Saturday, January 31, 2009

When Pseudoscientists Attack

In response to an email from an interested reader of Enterprise Mission.com, David Morrison, the director of NASA’s Lunar Science Institute, had this to say about my venerable co-author:

“I know Hoagland, and I also know that quite a few items in his bio are fiction: namely his references to working for NASA, working with Sagan, and talking at Ames. I would not want to stoop to "debate" with him. My interests are in science, not pseudoscience.”

David Morrison
Interim Director, NASA Lunar Science Institute
Senior Scientist, NASA Astrobiology Institute
Cell phone 408 621 0237

Now, everybody is entitled to their opinion (and we all know what opinions are like, don’t we Dave?), but as usual, NASA does not respond with any substantive arguments on the evidence we present, they simply go to personal attacks as a reflexive response. As I put it in Dark Mission, mentioning Hoagland’s name around NASA elicits a reaction akin to what you get when you place a crucifix in front of vampire. After 30 years of this, you would think that NASA would have a better counter argument then simple name calling or easily rebutted mendacities.

You would think.

But that’s only if you buy their arguments that our work is “pseudoscience.”

As usual, Richard has better things to do than rebut such non-arguments, and frankly, so do I, but since this is my blog more than his I guess it falls to me to point out the obvious.

Again.

Let’s start with the “substance” of Morrison’s diatribe.

“I know Hoagland…” This is actually the only thing in Morrison’s response which is true. They do know each other, from over 30 years ago when Hoagland was covering NASA for CBS and the early years of the Voyager missions at JPL. A decent start, Dave.

“…and I also know that quite a few items in his bio are fiction…” Oh really? Do tell!

“…namely his references to working for NASA, working with Sagan, and talking at Ames.”

Okay, let’s take these “fictions” one by one, shall we? According to you, Dave, Richard never worked for NASA. I’m sure it benefits tossers like you tell people this, in the hopes of damaging Richard’s credibility or making yourselves look good, but it doesn’t really work as an argument for one simple reason: It’s a lie.


Here is Richard’s actual badge from his days working as a consultant at Goddard. You may notice it has a NASA logo emblazoned on it and says “NASA” about 87 times. It also says “GSFC,” which stands for “Goddard Space Flight Center. Last time I checked, that was a NASA facility. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

And yes, despite the 70’s porn-star ‘stache, I can testify that absolutely is a picture of my co-author. I’d recognize him anywhere.

How unfortunate for you Dave that he kept his old badge all these years. I wonder if it would still get him in the door?

Probably not.

It’s interesting you can “know” his claim of working for NASA is “fiction” when it’s quite obvious it is not. I wonder how many other things you think you “know” that you will turn out to be utterly clueless about?

Let’s find out.

Next, you claim that it is also fiction that he ever “working [ed] with Sagan.” Again, you haven’t quite got the story straight, Dave. Let’s see what Carl has to say about the whole thing.

Sagan says in his paper “A Message from Earth,” by Carl Sagan, Linda Salzman Sagan and Frank Drake, that the idea for the Pioneer plaque came from Hoagland and Eric Burgess. In fact the exact quote is:

"... the initial suggestion to include some message aboard Pioneer 10 was made by Eric Burgess and Richard Hoagland ..."

-- Carl Sagan, SCIENCE, 175 (1972) 881.

This paper can be found in any university journal library. A scan of the appropriate page can be found here.

Now, I suppose somebody as desperate (or ill informed) as you are Dave might try to argue that this somehow doesn’t constitute “working together,” but please. If the idea for one of Carl’s most significant accomplishments came from Hoagy, I think most reasonable people (this excludes expat and JimO) would beg to differ with you. And of course, Carl and Richard knew each other much better than that, having several conversations about Cydonia and the Face in various public forums, and they even spent time vacationing together on various science cruises in the 1970’s that were witnessed by hundreds of people.

And lest we forget, Carl saw fit to include a gratuitous money shot of Hoagland in his own Biography Channel Obit episode.



Now, as to the last part, that Richard never talked at Ames (meaning the NASA Ames Research Center in California), well, you’re sort of half right. He never did.

Of course, he’s never claimed he did, either. Ever. Anywhere. So no wonder you don’t think it’s true.

He did however speak at NASA-Lewis. That’s in Ohio, and it’s now called NASA-Glenn. Maybe you’ve heard of it?

