I spoke with Richard briefly this evening. He's exhausted, as am I (I'm travelling) and he said that the press conference went really well, with special attention from the Russian News networks. That's about all I know. He promsied to call tomorrow with a blow by blow.
I'll be in Vegas and LA all this week, so updates will be brief and comments may take awhile to moderate. Please be paitient, we'll have more news soon.
Mike
UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly's radio show called today and may have Richard on at 1:07 eastern if we can make the connection.
UPDATE UPDATE: According to Richard, the US press was scarce, as the Washington Post sent a reporter but as yet hasn't written a story. As I mentioned, Bill O'Reilly's office called, but Richard has been unable to establish contact.
The foriegn press was a different story. They showed up in droves, especially the Russians, who sent no less than 4 TV networks to cover the story and interviewed Ken and Richard for hours on end. They seem facinated by the Kennedy-Kruschev aspects of "Dark Mission." We'll have more after I get to LA on Friday.
Mike
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Will we see some photos, documents, etc in free access?
A coworker just mentioned this to me and I'm aghast. I'll remain tuned in to see what comes of this...especially the Helium 3 comments and the structures on the moon.
CRAZY!!
Jeff
http://www.thingstoworryabout.com
http://www.jeffcutler.com
When we are able to see the pictures?
Какого хера? Где фотки?
Hey I'm very interested in any news related to the press conference.
When can we get an update?
Also i tuned into o'reilly but didn't hear anything on ufo's.
OK, it's in Pravda.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/31-10-2007/99895-moon-0
U.S. scientists unveil NASA’s secrets about cities on the Moon and microbes on Mars
Gort
Along with Hoagland's and Johnston's classy and upbeat presentation, the Russian press has also been widely using Bara's malevolent fantasies, on this blog and in press releases posted across the internet, about my own role in the dispute, re Ken's 'Solar system ambassador' status.
For example, this:
В то же время один другой соавтор книги - консультант по аэрокосмическим инженерным технологиям Майкл Бара в отдельном сообщении для прессы признает, что известный в США и за рубежом эксперт по космосу и научный обозреватель телекомпании Эн-би-си Джеймс Оберг подверг резкой критике утверждения Джонстона о сохраненных им от уничтожения лунных фотографиях. В своем возмущенном послании в Лабораторию по изучению реактивного движения Оберг назвал заявления Джонстона о НАСА «сумасшедшими обвинениями».
Now, I'd asked Ken several times to remove his nasty and untrue allegations from his postings, but he never seemed to want to get around to it. So now the Russian media is spreading them.
The way I see it, if Mike can't even get recent events factual, and clings to conspiratorial confabulations he's dreamed up, there's no point in believing anything else he says about long-ago events with far fewer checkable sources.
He's become his own worst enemy of his credibility.
JimO
www.jamesoberg.com
Jim,
Most of the rest of us were never Captain's in Air Force intelliegnce who spoke Russian and read Cryillic, so could you possibly translate this for us?
It sure makes it easier to respond to.
Hi Mike (and Jim and Richard) -
This is rough, but here is a translation of the Cyrillic text Jim posted (courtesey of AltaVista/Babelfish at http://world.altavista.com/tr):
[BT] At the same time one another co-author of the book - consultant on the aerospace engineering technologies Of maykl of bar in the separate communication for the press recognizes that the well-known in THE USA and abroad expert on space and the scientific reviewer of the television network of NBC James oberg subjected by sharp the critic of the assertion Johnston about the preserved by it from the destruction lunar photographs. In its excited message into the laboratory for the study of the reactive motion Of oberg were named the statements of Johnston about NASA - NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION "mad charges". [ET]
Hope that helps.
Here's the Babelfish translation (always leaves much to be desired, but helpful to get the gist of things):
Babel Fish Translation Help
In English:
At the same time one another co-author of the book - consultant on the aerospace engineering technologies Of maykl of bar in the separate communication for the press recognizes that the well-known in THE USA and abroad expert on space and the scientific reviewer of the television network of NBC James oberg subjected by sharp the critic of the assertion Johnston about the preserved by it from the destruction lunar photographs. In its excited message into the laboratory for the study of the reactive motion Of oberg were named the statements of Johnston about NASA - NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION "mad charges".
