Bara's "Ken Johnston Jet Pilot" Claim

[JimOberg]

The Hoagland/Bara book 'Dork Mission' relies heavily on claims of lunar imagery falsification and coverup, on testimony of Ken Johnston, supposedly the head of the photo archive department at the Lunar Receiving Lab during the Apollo program. It accuses, inter alia, Thornton Page of falsifying raw lunar surface imagery.

Johnston's fundamental credibility depends on his status at the time -- a High School graduate in his late 20's who, he claims, was put in charge of all the scientists doing photo archiving work. He was then ordered to purge original images from the archives, so goes the claim.

In a series of credentials-claims, Johnston begins with his pilot status. Here's how Bara recently restated it:

http://darkmission.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-post.html

Bara: “I have no reason to ask Ken if he was “ever a pilot, as [my] book insists,” because I know for a fact he was. During his training, he flew T-37’s, T-28’s, T-2J’s, DC-3’s and F-4 Phantom’s. I also know that as a civilian he flew Piper Colts, Cessna 150’s, 172’s, Grumman single engine planes, Piper twin Aztec's and logged hundreds of hours on the Boeing 727, 757, 767, and 747 simulators.

Oh, and he also logged over 3,000 hours in the Lunar Module and the LM simulators, where he taught all of the Apollo astronauts to fly the LM. I'm not sure why NASA would hire him as a flight instructor if he was never "a pilot, as [my] book insists,” but I'll leave it to you to work out the logical contortions of that one.”

But Johnston's military records, obstained via FOIA (see www.stolenvalor.com for how-to), showed Ken Johnston, an E-5 (Lance Corporal), enrolled in MARCAD (Marine Air Cadet) training, receiving no completion certificate, and returning to his previous duties at El Toro as an F-4 avionics maintenace tech. He separated from the USMC with that grade and duty.

His service was honorable and competent, and I appreciate his stepping forward -- at a time when large segments of the nation wanted the other side to win. Likewise -- so I can presume -- commendable work on the Apollo program, at NASA, without any need to exaggerate it. The LM 'switch monkeys' were not astronaut instructors, there was an entirely different team for that purpose, and those lunar module flight trainers never needed 'test pilots', they needed avionics testing and maintenance as described in the letters you have posted -- honorable and precision work, no doubt about it. But not exactly as hyped.

Here's his photo from that FOIA file:

His training summary lists his aviation cadet training as 'incomplete'.

Now, where's any documentation that shows Johnston ever completed any pilot training or certification? Bara refuses to provide it.

I also have talked with lots of people who had served in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, where Ken did creditable and honorable work, I've found out, as a lunar sample shipping clerk. As far as I can tell, the LRL never even HAD a "photographic division", that was an entirely different division in a different building. There's no indication he ever had anyone else working for him. His responsibility there has been exaggerated, I conclude.

I've also talked with the head of the "Reformed Baptist Seminary" (or whatever) in Colorado, the organization that Ken got his 'doctor of philosophy' certificate (the one that is presented as a "PhD in Meta Physics"). The guy I talked to even signed that certificate, as posted on Bara's site -- look at his name. He told me all about the actual requirements for being mailed such a piece of paper. Academic achievement had nothing to do with it.

Johnston seems to be a sweet human being who did honorable service to his country in the military and in the Apollo program, but whose qualifications as a credible expert seem stretched. Those qualifications could be established, even at this late date, by the display of relevant documents. So far, apparently, nothing but bluster and bluff.

Edited January 7, 2009 by JimOberg

[eqgumby]

Shocking!

You mean, he's NOT a "top military" person?

[JimOberg]

The period when he attended aviation cadet training in Florida -- and returned without any certification.

[badeskov]

The Hoagland/Bara book 'Dork Mission' relies heavily on claims of lunar imagery falsification and coverup, on testimony of Ken Johnston, supposedly the head of the photo archive department at the Lunar Receiving Lab during the Apollo program. It accuses, inter alia, Thornton Page of falsifying raw lunar surface imagery.

Johnston's fundamental credibility depends on his status at the time -- a High School graduate in his late 20's who, he claims, was put in charge of all the scientists doing photo archiving work. He was then ordered to purge original images from the archives, so goes the claim.

