in the first place. So far, no one, NO ONE, has presented a NASA lunar photo or anywhere on the Internet showing a true, alien-associated anomaly/structure/mining, etc. It's all wishful thinking. And disappointing considering all the blather about lunar anomalies.

Originally posted by amari

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by amari
(snip)
When I can see Moon photos with my own eyes it is a fact to me and may not be to you because you probably have not seen these anomalies yet and I have. So dispute all you want fact is fact. As far a Johnston I was not there he claimed to be part of the Apollo program, but I personally have seen hundreds and hundreds of Moon photos and I see what I see and Johnston claims to have seen what he saw from Moon photos. ^Y^

edit on 24-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)

I beg to differ with you. You make the usual claims devoid of any evidence, as seems to be the norm here. How about you put your money where your mouth is and show just one photo showing something on a NASA photo of the lunar surface that is not a natural feature. And, please, do not use those awful colorized versions that are prevalent in this forum and all over the web. And strive to offer a decent resolution photo, not those blurry, overpixelated ones that seem to be the only photos where the mentally-challenged see what they want others to see. And stay away from anything offered by John Lear 'cause they don't show anything but fantasies.

You sound like you can do it. I look forward to such a reply. Yawn!

BTW, you most definitely will receive extra Brownie points if you were able to find one of those altered photos that Ken Johnston claims he saw or even an unaltered one. Anything!

edit on 24-12-2010 by The Shrike because: Clarity.

Thanks for your vote of non-confidence and as far as John Lear he is in a league of his own and he has undisclosed sources you wish you had. John Lear has guts and is not afraid to come out and show photos of the Moon of what he sees and knows that is there. It is not my fault you can not see these intelligently designed features on the Earth's Moon, Luna. I see in multi-dimensions and you do not that is why you are so quick to criticize.

Lunar Featured Image Archive
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

^Y^

edit on 25-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)

Blah, blah, blah. John Lear, in case you are not aware, was banned from this forum. Nothing to do with me. He has not disclosed any sources that stand up to scrutiny. It's always he said, she said. Not one of his photos showed anything but natural features but the members loved every bit of his fanciful claims NOT supported by the evidence. What he presented is not evidence, it's fantasy. It is your fault that I do not see any "intelligently designed features" because that means that my vision is faulty and just a couple of months ago I had my annual eye examination and the doctor was impressed with my 20-15 vision, partially because of a lens implant that gives me amazing vision. It it is there I'll see it. If it ain't there and you see it, as you say, in multi-dimensions, you ought to volunteer at an optical laboratory and share your out-of-this-world vision. I'm not quick to criticize, I take my time but the end result is always the same: garbage in, garbage out.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by amari

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by amari
(snip)
When I can see Moon photos with my own eyes it is a fact to me and may not be to you because you probably have not seen these anomalies yet and I have. So dispute all you want fact is fact. As far a Johnston I was not there he claimed to be part of the Apollo program, but I personally have seen hundreds and hundreds of Moon photos and I see what I see and Johnston claims to have seen what he saw from Moon photos. ^Y^

edit on 24-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)

I beg to differ with you. You make the usual claims devoid of any evidence, as seems to be the norm here. How about you put your money where your mouth is and show just one photo showing something on a NASA photo of the lunar surface that is not a natural feature. And, please, do not use those awful colorized versions that are prevalent in this forum and all over the web. And strive to offer a decent resolution photo, not those blurry, overpixelated ones that seem to be the only photos where the mentally-challenged see what they want others to see. And stay away from anything offered by John Lear 'cause they don't show anything but fantasies.

You sound like you can do it. I look forward to such a reply. Yawn!

BTW, you most definitely will receive extra Brownie points if you were able to find one of those altered photos that Ken Johnston claims he saw or even an unaltered one. Anything!

edit on 24-12-2010 by The Shrike because: Clarity.

Thanks for your vote of non-confidence and as far as John Lear he is in a league of his own and he has undisclosed sources you wish you had. John Lear has guts and is not afraid to come out and show photos of the Moon of what he sees and knows that is there. It is not my fault you can not see these intelligently designed features on the Earth's Moon, Luna. I see in multi-dimensions and you do not that is why you are so quick to criticize.

