NASA Whistleblower: Alien Moon Cities Exist

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
NASA is a cover to hide the real space agency we never get to hear about

Keep saying that to yourself, but what about the specific evidence
about Johnston's claims, related to this specific thread?

Do you suppose he was a psy-op to discredit the theory itself, which
is really true? And to discredit the judgment of gape-jawed eager-believers?

Please offer your explanation of the controversy under current discussion on this thread.

reply to post by JimOberg


ok jim
forget for a moment who said what and who is ripe for a debunk.

i am wondering here if you will go on record to state that there is nothing on, around or in the moon whatsoever that could be construed as evidence of intelligence with the exception of 20th/21st century earth excursions?
also will your answer be within the scope of your NASA remit or your personal point of view?
sincerely fakedirt.

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by JimOberg

 

ok jim
forget for a moment who said what and who is ripe for a debunk.

i am wondering here if you will go on record to state that there is nothing on, around or in the moon whatsoever that could be construed as evidence of intelligence with the exception of 20th/21st century earth excursions?
also will your answer be within the scope of your NASA remit or your personal point of view?
sincerely fakedirt.

Let me bring you up to date. I walked out of my JSC job in 1997 after testifying before Congress about what I perceived as the decaying safety culture at NASA. I took on various freelance writing jobs. By 2000, I had become the only journalist ever denounced by name in a NASA press release for 'whacko' ideas.

Get a good laugh out of this: www.nasa.gov...

...and also out of the weirdo whacko ideas that makes me a'NASA stooge' or something like that.

When 'Columbia' went down in 2003 due to a clear decay of NASA's safety culture, I became a sought-after news media commentator and signed on with NBC-TV, which has renewed my contract ever since. And I still piss off the NASA PTBs.

Nothing I've ever been aware of through my professional Mission Control work 1977 through 1997, or through personal contacts with Apollo veterans [astronauts, flight controllers, scientists, everybody], or my delvings into the inner workings of the Soviet space program [where I'm an acknowledged world expert], or from anybody since then, seems at all suggestive of extraordinary [specifically, non-human] stimuli around the Moon or anywhere else in space -- but I'm impressed with some interesting observations and data that deserve further investigation and explanation, even if they involve secret terrestrial military activities [eg, Kovalyonok's detailed account of the cloud shape he observed below him while passing over South Africa's rocket test range back around 1980-1]. I am unable to rule out any magical advanced technology that could shield its activities from us and know of no credible a priori arguments that persuasively deny the possibility of such phenomena. I never encountered any constraints on any discussion of such subjects, at NASA or anywhere else, nor ever heard of any credible accounts of such constraints from anybody else in the program. So my personal views are identical to my professionally-based views.

reply to post by JimOberg


If you worked in Mission Control for 20 years and saw nothing, then why do you read ATS? To laugh at us? Let alone post on here?

You must know something.

From your NASA link:

James Oberg of UPI claims that NASA knew there was a problem with the Mars Polar Lander propulsion system prior to the Dec. 3 landing attempt and "withheld this conclusion from the public." NASA categorically denies this charge. Here's what NASA did and what NASA said:

Originally posted by game over man
reply to post by JimOberg

 

If you worked in Mission Control for 20 years and saw nothing, then why do you read ATS? To laugh at us? Let alone post on here? You must know something.

I know a lot, and share it -- it's just not what you want to know. Actually, in many cases, it's what people around here want NOT to know.

Why I post here is to understand how so many enthusiastic intelligent young people can get so off-track and misled -- by others and by themselves -- and what factual misconceptions underlie such mistaken conclusions, so I can continue my main avocation of sharing the reality and excitement of genuine space exploration.

From your NASA link:

James Oberg of UPI claims that NASA knew there was a problem with the Mars Polar Lander propulsion system prior to the Dec. 3 landing attempt and "withheld this conclusion from the public." NASA categorically denies this charge. Here's what NASA did and what NASA said:

If the NASA officials are lying about their knowledge of the problems -- which I thought then and still think -- how can you trust THEM to honestly or accurately report MY views? My contacts inside the program told me that after the stupid mistake that doomed the Mars Climate Observer a few months earlier, an in-depth safety review by NASA veterans of the already on-route Mars Polar Lander found so many engineering and operational weaknesses they felt that mission was doomed. The one pre-landing 'safety measure' they recommended -- running the thruster heaters to warm the fuel catalyst beds -- was so useless it was the laughing stock of the real flight controllers. And the OTHER flaw, that probably DID cause the crash, wasn't even found then, or for months afterward.

NASA was super pissed at the bad publicity of losing FOUR robit Mars probes in a row, and so their flacks did their best to blame workmanship errors by peons rather than fundamental judgment errors by managers. That just made me even madder.

