NASA worker reveals moon cover up

A familiar face full of mystery

At this point, I wouldn’t call Ken Johnston a ‘whistle blower’. After all, he is merely confirming something which previous whistle blower Donna Hare  exposed, namely that NASA has been doctoring moon and Mars photography to hide from the public the presence of artificial structures and objects.  Her story has been in the wild for quite some time, but now it’s another individual who corroborates the cover up of ET presence on the moon, both current or historical.

Ken was fired, the story goes, for coming out with this information. I invite you to take the facts with a grain of salt, and to question his motivation for doing this. Also, consider he is one of many NASA/JPL workers who generally admit to the notion that there is a cover up of discovery of ET artifacts, technology and of encounters in space by NASA flight crews. See my previous post about astronaut disclosure.

One can only guess as to whether this is a concerted leakage or just a bunch of civil servants who have decided to finally do their jobs. Ken is fairly high ranking, as he managed the photography department at NASA, . The article is a bit ambiguous as to when this happened, so draw your own conclusions. Story link below.

Is it a coincidence that a few days after the story broke, a no fly zone over certain regions of the moon was declared by NASA. The purpose is to preserve historic landing sites. Of course, UFO buffs are turning this into circumstantial evidence in support of their beliefs. I’m a bit more skeptical on this, however it is worth a gander. Check this story.

Methinks we are on the verge of some surprising revelations. If you are one to doubt we are surrounded by intelligent beings from all corners of the universe, you’ll want to hang on to something. Life keeps getting more interesting.



3 Responses to “NASA worker reveals moon cover up”

  1. Raphael says:

    Dear Jim O,

    Thanks for ranting on my blog! I always enjoy a good effort to contribute to a discussion on topics of interest. You posted so thoroughly that I felt compelled to respond, even though I am truly swamped with work.

    Let me get right down to business, thank you for setting me straight on the basic premise of the Donna Hare story. I wrote about her from memory, and, since it had been years ago that I viewed the Disclosure Project and other testimonies, I got the facts wrong indeed. She testified that colleagues had been tasked with obfuscating evidence, and had been coerced. It was not directly her.

    In the interest of truth, I will amend my post accordingly. It’s the least I can do.

    Regarding the article featuring Ken Johnston that I am referring to, I do have the disclaimer to the reader to draw their own conclusions. The original posting site does have a track record or sensationalism, but even taking this into consideration, and my honest failure of memory on the Donna Hare story, the thrust of my post remains valid. Ken Johnston did report a cover up, and that’s the exciting part. Also, the article does mention he was a manager, which seems to contradict your presentation of facts…

    Whether he is a fraud or not is beyond my ability to determine. As you put it, I could do more fact checking, but in a time when even officials are paid to lie to the public, what can you trust? Let’s take your own presentation of information for example. You wrote this long winded invective, supported by ‘facts’, to discredit not only my effort, but also Ken Johnston, and even Donna Hare.

    You criticize me for distorting the truth, but you, you provide a ridiculous dismissal of Donna Hare by insinuating she was just a ‘cooky hottie’, and that her male peers were willing to lie to her just to get in her pants. Were you there, to authenticate your preposterous and sociopathic perspective on this story? Please confirm this, it would make me feel better. By the way, she’s not that hot. But I guess nerds will be nerds. Right? And you accuse me of ‘distorting the truth’? Do you not see the irony in this?

    If your intention was to rebuke me for being sloppy and to set the record straight, you partially succeeded, I guess, on the first bit. But by zealously discrediting every character mentioned, even using hearsay and conjecture, you sir, pass for one of those paid shills who spend their days stemming the spreading of a truth inconvenient for your superiors. They troll all the forums and blogs, leaving the same antagonizing footprints you left here. And thus, I cannot believe your intention is to genuinely shed light on the truth. And, in spite of your pedigree in UFO research, you cannot expect me take anything you say seriously. Not after you perpetrate the very thing you accuse me of doing…

  2. JimO says:

    You’ve got to get a lot more disciplined in actually understanding stuff you read and repeat — your distortion level is lamentably high.

    You say: “At this point, I wouldn’t call Ken Johnston a ‘whistle blower’. After all, he is merely confirming a story which previous whistle blower Donna Hare exposed, namely that NASA has been doctoring moon and Mars photography to hide from the public the presence of artificial structures and objects. For years she was instructed to smudge and airbrush photos that had objects which NASA didn’t want to reveal to the public.”

    Wrong. I’ve never seen her remotely claim what she says she saw somebody ELSE [not herself] doing had ANYTHING to do with other planets [she said it was a picture of a forested region on Earth]. I’ll bet you $1000 your version is false.

    “…now it’s another individual who corroborates the cover up of ET presence on the moon, both current or historical.”

    She does report other employees told her such stories, arguably to get a date with a hottie who was known to be seriously into alien abductions. Hormonal young men will, it is undeniable, tell their targets ANYTHING to attain their particular goals.

    “Ken was fired, the story goes, for coming out with this information. I invite you to question his motivation for doing this.”

    How about you first invite your readers to determine how much of Johnston’s comments can be corroborated, and what such an effort actually reveals?