Lunar Featured Image Archive
apollo.sese.asu.edu...

^Y^

edit on 25-12-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)

Blah, blah, blah. John Lear, in case you are not aware, was banned from this forum. Nothing to do with me. He has not disclosed any sources that stand up to scrutiny. It's always he said, she said. Not one of his photos showed anything but natural features but the members loved every bit of his fanciful claims NOT supported by the evidence. What he presented is not evidence, it's fantasy. It is your fault that I do not see any "intelligently designed features" because that means that my vision is faulty and just a couple of months ago I had my annual eye examination and the doctor was impressed with my 20-15 vision, partially because of a lens implant that gives me amazing vision. It it is there I'll see it. If it ain't there and you see it, as you say, in multi-dimensions, you ought to volunteer at an optical laboratory and share your out-of-this-world vision. I'm not quick to criticize, I take my time but the end result is always the same: garbage in, garbage out.

You know how to dish out garbage alright. John Lear was banned from the ATS Forum, so what he had a difference of opinion. The Moon photos that John Lear showed had many intelligently designed geometric structures and that is evidence to me but not to you. I am not impressed with your 20-15 vision especially when you can't see these anomalies on the Moon. I am not a laboratory rat I do not need to volunteer and share my vision. My vision is my vision not yours and you refer to my vision as out-of-this-world-vision as an intended cut. Your not quick to criticize that is a big laugh. ^Y^

And the significance of the above digressions to Ken Johnston's claims is -- uh, what?

Originally posted by JimOberg
So again, "change the subject" is the response when simple, obvious questions are raised about the believability of statements made by Ken Johnston. This avoidance reflex may reflect attempts to hide -- or suppress -- doubts about unsupported claims by folks who tell listeners what they enjoy hearing, true or not.

The phenomenon, and the genuinely baffling aspects of it, IMHO deserves better.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim why don't you invite Johnston here to ATS

and give him the chance to defend himself ,

instead of expecting others to defend him ?

Interesting suggestion. And a bit asymmetric, wouldn't you say?

Have you EVER seen it raised while threads were attacking "anti-UFO" experts?

Anyone is free to particpate on these threads.

My question wasn't about 'defending' Johnston's claims so much as to ask
why they should be automatically believed without ANY attempts by ANYONE at
independent verification.

It seems nobody is interested in checking up his testimony if it agrees with
already-existing conclusions. This is a human failing I've observed in people of
ALL attitudes and persuasions, but it does seem that most UFO believers are
fundamentally gullible people willing to accept 'on faith' statements that
make them feel good -- smart, knowledgeable, superior.

Most, but by no means ALL. Shrike, you're a pain in the neck but you're
part of the potential solution, not a perpetuator of the problem. Others too...

This eager-believer culture is self-perpetuating, since once it's established,
people willing to say anything at all know where to come. And parties engaged
in some aerial activities seem willing to LET their actions be misperceived and
misreported.

Now, there are indeed a good number of sensible people here who can do
critical thinking and independent research. And the subject demands imagination
and ingenuity, not sarcastic put-downs -- as with Zorgon's ideas, "so crazy
they are almost crazy enough to be true", and overall a help towards understanding.

So there have been enough posters to give reasons for hope. Just not on this
particular thread, which is OK since it really isn't mainstream UFO material anyway.

reply to post by The Shrike


Its my understanding that Lear is still friends with the owners here, they have differing opinions and went their own ways but not because of Lears work, ideas and imaginative style. It's all here in the pages of archived material if one really wants to know.

This is about Johnson, who is probably going to end up like many other WB's these past years. So respects to his courage and I guess only time will tell if he is being genuine or not.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Its my understanding that Lear is still friends with the owners here, they have differing opinions and went their own ways but not because of Lears work, ideas and imaginative style. It's all here in the pages of archived material if one really wants to know.

This is about Johnson, who is probably going to end up like many other WB's these past years. So respects to his courage and I guess only time will tell if he is being genuine or not.

You're wimping out. Anybody's testimonial evidence is subject, at least in part, to calibration through independent documentation. It's always seemed to me this should be an obvious, natural step to take.