For the sake of BRUTAL TRUTH Mr. Oberg, did you or did you NOT contact anyone in NASA itself, or in the NASA Ambassador Program in ANY manner at ANY time and discussed Ken Johnston's participation in that program.
This is a simple YES/NO question.
If the answer is yes...then Ken Johnston at least deserves to see what ever you wrote and to whom, and/or who ever you comminicated with in any manner and the content of that comminication.
Ken Johnston DESERVES that content if you engaged in ANY contact concerning home. It's called the right to confront one's accuser...or would you deny Mr. Johnston that basic CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?
AND the answer you give here will ALSO be used FOR THE RECORD.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Don't make promises and policies you don't intend to keep and to keep the policies and promises you do make.
ACTIONS speak louder than words.
ACTIONS are PROOF of intent.
ACTIONS are the final judgment of character.
It REALLY is that simple.
Bob...
http://commonsensecentral.net/
Robert, you have much more serious issues with Mike Bara then with me. His misrepresentation of my own views and actions seems to have had a serious impact on the stability of some of the more excitable correspondents on this thread, which is one reason I've kept insisting he tell the truth rather than spin yarns.
For example, he tells the story that Ken was 'fired' from NASA, when even Ken only complains that he was 'pressured into resigning' from a non-paying volunteer position, a major difference -- and if you were to ask the JPL person who telephoned him, you might find a different account there, as well.
Responding to a request from a media client about the new book and the experts quoted in it, I googled Ken's name and found his biography posted on the JPL Solar System Ambassador home page. Some claims in the biography were at variance with information I had acquired from people who had actually worked with him during Apollo. I requested from JPL whether Ken had provided any documentation for the material, and explained that my request was due to my interest in a new book in which Ken's views featured prominently. I made no suggestions or any kind about Ken's participation in the JPL program, and I offered no judgment of any kind about Ken's opinions regarding the Apollo program.
You will no doubt be caught by surprise by the above description of my message. Before you instinctively choose which version to believe, you might ask Mr. Bara what evidence he has for his insulting allegations about my statements. You may find that he has none but his own imagination.
I am puzzled by your assertion that Ken deserves to see all emails that refer to him. Is this a general rule? Would it apply, for example, to me, regarding emails that Bara and Johnston and Hoagland (and you) have exchanged?
If you think Mr. Johnston, or anybody, has a constitutional right to confront anybody who criticizes them, you are very badly informed, and seriously confused, regarding the Constitution.
In the ordinary world of interpersonal debate and disagreement, you will discover that asking questions from a prosecutorial and inquisitional and threatening tone is a poor tactic, unlikely to end happily.
In other words, and much less verbosely said..
Yes, he did.
The contents of his mail no doubt mentioned "crackpot"
and he knew well who Ken is.
Do not let this ruse fool you, he and those like him enjoy pulling strings and all sort of other underhanded tactics to squelch those whose views they disagree with.
Inquiring minds want to know: Is "klaney" for real or is he sock-puppeting for Mr. Bara? He clearly represents the target audience for Mr. Bara's statements -- perhaps too conveniently, eh, Mike?
13121986I'm as real as a kick in the nuts Jim.
I've never sockpuppeted for anyone, I've never represented anyone's point of view but my own.
Who are YOU sockpuppeting for? Whose point of view were you representing while calling around NASA trying to get Ken deprived of quite an honorable honorary title?
Then tell me, whose face are you trying to save by coming here trying to hang responsibility for the nasty deed you did on political technicalities?
I am no target audience.
but I am into targetting audiences-
and you should really hear what the audience thinks of your actions. Most held a higher view of you previously, but hey, underhanded dirty moves of this type are now recognized as typical from your side of the aisle. That YOU are identified as the perpetrator has not lofted anyone's opinion of you, and now even your supporters realize you must rely on dirty tricks, whether they tell you so or not..
There's a simple compound word that describes it very well.
Chickenshit.
I never figured you for one, but hey again... people change.
Mr. Bara has promised to respond to my complaints on the thread, "I'm Baaaack!", so that's where I'll be continuing the conversation.
Post a Comment