It’s really hard for me to figure out how it can be “fiction” that he claimed he spoke at Ames, when he never made any such claim. But I realize you just work for NASA, and logic isn’t really a strong suit for you guys…

So that’s 3 for 3 that you have flat wrong Dave. It’s too bad that you then use your comedy of errors to justify hiding behind your desk instead of debating the issues.

“I would not want to stoop to ‘debate’ with him. My interests are in science, not pseudoscience.”

Translation: “He’s shredded waaaaay smarter guys than me on national TV before. I think I’ll just call him a name and then take my ball and run home. I don’t want to get anywhere near a substantive debate with this guy.”

Pretty smart move here Dave.

Really, Morrison displays the sort of institutional ignorance that permeates NASA at all levels. I could go on, but he’s not really worth my time. I shall pillory him no further.

I do have to say though, being called a “pseudoscientist” by a representative of a science agency that hasn’t noticed that Mars has obvious Tidal Bulges and continues to foist the junk science alarmist bilge of global arming on the public is pretty ripe. They even have to resort to falsifying the data to bolster their idiocy.

It would be kind of romantic to think that this was all part of some big conspiracy on NASA’s part to keep us out of the headlines, but that gives far too much credit to the likes of Morrison, IMO. I tend to think he’s just a garden variety useful idiot that parrots what he thinks he knows about us, while happily taking a salary from the most discredited government agency on the planet (and, given the state of our current government, that’s saying something).

Or, to paraphrase Ronaldus Maximus,

“It’s not that our NASA loving shills are ignorant, it’s just that they “know” so much that isn’t so.”

And yeah, I guess I did pillory him some more. But let’s face it, he was low hanging fruit…

61 comments:

david nineteenpointfive said...

The fact that Mr. Hoagland has presented arguments backed by the best evidence and with coherent, objective arguments for his hypotheses, makes him THE most credible commentator on artificial anomalies on the moon and Mars. Of course getting the better evidence can be a challenge as it has been monopolized and hoarded by a few. As technology and culture evolves even further, the 1947-and-beyond kneejerk adherence to a nontransparent space exploration policy is about 62 years outdated. Ironically and in light of the facts so far, it is the "insiders" who publicly belittle people like Mr. Hoagland that are looking like the clowns.

thegrandillusion said...

Ouch! Perhaps next time you should use the blindfold!
Score:
Bara: 1,977
NASA: Square Root of -1

:)

T'Zairis said...

Different day, same tripe...

As the evidence for life on Mars mounts-- methane plumes, etc.-- I would expect more of this sort of verbal methane to be released as a distraction.

The question is, what kind of verbal methane is it? Volcanic or bacterial?

I suspect it will turn out to be geological verbal methane, as there is no life at NASA.

Peace,

T'Zairis

crispy said...

Haha I absolutely just love those photos of RCH!

Can we all take a moment to appreciate the suave of this man?

Well done, Mike.

Joseph Capp said...

Dear Mike,
could I use this post for a idea I have for a YOU TUBE video. I think is how best to confront these people to the world I will put a short clip with it. My chanel on You Tube is "jcappufo" my blog is:
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
My email is ufomm.verizon.net
Joseph Capp

Thanks

Mike Bara said...

Be my guest.

robert said...

Hi Mike I tried his cell which seems "off the hook" though it is ENTIRELY obvious HE is not. The "new" list of 120 UNIQUE and A-Z listing for