But you -- and so many others -- treat it as some sort of bizarre aberration, some sign of intellectual deviancy to be avoided in good company.

Before believing Johnston's unsubstantiated claim that he saw an alteration on a NASA 16-mm film, that he blames on a Dr. Thornton Page (who died in 1997), wouldn't it be prudent to take a sampling of other claims by Johnston that CAN be authenticated (or debunked) and check them out?

Are you THAT helpless?

Originally posted by JimOberg
He called the Lunar Module at the Smithsonian "LTA-8" and said he had thousands of hours testing it, including in vacuum chambers. Are there any on-line historical documents that corroborate this claim? What is the designation of the Lunar Module that the Smithsonian claims it has -- is it consistent with Johnston's description?

Johnston is explicit in the video -- this Lunar Module was 'his' spacecraft, he spent five thousand hours inside it at the NASA space center in Houston, and it was a fully-equipped lunar landing capable vehicle.

The evidence I found in about ten minutes on line convinced me that none of his claims were remotely true, and that anyone who chose to believe them was being foolish.

Since I'm not the single-point-failure for other people's misunderstandings, why doesn't somebody else go and check on these claims too, and report back?

reply to post by JimOberg


Yes I admit to being helpless in every way an honest person can be. I give this the chance of being correct only because I once had a strange thing happen while watching a live feed from NASA. It was scrubbed as fast as it appeared but thanks to my recording of it I manged to save the whole thing, but the following morning it was gone from my recordings and replaced with the picture NASA had placed over the scene in real time along with the transmissions.

It is so possible that NASA fixes what they share with the public, it is the only thing they can do to keep people from knowing we are not alone before they are given permission to broadcast as it is.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Yes I admit to being helpless in every way an honest person can be. I give this the chance of being correct only because I once had a strange thing happen while watching a live feed from NASA. It was scrubbed as fast as it appeared but thanks to my recording of it I manged to save the whole thing, but the following morning it was gone from my recordings and replaced with the picture NASA had placed over the scene in real time along with the transmissions.

It is so possible that NASA fixes what they share with the public, it is the only thing they can do to keep people from knowing we are not alone before they are given permission to broadcast as it is.

Well, people are certainly free to believe your account is an accurate rendition, too.

But claiming that one unsubstantiated anecdote is supportive evidence for another seems a stretch.

Meanwhile, you could -- if you chose -- visit the NASM home page to see how THEY describe the lunar module they have on display, and then compare their claims to Johnston's. Why won't you?

You can also easily find the test profile of the lunar module designation that Johnston alleges, and the descriptions of all the houston tests, and see if Johnston's name appears anywhere. Why won't you?

Seriously -- move towards the light of reality. Take small steps if you must, but take steps.

It's a much more interesting world and it has the advantage of being authentic.

And there still are 'real UFOs' in it, IMHO.

reply to post by JimOberg


IYHO, could you supply examples?

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by JimOberg

 

IYHO, could you supply examples?

You have to learn to do it yourself. This case should illustrate the hazards of over-gullibility in any one type of source.

reply to post by The Shrike

Blah, blah, blah. John Lear, in case you are not aware, was banned from this forum. Nothing to do with me. He has not disclosed any sources that stand up to scrutiny. It's always he said, she said.

He was NOT banned..He chose not to post here..
Please get your facts straight..

Here's his profile page..
Note he is still registered and is NOT banned..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread reminds me why I've become interested in ATS. The moon.

I don't believe in visiting aliens, abductions, flying saucers, alien ruins on mars (or the moon) or anything of the sort. I've never seen evidence for these things, and trust me when I say I have rifled through a *lot* of moon photos. I've perused all of Hoagland's junk, examined Mike Singh's 'uncensored' images, and everything in between.

Yet, even though I have seen nothing but rocks, rocks and more rocks there just isn't something that sits right with me about the moon. I'm not talking about how it got there, it's tidally locked orbit or any of the other common stuff brought up about it when talking about anomalies. I believe we went there like we've said, and the missions went more or less as they have been described -- the whole nine yards.

