Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
stevemagegod

Guy Hacks into NASA and Pentagon Computers

176 posts in this topic

Imaginative theory...if perhaps a bit too contrived. One wonders if you're trying so hard to offer some semblance of logic but instead come off sounding loony.

Kinda hard to portray McKinnon as a confabulator of elaborate fantasy when he's also described by NASA as the most dangerous hacker of all time, don't you think?

Let's check up on what we can check up on. Is Hare's story as preposterous as I suggest?

It's a testible hypothesis, that she contrived the story, since if the story is true, there should be thousands of NASA-released Earth surface photographs all over books and magazines of the 1970s, where you can see trees and their shadows.

I challenge you to find ONE.

I suggest that the inability of anyone -- and dozens of initially true believers have tried in the past ten years or more, and all failed -- to find such a photo is strong evidence that they never existed, and thus that the fundamental basis of Hare's story is fictional. And that has a relentlessly cascading effect on the credibility of McKinnon's story.

Do some real investigation, or concede the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fundamental basis of Hare's story is fictional. And that has a relentlessly cascading effect on the credibility of McKinnon's story.

Your contention that Hare and McKinnon are connected is scatterbrained detective work. Starting with your desired conclusion and working backward to connect the dots shows desperation, and not much more.

You seem like a nice old guy, but you truly are the Last of the Mohicans when it comes to the old-school debunking trade. Actual scientists have long since departed the ranks.

I applaud your determination, but maybe it's time to turn in your gumshoes and magnifying glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your contention that Hare and McKinnon are connected is scatterbrained detective work. Starting with your desired conclusion and working backward to connect the dots shows desperation, and not much more.

You seem like a nice old guy, but you truly are the Last of the Mohicans when it comes to the old-school debunking trade. Actual scientists have long since departed the ranks.

I applaud your determination, but maybe it's time to turn in your gumshoes and magnifying glass.

So you decline the suggestion that you actually look for evidence or proof? Perhaps that's wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/left]

Thanks, this is interesting, because it's just Donna Hare's story, embellished. What McKinnon has obviously done is read the Hare story in the UFO media, and then 'me-tooed' himself into the narrative with an elaborate confabulation based on it.

More like he could have hacked into NASA computers based on Donna Hare's story. See the below quote:

"He said he investigated a NASA photographic expert's claim that at the Johnson Space Center's Building 8 images were regularly cleaned of evidence of UFO craft, and confirmed this comparing the raw originals with the "processed" images."

Gary McKinnon has always stated that he hacked into computers based on Disclosure Project testimony.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like he could have hacked into NASA computers based on Donna Hare's story. .....

OK, that's an alternate theory.

Do you dare check it out by investigating possible physical impossibilities in Hare's stories?

Find me a single earth surface photo taken from space and released by NASA in the 1970s on which you can see enough detail to make out the shadows of trees. One example. If Hare's story is authentic, there should be thousands of them out there.

Find one.

Edited by JimOberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/left]

Thanks, this is interesting, because it's just Donna Hare's story, embellished. What McKinnon has obviously done is read the Hare story in the UFO media, and then 'me-tooed' himself into the narrative with an elaborate confabulation based on it.

McKinnon's fakery is exposed by the sad fact that Hare's original story is preposterous, for reasons i've posted elsewhere. Either she was the naive victim of teasing by co-workers who knew of her enthusiasm for UFO contactee stories, or she dreamed it all up. That can be determined because the photographs she described -- hi-resolution surface images in which you could see shadows of trees, and even the raised tails of alarmed cows as they were being mutilated, were phsucally impossible in NASA image archives in that period. She claimed the photos were being santized for public sale -- but if so, where are they? Where is a SINGLE NASA-sold photo from that period in which tree shadows were discernable?

There aren't any.

hello Jim,

am I right in thinking that you say Donna Hares story is 'preposterous' due to the comments regarding tree shadows?

if so how does a McKinnons story resemble this part which seems key in throwing doubt over Donna Hares story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's check up on what we can check up on. Is Hare's story as preposterous as I suggest?

shouldnt confirmation be the priority in supporting the assertion that McKinnons story is just an embelishment of Hares? If we cant do this then the 'holes' in Hares story are irrelevant as far as the McKinnon discussion goes ..IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldnt confirmation be the priority in supporting the assertion that McKinnons story is just an embelishment of Hares? If we cant do this then the 'holes' in Hares story are irrelevant as far as the McKinnon discussion goes ..IMO

I',m not following -- confirmation of what?