In a series of credentials-claims, Johnston begins with his pilot status. Here's how Bara recently restated it:

http://darkmission.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-post.html

Bara: "I have no reason to ask Ken if he was "ever a pilot, as [my] book insists," because I know for a fact he was. During his training, he flew T-37's, T-28's, T-2J's, DC-3's and F-4 Phantom's. I also know that as a civilian he flew Piper Colts, Cessna 150's, 172's, Grumman single engine planes, Piper twin Aztec's and logged hundreds of hours on the Boeing 727, 757, 767, and 747 simulators.

Oh, and he also logged over 3,000 hours in the Lunar Module and the LM simulators, where he taught all of the Apollo astronauts to fly the LM. I'm not sure why NASA would hire him as a flight instructor if he was never "a pilot, as [my] book insists," but I'll leave it to you to work out the logical contortions of that one."

But Johnston's military records, obstained via FOIA (see www.stolenvalor.com for how-to), showed Ken Johnston, an E-5 (Lance Corporal), enrolled in MARCAD (Marine Air Cadet) training, receiving no completion certificate, and returning to his previous duties at El Toro as an F-4 avionics maintenace tech. He separated from the USMC with that grade and duty.

His service was honorable and competent, and I appreciate his stepping forward -- at a time when large segments of the nation wanted the other side to win. Likewise -- so I can presume -- commendable work on the Apollo program, at NASA, without any need to exaggerate it. The LM 'switch monkeys' were not astronaut instructors, there was an entirely different team for that purpose, and those lunar module flight trainers never needed 'test pilots', they needed avionics testing and maintenance as described in the letters you have posted -- honorable and precision work, no doubt about it. But not exactly as hyped.

Here's his photo from that FOIA file:

His training summary lists his aviation cadet training as 'incomplete'.

Now, where's any documentation that shows Johnston ever completed any pilot training or certification? Bara refuses to provide it.

I also have talked with lots of people who had served in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, where Ken did creditable and honorable work, I've found out, as a lunar sample shipping clerk. As far as I can tell, the LRL never even HAD a "photographic division", that was an entirely different division in a different building. There's no indication he ever had anyone else working for him. His responsibility there has been exaggerated, I conclude.

I've also talked with the head of the "Reformed Baptist Seminary" (or whatever) in Colorado, the organization that Ken got his 'doctor of philosophy' certificate (the one that is presented as a "PhD in Meta Physics"). The guy I talked to even signed that certificate, as posted on Bara's site -- look at his name. He told me all about the actual requirements for being mailed such a piece of paper. Academic achievement had nothing to do with it.

Johnston seems to be a sweet human being who did honorable service to his country in the military and in the Apollo program, but whose qualifications as a credible expert seem stretched. Those qualifications could be established, even at this late date, by the display of relevant documents. So far, apparently, nothing but bluster and bluff.

Jim, thanks a lot for your time and effort. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of saving your text and scanned document for future reference

Cheers,

Badeskov

[JimOberg]

QUOTE (JimOberg @ Jan 7 2009, 03:30 PM)

The Hoagland/Bara book 'Dork Mission' relies heavily on claims of lunar imagery falsification and coverup, on testimony of Ken Johnston, supposedly the head of the photo archive department at the Lunar Receiving Lab during the Apollo program. It accuses, inter alia, Thornton Page of falsifying raw lunar surface imagery.

Johnston's fundamental credibility depends on his status at the time -- a High School graduate in his late 20's who, he claims, was put in charge of all the scientists doing photo archiving work. He was then ordered to purge original images from the archives, so goes the claim... [snip]

I've also talked with the head of the "Reformed Baptist Seminary" (or whatever) in Colorado, the organization that Ken got his 'doctor of philosophy' certificate (the one that is presented as a "PhD in Meta Physics"). The guy I talked to even signed that certificate, as posted on Bara's site -- look at his name. He told me all about the actual requirements for being mailed such a piece of paper. Academic achievement had nothing to do with it.

Johnston seems to be a sweet human being who did honorable service to his country in the military and in the Apollo program, but whose qualifications as a credible expert seem stretched. Those qualifications could be established, even at this late date, by the display of relevant documents. So far, apparently, nothing but bluster and bluff.

Here are the details on his questionable (to phrase it politely) 'PhD' that he used on his CV for the NASA 'Solar system ambassador' program. When they asked him about documentation for it, he quit in a huff and claimed he was 'fired' (from a volunteer position, no less). Bara/Hoagland still insist he is a real "Dr.".

---

The 'Doctor of Metaphysics' certificate is found here: http://bp1.blogger.com/_eaaXUONwoEA/R0RdX-...ics_Deploma.jpg (note the misspelling of 'diploma', possibly deliberate to avoid a clear-cut false claim).