Still, I feel a very vague and distant wrongness about the place, and I have never come across anything that would normally make anyone think so. It's too bad that gut feelings aren't worth a damn in science.

reply to post by Adept_Zero


My question about the moon is why no decent pics?
Many probes and manned flights and the best we see is 50cm/pixel...
Cant really look at much at that low resolution..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Blah, blah, blah. John Lear, in case you are not aware, was banned from this forum. Nothing to do with me. He has not disclosed any sources that stand up to scrutiny. It's always he said, she said.

He was NOT banned..He chose not to post here..
Please get your facts straight..

Here's his profile page..
Note he is still registered and is NOT banned..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps I was wrong in specifying that he was banned but that seems to be his state as mentioned by many members. However, go to this website, read John's words and tell me if you don't consider him "banned"? He certainly is not and hasn't been active for a l-o-o-n-g time.

And since you say that he chose not to post here, he made the right decision.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Adept_Zero

 

My question about the moon is why no decent pics?
Many probes and manned flights and the best we see is 50cm/pixel...
Cant really look at much at that low resolution..

You'd be surprised (or not) at the thousands of high-resolution lunar photos that NASA has published and can be found on a lot of websites. If you want you can order poster-size prints which will allow you to see all the detail that's found in the negatives.

I think that what you're trying to say is why no decent pics so that one can see what's claimed by conspiracists who demand that it be accepted that they see alien structures, mining, etc., when they just don't exist, at least not on the surface which has been photographed by Lunar Orbiters, Russian Orbiters, and astronauts. And some even claim that NASA messes with the photos deleting what they don't want us to see. Challenge after challenge, by me and others, no one has yet to produce a photo showing anything but natural features as weird as they may be. Pareidolia is big in interpretations.

reply to post by The Shrike

I think that what you're trying to say is why no decent pics so that one can see what's claimed by conspiracists who demand that it be accepted that they see alien structures, mining, etc., when they just don't exist, at least not on the surface which has been photographed by Lunar Orbiters, Russian Orbiters, and astronauts. And some even claim that NASA messes with the photos deleting what they don't want us to see. Challenge after challenge, by me and others, no one has yet to produce a photo showing anything but natural features as weird as they may be. Pareidolia is big in interpretations.

The LRO films at 50cm/pixel at best..
The Mars pics I've seen are obviously higher res than that..
I have yet to see anything out of the ordinary I agree with..
Though obviously NASA decides what we see..
Whether they are hiding anything or not I don't know.
But it's a fact that they alter pics for whatever reason they deem neccessary..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by The Shrike

 

I think that what you're trying to say is why no decent pics so that one can see what's claimed by conspiracists who demand that it be accepted that they see alien structures, mining, etc., when they just don't exist, at least not on the surface which has been photographed by Lunar Orbiters, Russian Orbiters, and astronauts. And some even claim that NASA messes with the photos deleting what they don't want us to see. Challenge after challenge, by me and others, no one has yet to produce a photo showing anything but natural features as weird as they may be. Pareidolia is big in interpretations.

The LRO films at 50cm/pixel at best..
The Mars pics I've seen are obviously higher res than that..
I have yet to see anything out of the ordinary I agree with..
Though obviously NASA decides what we see..
Whether they are hiding anything or not I don't know.
But it's a fact that they alter pics for whatever reason they deem neccessary..

You know, your last sentence is why this thread exists. Because Ken Johnston made certain similar comments. How do you know what NASA alters if you don't have a before and after photo. I mean where a photo shows something that's not natural or human, not simple touch-ups to remove some film processing flaws although such photos have also been published.

Imagine how simple the challenge is: supply one before and after photos. Just one!

reply to post by The Shrike

You know, your last sentence is why this thread exists. Because Ken Johnston made certain similar comments. How do you know what NASA alters if you don't have a before and after photo. I mean where a photo shows something that's not natural or human, not simple touch-ups to remove some film processing flaws although such photos have also been published.

Imagine how simple the challenge is: supply one before and after photos. Just one!

I never said they were hiding something, merely that they do alter pics so it leaves that rumour open..

I'll ask you a question..
NASA knows all these CT's exist about artifacts etc, so why don't they release all the originals before alterations..??
Leave all the flaws intact..It makes no difference to the pic really..
That would shut everyone up...