NASA=
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrush
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushed
Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers
Neatly Aquired Secret Anomalies
Never A Straight Answer
Never Accountability Seen Acknowledged
Never Acknowledge Scams Agency
Never Acknowledge Something Absolute
Never Admits Something Anomalous
Never Another Significant Achievement
Never Another Step Ahead
Never Any Sense Alright.
Never Any Sensible Answer
Never Any Serious Accountability
Never Any Serious Attention
Never Any Serious Attitude
Never Any Social Advancement
Never Anything Seriously Accepted
Never Anything Seriously Admitted
New Age Scientific Abomination
New Analysis Seems Absent
New Analysis Seems Absentminded
New Anomaly Secretly Aquired.
New Anomaly Shrouded Abundantly
Newly Aquired Secret Anomaly
Nice Acknowledgements Secretly Admired
Nice Analysis Seems Absent
Nice And Senseless Answers
No Accounting Seen Anywhere
No Acknowledged Seekers Answered
No Acknowledgements Secretly Admired
No Acknowlegement Since Adam
No Actual Scientific Analysis
No Actual Sensor Aquisition
No Actual Sighting Aquired
No Actual Signal Aquired
No Admiration Since Adam
No Admittance Since Adam
No Admittance Sure Acceptable
No Adult Supervision Available
No American Sense Alright
No American Sense Anyway
No American Social Advancement
No American Space Access
No Announced Secrets Anytime
No Announcement Seeks Answers
No Anomalies Seems Attractive
No Anomalous Samples Acknowledged
No Anomalous Snapshots Aired
No Anomaly Samples Acknowledged
No Anomaly Scene Airbrush
No Anomaly Scene Airbrushed
No Anomaly Scene Airbrushers
No Anomaly Seen Admitted
No Anomaly Seen Ahahaha
No Anomaly Seen Anyway
No Anomaly So Ahaha
No Answer Same Answer
No Answer Seekers Awarded
No Answer Seems Acceptable
No Answer Seems Alright
No Answer Since Adam
No Answer So Ahaha
No Answer Sounds Acceptable
No Aquired Secret Anomalies
No Asteroids Syringes Abound
No Attributable Signficance Always
Non Affirming Sidetracked Analysis
Nonsense Abundancy Scam Agency
Not A Serious Analysis
Not A Single Admiration
Not Admitting Space Anomalies
Not All Seen Anyway
Not Always Straight Anyway
Not Another Scarce Annoucement
Not Another Scenic Annoucement
Not Another Secret Announced
Not Another Shitty Annoucement
Not Another Silly Annoucement
Not Another Step Ahead
Not Any Sense Alright.
Not Any Sensible Accomplishment
Not Any Sensible Answer
Not Any Serious Accountability
Not Any Serious Attention
Not Any Serious Attitude
Not Any Significant Advancement
Not Any Single Admittance
Not Any Social Advancement
Not Anybody Says Anything
Not Anything Seen Alright
Not Anything Seen Around
Not Anything Succeeded Always
Nothing About Space Admitted
Nothing Acknowledged Says Anything
Nothing Acknowledged Seeks Abyss
Nothing Admitted So Ahaha
Nothing Announced Says Anything
Nothing Anyway So Ahaha
Nothing At Scientific Achievement
Now A Serious Analysis
Now Acting Shockingly Asinine
Now Acting Shockingly Astonished
Now Acting Stupidly Asinine
Now Acting Stupidly Astonished
Now Acting Surprisingly Asinine
Now Acting Surprisingly Astonished
Now Another Sacred Analogy
Now Another Senseless Acquistion
Now Another Shocking Acquistion
Now Another Silly Acquistion
Now Another Silly Analysis
Now Another Silly Answer
Now Another Silly Avenue
Now Another Step Almost
Now Another Stupid Acquistion
Now Another Stupid Analysis
Now Another Stupid Answer
Now Another Stupid Avenue
Now Assessing Significant Anomaly

As more "pseudoscience" and OUTRIGHT PROVABLE FRAUD comes out from ANY NASA folks...I welcome suggestions to the list count now at 120.

Bob...:D

Mike Bara said...

Wow Bob that's quite the list!

david nineteenpointfive said...

I personally like "No Anomaly Scene Airbrushed" the best.

robert said...

This one is mine:

No Adult Supervision Available

Mike Griffen has GOT TO GO.

OBAMA...LOOK UNDER THE HOOD !!!

Also Kick the Tires at the DOD/DARPA/SWORD connections...also get rid of the Raytheon feller.

Bob...:D

MeanGreen said...

Nuke Another Significant Anomaly ;-)

"EMAIL98-04-19 09:22:13 EDT Remember the ship we lost a few years ago, (Observer) as it arrived in Mars orbit it just disappeared?...it was a nuke. It exploded 1500 feet above surface...it was supposed to remove the face and pyramids." - from Hidden Mission Forum

joe said...

Sorry-I didn't know what to do with this:
RCH and Hopi Prophecy-Getting closer?
Shaking on space station rattles NASA
Vigorous vibrations caught on video during orbital reboost last month

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28998876/

T'Zairis said...

Here's a few more for the list...

