The Space Panel
Tonight Richard C. Hoagland, (enterprisemission) will be on for all four hours with George as they address issues about the shuttle disaster and a possible cover-up of data about the Moon.

First Hour: David Livingston (thespaceshow.com), an expert on space exploration, will comment on the latest theories in the Columbia tragedy.

Second Hour: Ken Johnston, who spent 23 years working at NASA, will address the issue of whether we went to the Moon.

Third Hour: Steve Troy, (lunaranomalies.com) an expert in lunar anomalies, will talk about some of his findings.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mcclir on 2003-02-13 08:15 ]</font>

Looks like an HB's Hall of Fame meeting. Why isn't He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named participating?

Harald

I listened to the show last night. This wasn't a HB show. This was your typical Richard C. Hoagland show about the Apollo astronauts seeing alien structures on the moon & the NASA cover up. Anybody ever heard of Ken Johnston? The show says he worked for NASA for 23 years. I heard him on the radio last night & found his claims to be "way out there". He said that he tested the Lunar Module with the astronauts. Then he ends up working on developing the photographs the astronauts brought back. I thought that was quite the job leap. He said that one photo was airbrushed to remove stars??? Other photos had structures, lights removed from them. He also claims that drugs were used on the astronauts to so that they would not remember a lot of what they saw.

So, is there a link?

Added:

May be...

From Hoagland’s site:
... a contractor to NASA ... Ken Johnston ... took care of NASA's data and photo stuff. He was the documentation supervisor.

From lunaranomolies.com:
... the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston, during the Apollo era, where (Johnston) was a "photo documentation supervisor.

From Florida Today, 11/01/96:
Ken Johnston is a former test pilot consultant who spent 3,000 hours working lunar module controls for Grumman. In 1971, his job was to catalogue raw negatives and footage for the Apollo lunar missions at Johnson Space Center.

Curiously, Johnston has no books or videos to peddle. "I just want to do the right thing," he insists. "This needs to come out."

I guess that changed, though, because in 1997 we find:

MARS-MOON CONNECTION: ARE ROCKS ALL WE FOUND ON THE MOON? One hr. video $12.00.

FROM THE MOON TO EGYPT: LEGACY OF THE KINGS. One hr. video $12.00.

Both by “Ken Johnston, lunar module test pilot for NASA's Apollo missions.”
_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2003-02-13 13:19 ]</font>

From the Coast to Coast AM website (www.coasttocoastam.com) w/ George Noory.

Recap
The Space Panel
In a provocative Wednesday night show, Richard Hoagland (www.enterprisemission.com) joined George for the entire program to discuss a cover-up of Moon anomalies and the current Shuttle investigation. Three other guests were also featured as part of the line-up.

Hoagland and space expert Dr. David Livingston (www.thespaceshow.com) talked about the recent hearings being conducted into the Columbia tragedy. But rather than dwell on the specific cause of the mishap, they hoped that the hearings would raise the larger issue—that the US space program has lost its way. "There's no vision going back and forth between the Space Station," Livingston said. He and Hoagland agreed that a real vision would involve going to Mars or back to the Moon, to glean new discoveries.

Ken Johnston, who worked for NASA for 23 years, appeared in Hour 2, and described screening Apollo footage and seeing a cluster of lights in a moon crater accompanied by a plume of steam. But then two days later when he showed the footage to some officials, the crater material had been seamlessly removed. Perhaps even more surprising was Johnston and Hoagland's supposition that astronauts who went to the moon may have had their memories altered or blanked in order to suppress their knowledge of what they saw there.

Hoagland's colleague Steve Troy (www.lunaranomalies.com) came aboard in Hour 3 to discuss photographic evidence of moon anomalies that he's studied extensively. In one case he described "crystalline rebar" that could be remnants of much larger structures. These materials curiously appeared in photos from two different Moon missions, in two different locations. The images discussed during the program can be viewed here.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/moonshow.htm

Copyright © 2003 Premiere Radio Networks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mcclir on 2003-02-13 13:27 ]</font>

Mr. Johnston's claims are entirely inconsistent. "Photo documentation supervisor" is plausible enough, but was he a contractor or an employee? We are told he was "with NASA" for 23 years. If so, then our friends at NASA would be able to come up with some record of his having worked there. At least both of Hoagland's sources are reasonably consistent and applicable, but ...

From Florida Today, 11/01/96:
[i]Ken Johnston is a former test pilot consultant who spent 3,000 hours working lunar module controls for Grumman. In 1971, his job was to catalogue raw negatives and footage for the Apollo lunar missions at Johnson Space Center.