My view is that Hare's story is so unworthy of belief that any other story derived from it also loses all credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again J.O is spot on,We need actual proof,actual physical evidence ect ! ECT ! As for the adult sex toy photo I`ll defer to another story ASAP !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I',m not following -- confirmation of what?

My view is that Hare's story is so unworthy of belief that any other story derived from it also loses all credibility.

confirmation that McKinnons story is just an embelishment of Hares story. I am not trying to figure out why you view Hares story as unworthy of belief, I am more interested in knowing how and why you are confident that McKinnons is just an embelishment of Hares.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

confirmation that McKinnons story is just an embelishment of Hares story. I am not trying to figure out why you view Hares story as unworthy of belief, I am more interested in knowing how and why you are confident that McKinnons is just an embelishment of Hares.

thanks

OK.

If Hare's story is plausible, or even merely of indeterminate plausibility, a similar story from another source could be similar because it is based on independent use of original material that also led to Hare's story, and it becomes evidence for independent corroboration. This would be important and significant.

But if Hare's story is at its heart based on impossible physics, optics, or history, then there IS no 'original material' behind it, no idependent way that another person could have obtained the same story by other means. The only source of a Hare-brained-like story is Hare's own brain. And any variations on it are merely elaborations or garbles by the person who came up with the second story, a person self-described as spending a lot of time during that research being high on drugs.

Hence my interest in establishing that Hare's description of having seen a single photograph showing a 'white circle' of a scale small enough that trees were also discernable together with their own shadows, cannot have happened because photos of that sharp resolution never existed in NASA archives of that period for the purpose explicitly claimed by Hare, commercial releasse to the public.

If they had, you'd be able to find examples. And after a decade of search by many originally hopeful pro-UFO investigators, none have ever been found.

By demolishing the existence of any authentic Hare source for her story, you demolish the credibility of anyone claiming to have ALSO found such a source.

QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

If Hare's story is plausible, or even merely of indeterminate plausibility, a similar story from another source could be similar because it is based on independent use of original material that also led to Hare's story, and it becomes evidence for independent corroboration. This would be important and significant.

thanks, I understand your reasoning now, at first it seemed like a blatant strawman.

But if Hare's story is at its heart based on impossible physics, optics, or history, then there IS no 'original material' behind it, no idependent way that another person could have obtained the same story by other means. The only source of a Hare-brained-like story is Hare's own brain. And any variations on it are merely elaborations or garbles by the person who came up with the second story, a person self-described as spending a lot of time during that research being high on drugs.

ok let me try this, lets assume she was told about the building and what went on. She then embelished this with saying she 'saw' xy and z (things that dont seem possible i.e. tree shadows).....these embelishments however do not seem repeated by McKinnon.

Hence my interest in establishing that Hare's description of having seen a single photograph showing a 'white circle' of a scale small enough that trees were also discernable together with their own shadows, cannot have happened because photos of that sharp resolution never existed in NASA archives of that period for the purpose explicitly claimed by Hare, commercial releasse to the public.

If they had, you'd be able to find examples. And after a decade of search by many originally hopeful pro-UFO investigators, none have ever been found.

I may be paranoid here but you have consistantly used similar phrasing with regards to the archives. Maybe you are right they never existed for that PURPOSE, and were never due to be released to the public as claimed by Hare...is this embelishment on her behalf again. Can I just ask you straight out (for claritys sake/paranoias sake)....did NASA have capabilities to take high res images..maybe not to the extent of shadows (embelishment) but certainly high res?

By demolishing the existence of any authentic Hare source for her story, you demolish the credibility of anyone claiming to have ALSO found such a source.

QED.