The issuing authority was identified as the 'Reform Baptist Theological Seminary', from a company named "Colorado Reform Baptist Church, Inc." Remember, this is the 'school' that when you google search it, it only returns links to Bara's Blog and a porn site and one or two generic Baptist seminaries elsewhere. There's no other trace of the school. Nobody else on the entire Internet seems to have cited it as a credential.

In November 2007 I located and talked with William Conklin, the man identified on the 'deploma' as "Dean of the Seminary". He gave me (and doubtless would give anyone else who called him at 303-455-0837) a much better understanding of what the piece of paper represents. To begin with, he insisted that a 'Doctor of Metaphysics' degree is NOT a 'PhD' and nobody has any right to term it as such. The 'school' was never accredited and never had any academic standing. He had set up as a money-making venture and operated for about a decade, in the 1980s.

Currently, Conklin runs an anti-IRS site (http://www.anti-irs.com/) telling people they can avoid paying the federal income tax. This claim is criticized at http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/william-conklin.

His description of the "'Reform Baptist Theological Seminary'" seems to meet the characteristics of a 'diploma mill', a mail-order certificate printing operation. Many hundreds of such organizations have operated around the US and the world in recent decades.

See Wikipedia's description of a 'diploma mill'..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_mill

Government agencies, in particular, have taken a very, very dim view of employees using such certificates in place of genuine, accredited degrees, for hiring or assignments or promotion. In practice this has been a firing offense for decades, or – if the certificate was falsely used for monetary gain (NOT done in Johnston's case) – criminal prosecution. Using such certificates to expropriate the title "Dr." is also considered fraud. Those guys mean business, as the web links detail.

[JimOberg]

If there remains any doubt that 'William Conklin' of current anti-IRS fame is the signatory of Johnston's 'Doctor of Philosophy' certificate, see an interesting Colorado lawsuit involving the “Colorado Reform Baptist Church, Inc.” and the “Reverend” William Conklin and his wife Mary Ann Tavery, at

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/3...23.91-1376.html

[DONTEATUS]

Some of these people want so much to be part of something,they should just sit back and be something. To be a fake at anything is only hurting oneself. The rest of us can just try to be understanding of mankinds other side.

[JimOberg]

Some of these people want so much to be part of something,they should just sit back and be something. To be a fake at anything is only hurting oneself. The rest of us can just try to be understanding of mankinds other side.

That is a compassionate and insightful comment. It's often the case that we see people tell and retell a dramatic story they heard and gradually migrate themselves into the action, and eventually to the center of the action. I see the process as quite innocent and largely unintentional, but ego-driven and ultimately misleading. Many famous UFO legends can be attributed to this process, in which a newspaper clipping, a half-heard broadcast news flash, or even a dream, becomes a story, and then a story personally witnessed, and then a story participated in, and ultimately led, by the narrator. I'm sure a dozen examples spring into everyone's mind here. It is the ultimate snare lying in wait for all oral historians -- whether of wars, or politics, or crime, or -- UFOs.

[Eieam Wun]

Propaganda anyone?

That is a compassionate and insightful comment. It's often the case that we see people tell and retell a dramatic story they heard and gradually migrate themselves into the action, and eventually to the center of the action. I see the process as quite innocent and largely unintentional, but ego-driven and ultimately misleading. Many famous UFO legends can be attributed to this process, in which a newspaper clipping, a half-heard broadcast news flash, or even a dream, becomes a story, and then a story personally witnessed, and then a story participated in, and ultimately led, by the narrator. I'm sure a dozen examples spring into everyone's mind here. It is the ultimate snare lying in wait for all oral historians -- whether of wars, or politics, or crime, or -- UFOs.

man you sure get around, every now and then I search other forums to see if I like it or not, and I know I saw you on at least atlantis rising, and at least another forum (not to mention the darkmission blog) where someone else was saying the same thing I am saying. Dude why do you care so much about richard hoagland/bara, let me guess cause he's miss leading people and you are here to set the record straight? Well you've come to the right place, lol. Who cares about hoagland, he is entertainment, and as long as he and anyone else that people feel are misleading laymen, aren't affecting policy, let it be, I'll say this, the only ones your convincing are those who weren't already convinced and had reservations, those that believe will still do so. But with that said, please by all means continue on...