Naturally, I was particularly on their sh1t list, near or at the top. And damned proud of it.

Isn't the main theme of this thread the credibility of extraordinary claims by Ken Johnston?

Where's the proof that HE'S worth believing?

And what's this pathetic gimmick of turning the spotlight off the true target?

reply to post by JimOberg


hello jim
i appreciate your reply to my questions. thank you for the link and i shall not badger you from henceforth regarding unanswered past questions

from my perspective, after 20+ years of collecting and studying the footage i will say that i understand certain elements within the brookings report and can concur on aspects of it. the implication has the potential to become horrific within the context of initial interaction and disclosure. just one small opinion in a giant sea of data.
regards fakedirt

btw jim, i have the footage of Cosmonaut Major General Vladimir Kovalyonok during the salyut 1981, may mission. from memory he was looking rather bemused whilst observing through the portal. he looks back to the camera and it is quite clear he has a look of wow/wtf on his face. some digging is in order.

never heard of google mars so had a look is this black square intentional

www.google.com...=-46.057985&lon=-176.528320&zoom=7&map=visible

Originally posted by fakedirt
btw jim, i have the footage of Cosmonaut Major General Vladimir Kovalyonok during the salyut 1981, may mission. from memory he was looking rather bemused whilst observing through the portal. he looks back to the camera and it is quite clear he has a look of wow/wtf on his face. some digging is in order.

edit on 3-10-2011 by fakedirt because: add btw

I like Kovalyonok's report, especially its similarity to other missile launch observations and the unrecognized fact it occurred over the South African missile test center at Overberg [en.wikipedia.org...], but I think you are reaching beyond the evidence to assume that the stock video shown on that program was taken while he was actually observing his UFO. How did you leap to this conclusion?

Uh, but first -- what do you think of the credibility of claims by Ken Johnston?

reply to post by JimOberg



hello jim
first off, regarding the credibility of ken johnson. it's not looking good
with the instant phd for a start. i admit i know hardly anything of the guy and i
am not currently in a position to make a decision on his integrity and claims.
having recently finished dark mission by bara/hoagland (btw i borrowed the book from my great
uncle and in the words of voltaire 'a man who knows everything and lives forever' only jesting!)
i found the book quite interesting, however, as always the jury is out on any and all individuals. i consider
their claims, read their testimony and consider the connections presented. you yourself have been
labelled a debunker for nasa (within dark mission) but, again, i do not hold that against you as fact.
in fact jim you are one of only a handful of individuals i have had the pleasure of interacting with on the
internet on these matters. my personal experiences are what have driven me, not what others have claimed,
but i still continue to chase up the lines of info hopefully getting to the source of the information and
then possibly finding common ground with that individual. case in point was mcclelland, but that one went
cold. he has his reasons i suppose for what he claimed, however, when attempting to contact him through the
details supplied, no response. shame really because although the 'incident' as clark claimed it was almost
but not quite as i perceived it from the stock footage.
i believe it was armstrong who said something along the lines of getting through the layers to the truth.

anyhow onward to Cosmonaut Major General Vladimir Kovalyonok. that is an interesting nugget you have supplied
there jim. i will follow it up regarding the test area. it may take some time but i do hope you are available
for a future parley.
as for reaching beyond the evidence regarding the 81 may salyut footage, ha! now this is just my humble opinion
after studying the body language/facial expressions from the stock footage over and over and over. look, the guys
who know me know fully well that space footage is my thing, they have sat through and suffered me over many years.
it will probably never happen but one day it would be pleasant to have you over for tea and watch the footage.
regards for now fakedirt.

Please keep digging, there IS paydirt out there, maybe not always what you want to find, but well worth the effort.

I have seeen the footage of Kovalyonok looking out the porthole, I believe it is stock footage of general sightseeing, since -- ask yourself -- why set up a camera in advance of a surprise sighting?

It well illustrates the degree of viewing that a cosmonaut would have had -- I think that was the only purpose of including it in the program.

We can start a new thread on this when the time comes. For now, this theme seems argued out.

reply to post by JimOberg


the incident remains in my unusual bin for the time being. agreed on the rest and in the words of the noble beamish 'onward and upward!'
regards fakedirt

Originally posted by LeTan
Of course moon cities exist!
Japan has known about this for years!

could you tell me more about that please? I've done extensive research into Richard Hoagland and im really interested in the topic..

Originally posted by JimOberg

Why I post here is to understand how so many enthusiastic intelligent young people can get so off-track and misled -- by others and by themselves -- and what factual misconceptions underlie such mistaken conclusions, so I can continue my main avocation of sharing the reality and excitement of genuine space exploration.