At this point I see the only link between Hare and McKinnon to be ' a NASA source', I cannot link McKinnn to the embelishment by Hare as he never mentions trees/shadows...just airbrushing, cigar shapes and building 8....which IMO is not dismissed due to possible detail embelishments by Hare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice she also claims that they were pine trees...so not just trees but she was able to discern the type....hmmmm

Jim, do you know when she is talking about both month and year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a NASA-JSC program in the 1970s to distribute Landsat program imagery for agricultural and other land use assessment. But when you look up that program, the ground resolution was in the 10's of meters, making individual tree discernment impossible. It wasn't a matter of arbitrary limitation -- it was the hardware involved. NASA also had surface photography from the Skylab space program, in a project called EREP, but if you look it up, it had the same fundamental resolution limits. Aside from hand-held imagery, which also was all releasable, that's it. Nolthing like the modern commercial systems with half-meter resolution, that was h/w generations later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think they can just hack in to a secure government system over the internet and find some important data?

Trust me, no system containing real secret (or even a few levels lower) classified data has even touched the internet. To even have a chance of "hacking" a secure network and getting anything remotely useful you would have to get past physical security first, without being noticed. Governments and militaries aren't stupid, even if they seem that way at times. They are very good at misdirection and hiding things.

Edited by Finity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think they can just hack in to a secure government system over the internet and find some important data?

Trust me, no system containing real secret (or even a few levels lower) classified data has even touched the internet. To even have a chance of "hacking" a secure network and getting anything remotely useful you would have to get past physical security first, without being noticed. Governments and militaries aren't stupid, even if they seem that way at times. They are very good at misdirection and hiding things.

Hell, here at Intel we have firewall after firewall to prevent virus and intrusion and that is only to protect files with long strings of variables, not even actual data.

I agree that if there was any real alien data or files or photos they would not be kept on a system that had internet access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think there's more to this than just a lucky break for this guy. I think he knows something and he's traded his silence for his freedom. If he went to trial, he could sing like a bird even if it's a load of lies, and cause all manner of diplomatic problems. Now that he is probably read the wikileaks stuff, he could embellish the stories even more and big brother would have a b**** of a time proving him wrong without giving up the real secrets. I think it's BS that he's let off on compassionate grounds.

Hacker McKinnon will not face charges in the UK after US extradition blocked

Computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not face criminal charges in the UK, the country’s top prosecutor has said, two months after his extradition to America was blocked.

http://www.telegraph...on-blocked.html

He has managed to escape Justice or a few reasons. One is that his charges are trumped up. Everyone knows that the law is going especially hard on him because he both is the first one caught (most amateurish) and because he preyed on gullible people to try and evade justice - that being anyone blinded enough by a love of the UFO/ET phenomena to believe whatever crap he spouted.

Yes, he used all the UFO buffs as patsies, and they gladly accommodated him. Those people ought to be felling very stupid right now, but pride will make them insist that despite a total lack of evidence, what McKinnnon told them, they will believe. It is sad really. No logic or reasoning from an IT perspective can help these people because this also seems beyond far too many people, thanks so freaking such for removing computer skills Mr Gates and automating everything for the masses so everyone who has ever right clicked seems to think they are an IT Admin.

But the main reason is they, the McKinnons, have effectively blackmailed the system. McKinnons mother has said he will suicide in Guantanamo. Lets say he got life, maybe a bit harsh I agree, but considering his position, not altogether surprising. Lets say he did think this was a waste of an existence and offed himself, or a terrorist offed him.

How much do you think his Mum would be worth? The order of billions, and a martyrs support group. He has already sucked in the more gullible UFO people, how hard will it be to push the issue if a genuine altercation leads to tragic circumstances? The potential for unrest over what was no more then ever a lie is too great to risk. He took advantage of the gullible, and then blackmailed the system. Guantanamo is too good for this manipulative so and so IMHO.

Lets face it. It's not rocket science. If you have a good mouthpiece, you can beat the justice system. McKinnon did just that. He ought to be tarred and feathered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche - Do you remember the days of Wardriving? Having to dial in to each network you wanted to access via amazing 8bit land line? lol!

LOL, do I. The symbol here used to be a pigs head in a circle. I spent most of my time protecting against such, had a few chuckles in my time with some noobs too. They forget hacking can be 2 way LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

...and I know some members figure he saw nothing by using his Mom's old dial-up modem. That's true. But when I refer to possible "secrets" he may have uncovered, I'm not thinking in terms of UFO's specifically. In fact I doubt that. I would think IF there is some coverup in place regarding this, the files would be under such strict control no one could ever hack in.

There could have been any number of text documents he could have seen. It may be difficult for the authorities to determine exactly what was viewed. I can well imagine that if he accessed a lot of PC's which had no passwords in place, some of the owners of those machines may well have realized it and erased his tracks to cover their own ass.