Edited February 18, 2009 by Eieam Wun

[DONTEATUS]

So does this mean that we shall ask Deep Thought the ultimate question? We all Know the answer by now.

[The Silver Thong]

Propaganda anyone?

man you sure get around, every now and then I search other forums to see if I like it or not, and I know I saw you on at least atlantis rising, and at least another forum (not to mention the darkmission blog) where someone else was saying the same thing I am saying. Dude why do you care so much about richard hoagland/bara, let me guess cause he's miss leading people and you are here to set the record straight? Well you've come to the right place, lol. Who cares about hoagland, he is entertainment, and as long as he and anyone else that people feel are misleading laymen, aren't affecting policy, let it be, I'll say this, the only ones your convincing are those who weren't already convinced and had reservations, those that believe will still do so. But with that said, please by all means continue on...

Not sure I agree with this part (bolded) when I first joined U.M. I did have a lot of questions about the moon landing, hollow earth crap, aliens cover, 9/11 cover up ect ect. I actually learned a ton of stuff from people like JimOberg. At first I didn't like him and that was years ago befor he even joined U.M. lol he was trying to ruin my fantasy place where Hogland was king LOL I wanted things like aliens and cover ups to be all true, however that is not the case, thank goodness !

Gee, I would almost be embarassed to go and look at some of my early posts LOL We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible. Just my 2 cents man.....

Edited February 18, 2009 by The Silver Thong

[TSS]

Not sure I agree with this part (bolded) when I first joined U.M. I did have a lot of questions about the moon landing, hollow earth crap, aliens cover, 9/11 cover up ect ect. I actually learned a ton of stuff from people like JimOberg. At first I didn't like him and that was years ago befor he even joined U.M. lol he was trying to ruin my fantasy place where Hogland was king LOL I wanted things like aliens and cover ups to be all true, however that is not the case, thank goodness !

Gee, I would almost be embarassed to go and look at some of my early posts LOL We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible. Just my 2 cents man.....

Ditto. I can remember looking at my dad when I waas about 16 and saying "Yeah, but how do explain the flag waving on the moon when there's no atmosphere". he looked at me with that disappointment only a parent can do, where you know he's thinking "good god, I'm responsible for that prat being born".

We need more Obergs' and less Hoaglands.

[supervike]

We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible. Just my 2 cents man.....

Well said!

[bee]

Propaganda anyone?

No thank you.....

Gee, I would almost be embarassed to go and look at some of my early posts LOL We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible. Just my 2 cents man.....

And in the spirit of balance here is The Enterprise Mission Main Site link....A Treasure Trove of info....

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

[The Silver Thong]

No thank you.....

And in the spirit of balance here is The Enterprise Mission Main Site link....A Treasure Trove of info....

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

Oh Bee darlin, I to loved the enterprise mission stuff. I will admit that years and years ago I use to hang on Hoaglands word. However today I can't really take any of it with out a grain of salt... I can't nor will I get into anything resembling a debate about Hoaglands site or his "work". It has been covered top to bottom and well he is grasping at staws to say the least. My opinion of course

[Eieam Wun]

The whole "Propaganda" bolded has to do with where ever I see forums of this type or even on amazon.com, sure nuff I see Jim, it's cool, but man I gotta ask is this one mans quest to enlighten ??? or propaganda, going to every site that might talk about hoagland seems dead on? Why I asked propaganda... Interesting statement I see here...

We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible

again, where is this notion that to follow Hoagland or any other "fringe" individuals, such a terrible thing, skyscanner, exactly how has this been terrible for you?

We follow mainstream notions all the time and assuming they are correct, but there are and will be many instances when that has proven other wise here is an example of something we were all taught but may prove to be incorrect.... http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/...-for-topper.htm.

But there is seemingly nothing wrong with believing the old notion until something new comes along. I think we need to ask exactly what is the harm here really? And why is there this notion of some individuals to assume the position of "truth guardians", especially if these 'guardians' seek propaganda to get their message across how different are they from hoagland and the others?

Edited February 18, 2009 by Eieam Wun

[bee]

Oh Bee darlin, I to loved the enterprise mission stuff. I will admit that years and years ago I use to hang on Hoaglands word. However today I can't really take any of it with out a grain of salt... I can't nor will I get into anything resembling a debate about Hoaglands site or his "work". It has been covered top to bottom and well he is grasping at staws to say the least. My opinion of course

Of course......

It's no secret that I admire Richard Hoagland. And I think he just gets better and better.