Florida Today is likely repeated Johnston's claims and didn't do much checking on their own. They obviously interviewed him.

What, exactly, does one do when one "works lunar module controls" for 3,000 hours? And did he work for NASA, for Grumman, or someone else? Why would NASA employ a Grumman flight test engineer or pilot to catalogue photographs at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. What exactly is a "test pilot consultant"?

And why does he later call himself a "lunar module test pilot?" You can't flight-test a lunar module, as anyone who worked for Grumman would know.

His claims are based solely on his eyewitness testimony, which in turn is based entirely on his claims of employment. Thus it is Mr. Johnston's duty to clarify exactly who he his and for whom he worked.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Life cycle/longevity testing? You know: move throttle forward, move throttle back, move throttle forward... x3000 hours.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

(Fixed spelling and added smilie)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2003-02-13 14:50 ]</font>

I went to the Lunar Anomalies site. They show blurry extreme close-up images showing fuzz, and claim it's factories, bunkers, etc. A long time ago, when the site was new, someone from Lunar Anamolies (I believe)asked me to look into some of the images. I sensed they wanted to find alien artifacts, but were also trying to be as honest as they could. Judging from what I see now, they are not terribly hampered by an urge to be based in reality.

How come there are so many nut-cases out there in this word? I mean come on, first, we Did'nt go to the moon, then we did go to the moon but met aliens, and now we went to the moon but the astronauts found remains of an ancient civilization and NASA gives them drugs to erase their memory?

eh..Why cant we just put these nut-cases in garbage bags and send them into a moon crater and let them see for themselves if there are little green martians playing checkers or making bets on Iraq and U.S.

His claims are an obviously lie. I have a 1983 Johnson Space Center phone book. The photography work for Apollo was done at JSC (and still is) He's not listed in the phone book. He's not listed as a contractor either.

Doing some math.

He said he worked for Grumman in the 1960's doing controls work. Say he left Grumman in 1965 to join NASA. Adding 23 to 1965 gets to 1988. He should be in the book and he's not.

Searching the NASA websites, he's not listed either.

"With NASA" is a broad enough description that could include contractor work. Describing my previous job with a contractor, I would sometimes broadly describe my job as working for NASA. Depends on the audience.

A change in employers could explain different job duties. It does seem a broad step to go from testing hardware to developing pictures.

You are correct, it is up to him to clarify his employment history and clearly define his credentials.

jr, should you be adding the 23 to the '65 or to an earlier date? Does the 23 years include his Grumman days?

blindsword said:
Not sure if you meant it this way, but Hoagland has been around a long time, with his claims of alien artifacts and NASA coverup. Though the memory erasing drugs is a new one to me.

Hoagland isn't as loopy as some. He, like his supporters at lunaranomalies.com, are lunarite conspiracists, believing that men went there and found weird alien stuff when they got there. They are therefore opponents of the Apollohoax.

It's only some truly derranged individuals that try to promote both mutually contradictory conspiracy theories at the same time.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

*cough* Cosmic Dave *cough*

Regarding Hoagland: it feels strange to use a twinkie to fight a twinkie, but Hoagland's page on radiation does a very thorough showing that the Apollo astronauts indeed could survive the trip through the Van Allen Belt.

OK, I can't find it anymore. I don't spend a lot of time there. But if you weed out the "what we REALLY found on the moon" malarkey, Hoagland does a good debunking of Percy, Collier, et al.

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

Here's the Lunar Anomalies debunking page. Part III is the radiation argument. Part IV is their crowning achievement: the comprehensive debunk of the 'C'-rock.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
_________________
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business and we hope if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." -Gus Grissom

<font size="-1">(Changed link to their starting page. Changed text to reflect this.)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2003-02-17 19:53 ]</font>

My God,what people won,t do 4 their fifteen minutes of fame!!But then,This is the era of Jerry Springer.LOL.Why should I be surprised??

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroGman on 2003-02-17 21:29 ]</font>

Is he the male half of the "George and Barbara show"??If he is then I will much prefer listening to Barbara.

It's easy to look at Hoagland's stuff selectively. That's fine, as long as you can lay out your criteria comfortably for everyone to see. If you look at some of his material and agree with it, and at the rest of it and disagree, you should be able to make a fact-based case for the distinction.

Some of Troy's debunking, especially the C-rock, is stellar. It's the way research should be done. But the stuff that boils down to someone seeing shadowy space-alien tennis courts on the moon makes us wonder what's going on.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base