My point about the Wikileaks stuff, is that he could have viewed them (very likely) since they were released, and made up some very embellished tales that would put authorities in a nasty position. McKinnon would have likely pulled all the stops to defend himself.

I bet every time he uses a computer for the rest of his life, big brother will be monitoring his every move.

One thing's for sure. He won't be travelling to the USA anytime soon for a vacation!

Yet he never backed anything up, never had an offsite offshore location, hell the pron people caught onto that decades ago, and no ISP backups to prove his claims?

All we have is a lousy story we have all heard before?

I really find that hard to believe from and admin point of view. the BOFH would have fried him by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UFO records I was shown were definitely not on the Internet, but then no such thing existed back then.

I do not know what agency or organization is really in charge of them, but I can definitely tell you that someone is--or at least they were way back then. They seemed to have the UFO records from many different agencies, including the FBI, CIA, DIA, the Army, and so on. At least they had copies of them.

I have always thought that what I saw was part of the real UFO investigation, whatever it was really called, but we know from the record that it certainly existed at a very highly classified level. All of those UFO records were certainly going SOMEWHERE, and it sure wasn't Blue Book. LOL

One place such records are not going to be is on an incomplete (how McKinon hacked in) brand new installation. I cannot see top brass getting Microsoft people in to transfer top secret files to desktops without an admin password on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with this... coming from some one who works within the realm of the government, especially on the security side of things. This story is full of holes on so many levels... When you sit down at a desk and are given a computer, that computer is leased to you. The first thing you have to do is register it on the domain by inputting a user name and password. Those leasing the machines are not given an option, especially on secure networks. Its not like these guys bring their personal computers in and are setup and ready to go. Any "classified" or "confidential" information is kept not on their computers but on servers... you would have to gain access to their servers... which I can promise you are not left wide open. Even the most basic of government systems (ill use JPAS for this example, its a government server that houses the clearances levels and info on EVERYONE with a government issued security clearance). In order to log into JPAS you have always had to have an issued username and password that rotated from time to time... and those restrictions have gotten tighter... in order to log in now you have to have a certified PKI certificate. So, like I said... full of holes..

Edit: heh, guess I should have checked the date on the posts... im still asleep me thinks...

Gidday

No Probs I usually show up from time to time :D

And the holes are never ending. To an extent I blame Microsoft for automating systems to a point where a person does not have to know what a graphics card is, let alone give one values. Windows took away any need to understand a computer at all.

And you can bet that confidential servers, which I am sure do exist for good reason, are not running Windows ;) A terminal Services client is not going to get into that sort of system.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you maybe think that this intranet is some sort of sub network to WWW... like a private secured network accesible only by certain IDs from gov. officals?

They still can access the internet but through diffrent way?

Pssst...

Google dark fibre, deep web and dark net. I think you'll get a kick out of it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?!

The correct term for that is "lost". Not stolen.

Something cannot be stolen unless it is proven that someone took it without permission. He did not take anything.

It is not lost when you have the sole person responsible. What is the difference between deleting something, or taking it and using it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it so easy to break NASA's codes??

It was a brand new installation of Windows with and unprotected admin account. Any person in the world could have gone the the Microsoft Website, downloaded the free remote access client, logged into NASA, typed in ADMINISTRATOR and used a blank password. Just like logging onto any Windows system except I doubt too many people still have a blank admin account.

Yeah, child's play really. That's why I keep pointing a finger back at Bill Gates and wondering why he is not at all implicated. I am sure NASA paid a pretty penny for a personalised system. I think that NASA should be able to sue Microsoft as well as lock up McKinnon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about his supposed list of Officers from another world is that the document could have been for someone roleplaying, writing fiction or even just reading a book. I know that I sometime make lists of stuff at work for roleplaying games I do with friends. And when I used to play WOW, I'd make lists of people who I considered safe, or friends. And I can imagine someone doing something similar while building up information and making an outline for a sci-fi book. I just think this because if someone cracked into my work desktop and looked at the word docs and excel sheets they would see some fairly exotic looking stuff. So it seems to reason that other do that too.

Hey DC

To be perfectly honest, I do not think he got that far. I think he was too busy with the acts of bravado that brought him down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.