In my opinion...

[bee]

We follow mainstream notions all the time and assuming they are correct, but there are and will be many instances when that has proven other wise here is an example of something we were all taught but may prove to be incorrect....http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/why-50000-bp-is-a-crazy-date-for-topper.htm.

But there is seemingly nothing wrong with believing the old notion until something new comes along. I think we need to ask exactly what is the harm here really? And why is there this notion of some individuals to assume the position of "truth guardians", especially if these 'guardians' seek propaganda to get their message across how different are they from hoagland and the others?

Well said!

[The Silver Thong]

The whole "Propaganda" bolded has to do with where ever I see forums of this type or even on amazon.com, sure nuff I see Jim, it's cool, but man I gotta ask is this one mans quest to enlighten ??? or propaganda, going to every site that might talk about hoagland seems dead on? Why I asked propaganda... Interesting statement I see here...

again, where is this notion that to follow Hoagland or any other "fringe" individuals, such a terrible thing, skyscanner, exactly how has this been terrible for you?

We follow mainstream notions all the time and assuming they are correct, but there are and will be many instances when that has proven other wise here is an example of something we were all taught but may prove to be incorrect.... http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/...-for-topper.htm.

But there is seemingly nothing wrong with believing the old notion until something new comes along. I think we need to ask exactly what is the harm here really? And why is there this notion of some individuals to assume the position of "truth guardians", especially if these 'guardians' seek propaganda to get their message across how different are they from hoagland and the others?

The harm, I guess there is no real harm just some guy writting books of fiction and passing them off as fact. If ignorance of fact is acceptable to you, than fine no problem.

However it's a shame to see kids running around telling people that planet X is on it's way and we are all doomed ect ect.

[TSS]

again, where is this notion that to follow Hoagland or any other "fringe" individuals, such a terrible thing, skyscanner, exactly how has this been terrible for you?

I never said it's been terrible for me. A bit embarressed at my gulibility I suppose in the early days, I was quite seduced by this whole notion of a conspiracy and hidden knowledge. An "us and them" mentality where only a few people where really digging for the truth whilst the rest of the planet went about their everyday business oblivious to what was going on. That's how I used to see it. I guess that's all part of learning though. I'm glad I did read all the material available at the time pertaining to these theories, if anything it makes me appreciate the real work going on even more now.

It wasn't terrible for me, although I wasted to much money on it

[Eieam Wun]

The harm, I guess there is no real harm just some guy writting books of fiction and passing them off as fact. If ignorance of fact is acceptable to you, than fine no problem.

However it's a shame to see kids running around telling people that planet X is on it's way and we are all doomed ect ect.

...i'm not sure where u live that kids run around telling people about planet X, maybe that is the fault of the parents, but the only place I see that at is on line (internet) and in books in the new age sections of book stores. Which to me is what really intrigues me, anyone going to this section anyone going to a section which almost always has the words "SPECULATION" even if no one reads them has to know even on a subconscious level that what is present there is something other then what is commonly accepted. So exactly why people feel the need to use the same tactics as "fringe" works and individuals, or even lightly use such tactics to me is something I find interestingly ironical. I like how ya worded that there, "there is no real harm..." unless I being 'ignorant of the fact' is acceptable....nice....you can't be sane and deluded at the same time, you can act deluded but that is by choice meaning people want to believe, and telling them other wise won't make one iota of a difference, it is only when they choose to do other wise...

[Eieam Wun]

It wasn't terrible for me, although I wasted to much money on it

No you didn't say terrible for you, that was my question to you, but you did say this: "We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible"

Lol, yeah I'll agree on that, I did spend quite a bit of mulla but I must say it does get one thinking about certain topics one may other wise find boring or what have you...

Edited February 18, 2009 by Eieam Wun

[TSS]

No you didn't say terrible for you, that was my question to you, but you did say this: "We have new members join everyday and alot of this stuff is probably new to them and to have Hogland go unchecked and questioned would be terrible"

Sorry Eieam, that wasn't me that said that. Hoagland and friends can say what they like, I just have more respectr for those that correct him.

[bee]

It wasn't terrible for me, although I wasted to much money on it

I hasn't cost me a penny..... Enterprise Mission site. Project Camelot. YouTube. Google Videos.

No-one HAS to spend any money. Unless they choose to.

[Eieam Wun]

You are absolultely right SkYscanner, you have my full apologies, That was Silver Thong that made that remark, and I should have looked closer....