Hey Jim,

Your efforts here aren't wasted.

I have two grandsons that like to read your posts and articles. They have more or less adopted your views and methodology when it comes to much of the ufo stuff and that has increased the quality of their research significantly.

I think the younger generation has much more potential than ours did. It could take us weeks to get what we need to deunk or prove a UFO, now kids can pull that up instantly. So despite the influx of BS, I think this next generation's penchant for the truth and instant access to information could really turn things around.

reply to post by purplemer


There are some interesting images of the moon, showing that famous giant face, a cluster of ziggurat pyramids, building complexes, and such. But, the fact that such structures exist doesn't mean an intelligence built them on purpose. Certain chemical structures grow in certain ways (like cubist Pyrite) and the external forces of gravity and space weather could've formed these structures.

Especially if you look into chaos theory and fractals, the lowest atomic level favors creating specific patterns and shapes and at specific ratios that are part of the fractal meme.

Thus, these structures are most likely really there, but the outlandish theories that Johnston, Hoagland, and others present are probably mostly fiction. Whatever the real answer is will be crazier than them.

There are interesting photos from Mars, as well. But that doesn't necessarily mean a two-legged, three-legged, or even four-legged creature built them.

Originally posted by MrBudgie
never heard of google mars so had a look is this black square intentional

www.google.com...=-46.057985&lon=-176.528320&zoom=7&map=visible

edit on 3-10-2011 by MrBudgie because: (no reason given)

Hi Mr Budgie,

Your link doesn't work unless one opens your post using the Quote function to access the full text. So here it is in an embedded form for others.

Mr Budgie's censored Google Mars image

Getsmart

I wonder if there will be whitstleblowers who are able to take pictures of unaltered images showing cities. How many buildings on earth do you know that stand lonely and isolated? If there is a pyramid and whatnot on the moon, it should be surrounded by the ruins of other pyramids and cities.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It's always possible that if the theories about ancient advanced civilizations in our own very distant past are accurate, these aren't alien at all. We could be looking at the ruins of our own ancestors in one of the only places where such ruins could be expected to survive that length of time. Of course, having solid and largely intact 'ruins' that proved that would open it's own can of worms in society on many levels, no ET necessary.

Thats certainly another and more likely possibility to explore. Let us not forget, that when the ice age ended the distribution of submerged and dry landmass changed drastically. Much of human history is submerged under the sea. Ancient cities have been found off the shores of Cuba, Japan and under the black sea.

Originally posted by khnumkhufu
if there's one thing I learnt from hoagland, it's that nasa is under the obligation to 'protect us' from the possible cultural impact of a finding of alien artifacts. It's sort of in black&white, so there can be no doubt.

funny thing, a pros pos, with the no-fly zones on the moon coming into effect later this month, don't you think? I mean, no-fly zones? -on the moon?

edit on 15-9-2011 by khnumkhufu because: (no reason given)

Well this whole idea about `protecting us` actually has always made a bit of sense to me. People denigrate the gov`t, Nasa, etc. for hiding this stuff, but it`s true - such knowledge would FLIP out many people. A lot of religions wouldn`t know WHAT to do... So I slightly understand that reasoning, but the problem is that it`s STUPID reasoning. Holding back the truth of our own history to keep people from the inevitable change that would happen is just so incredibly short sighted.

I saw a video with another whistle blower who said they`d discovered a boat on Mount Ararat and it was what was inside the boat that was truly mind-blowing - and they decided to classify that too, and the guy himself said `what a bunch of nitwits` According to him, they hide everything and classify everything more out of habit sometimes than anything else.

Originally posted by twoandthree
reply to post by purplemer

 

There are some interesting images of the moon, showing that famous giant face, a cluster of ziggurat pyramids, building complexes, and such. But, the fact that such structures exist doesn't mean an intelligence built them on purpose. Certain chemical structures grow in certain ways (like cubist Pyrite) and the external forces of gravity and space weather could've formed these structures.

Especially if you look into chaos theory and fractals, the lowest atomic level favors creating specific patterns and shapes and at specific ratios that are part of the fractal meme.

Thus, these structures are most likely really there, but the outlandish theories that Johnston, Hoagland, and others present are probably mostly fiction. Whatever the real answer is will be crazier than them.

There are interesting photos from Mars, as well. But that doesn't necessarily mean a two-legged, three-legged, or even four-legged creature built them.

Nature does come up with some pretty amazing stuff, like Pyrite and Flourite and Calcite, but that holds NO weight with me. Nature doesn`t come up with very many faces with eyes, a nose, etc.

Well, I guess you hear something new every day. This is a head scratcher.