    “One can only guess as to whether this is a concerted leakage or just a bunch of civil servants who have decided to finally do their jobs. Ken is fairly high ranking, as he managed the photography department at NASA.”

    At that time, Ken was a 26-year-old HS graduate with no technical, scientific, or flight training. How is it likely to you that HE would have been given the job of heading “the photography laboratory” — which he himself never actually claimed, since you badly garbled this to.

    Why do you make it so easy to discredit anomalous research and assist in any coverup of any real secrets, by providing yet more evidence that private enthusiasts such as yourself are exaggerators, distorters, and misrepresenters — as I suggest these examples indicate.

    Shame on you — and shame on you for refusing to admit you need to improve.

  3. JimO says:

    This “Ken Johnston” character seems like a sweet guy and great theatre, but when anyone bothers to double-check, nothing he claims about his spaceflight career seems to check out with the evidence.

    Now, I don’t mind weird stories and weird story-tellers, because on occasion they produce progress towards unexpected insights and truths. But when they drag in honorable men beside whom I worked for years, and portray them — long after they themselves are not able to defend themselves — as liars and scientific frauds, it does raise my hackles.

    Case in point: Dr. Thornton Page and the allegations of photo forgery to suppress evidence of alien activity filmed by Apollo-14 in shadowed regions of Tsiolkovskiy Crater on the back side of the moon. Page comes across in this story as a sneering villain on a planetary scale.

    But I worked with him for more than twenty years, visited him and his wife Lou at their home in Nassau Bay, knew their family, interviewed him for television, and delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

    So I took the trouble — as nobody else bothered to do — to just dig into the basics of Johnston’s story. It didn’t take long to determine, from mission records, that Apollo-14 never flew over Tsiolkovskiy Crater at all – that region was hundreds of miles to the south of their orbit, right on the horizon where Stu Roosa wouldn’t even have looked as he imaged the scientific targets below his spaceship.

    And when Apollo-14 was circling the moon, the sun was 30 degrees above the eastern rim of the crater — which would have left no portion of the floor in shadow, since the topographic relief is so gentle. Johnston said the crater’s floor was half in shadow, but none of it was. Doesn’t that suggest the story is imaginary? Go verify this.

    The story seems internally inconsistent. At one point the film (and I can’t find any record of a 16-mm cine camera even aboard the CM during the LM absence period) is called ‘Top Secret’, and the next day, Johnston is borrowing a copy for general showing to ordinary employees in the Bldg 2 auditorium. Why Page should even ask Johnston for the film is a total puzzle since even Johnston admits HE had to go to the REAL archives to retrieve it.
    Johnston reports ‘learning to fly’ in the Marine corps. Yet his FOIAed military training records show NO aircraft ratings or any flight school graduation certificates. His entire military duty was as a junior NCO flight line electronics maintenance tech, honorable work – but all of it on the ground. Go check.

    Grumman public affairs official Lon Rains checked for me their documents on their test pilots for the LM, and you can verify this with him. Johnston is not on the list. Nor is he named in any of the Apollo program histories of the testing of Lunar Modules in the vacuum chamber in Houston or in all other activities with flight vehicles. His name is not mentioned. He appears as a technician in the August 1969 NASA phone book, but not assigned to the astronaut training team, as he claims.

    His subsequent job in the Lunar Receiving Lab was as a shipping clerk, according to co-workers. He had several sets of Apollo photographs to show to scientists who were being sent the samples. He never had control over the original photos [he seems to have explained that to you ambiguously], and the one set he kept, that he donated to his college, was subsequently lost and he has ot been able to locate it, last I’ve heard [from the chief archivist at the college Johnston gave it t0].
    He was never ordered to delete or alter images from the master archives, nor did he even have the access to do so — he was told to clear the shelves once his team task [and he was a honorable footsoldier in that team, with nobody working for him] ended when moon landings ended and he was laid off.

    The “Dr.” title that is often used was also highly suspect, since it traces to a mail-order certificate from a PO Box in Denver that names a non-existent ‘Reform Baptist Seminary’, signed by a businessman who is still involved in other mail and internet projects..The ‘seminary’ was shut down as part of a mid-1980s Colorado Attorney General’s task force crackdown on bogus diploma mills.

    Decades later, Johnston claimed that PhD on the bio he sent to the volunteer outreach program at JPL. They trustingly listed it in their own website as an example of the education level of their unpaid volunteers. It was my query to them regarding verifiable corroboration of the claim that led to JPL’s simple and obvious query to Johnston — and his immediate offer to resign, which JPL accepted and quickly deleted the offending educational claim. Johnston soon called back to withdraw his resignation but JPL would have none of it — why should they give him a pass on one the major crash-landings in federal employment, claiming a bogus degree?

    We’ve all seen more than our fair share of tall tale tellers from all walks of life, and for myself, I rarely detect any signs of deliberate deception in them. What I often see is an enthusiastic incremental dramatization of original interesting stories into forms so distorted they become useless for the purposes we all pay attention to them for — for indications of genuinely anomalous experiences and apparitions whose recognition could be an epochal historic event.