No Attitude Save Arrogance

Numberless Anomalies Stifled Artfully

Nazi Agendas Served Ably

Noble Aims Summarily Aborted

No Apparent Sentience Allowed

Numerous Assholes Standing Around

Peace,

T'Zairis

Mike Bara said...

Okay, it's clear to me I need to finish the new blog post... :)

No more bad NASA puns please...

david nineteenpointfive said...

Was that Richard on the videogame Timesplitters 2? The 70's 'stache resemblance is striking.

robert said...

Mike Bara said...
Okay, it's clear to me I need to finish the new blog post... :)

No more bad NASA puns please...

---

rhw007:

Okay okay...but it is at least FUN for some of us kinda like Obama must feel like making up RNC puns since his "reaching out" in TRUE "bi-partianship" has only gotten him 0 for 59 so far. We've been at thins longer than he has and our YEARLY record is 33 yeasr this summer.

But I promise no more long lists here. :D

btw...to MG and T'Zaris thanks for the new ones :D count is 128 UNIQUE "puns" on the name. I'll keep compliling them because SOMEBODY should do it.

Bob...:D

JimO said...

Worthwhile work setting the record straight on credentials.

so as to avoid looking like playing the pot-kettle game, you should also address the issue of other contra-reality credential claims circulating these parts:

For the original documents see:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=144115

The Hoagland/Bara book 'Dark 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.

Sphinx said...

To bad that we don't live in a 16th century were that guy, David Morrison, will certainly be provoke to a duel by a noble or a brave musketeer.

I hope that soon you will write something about the methane gas clouds that NASA discover on Mars.

CH4

Methane,(one carbon surrounded by four hydrogen atoms) created predominantly by bacteria that feed on organic material.

So...I believe that the ONLY reason that NASA bring this things up is money.

Yeah I know that we, the whole world cross atm a huge money crisis
and is difficult to get some MORE money, especially when you didn't come with a reasonable interest.

We talk here about huge amount of money. Hundreds of billions of $$$.

Yeah, if you invest in a casino, Britney Spears T-Shirts or a new Christina Aguilera's sexy lingerie factory we will bring some profit.

Chiefs executives of NASA realize that they have to drop the old politic and be competitive. So they bring this "news" about the methane clouds on Mars.

I said "news" because, if I remember correctly, was ESA, the European Space Agency, that bring this thing up, on 20 September 2004

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEML131XDYD_0.html

I don't believe in the thing that Barack Obama will bring the "change" that he proclaim so much. The system is the same. The people is the same, and the only thing that run this system is the money, the interest. Power and more power.

And who have that power? The mega corporations. If only one is convinced to invest in Mars exploration and all the profit or @ least 90% will enter in their accounts the deal is done.

Obama or whatever other president that is on White House will play the song of the guys who run the show.

And if you want to change something, you have to change the system. Changing the system means that the guys that play the song atm will have something to lose.
They don't allow that.

The web page that Obama's team release ( http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/wrapping_up_the_citizens_briefing_book/)

is pure bull for media and common ppl. Is there any1 that acctualy BELIEVE that Obama will release classified documents about sightings of alien spacecraft, alien technology, live on Mars, structures on Mars just because ppl have the right to know?

LOL

david nineteenpointfive said...

If science is defined by trying to come up with every possible explanation how everything is formed by nature, and not intelligent life creating consistent shapes and patterns, then indeed the world is flat.

robert said...

david nineteenpointfive said...
If science is defined by trying to come up with every possible explanation how everything is formed by nature, and not intelligent life creating consistent shapes and patterns, then indeed the world is flat.

------
:APPLAUSE:

REPEAT because It is what we see happen in the MEANSTREAM SCIENCE of "ACCREDIATION".

Gil Levin will NEVER be recognized "officially" by NASA or MEANSTREAM SCIENCE, or MEDIA nor will Richard and Mike along with ANY of TEM's work be so "officially" recognized.

And that is just plain wrong as the lone-gunman theory of the Warren Commision's "Lone Gunman" theory...it IS a FLAT world if we don't stop the hagiographers from writing history based on lies, agendas, and politcal expediance.

Bob...:D

MaxtheKnife said...

JimO,

I was wondering if you've tried asking Ken Johnston for an interview in an effort to clarify these alleged discrepancies you discovered?

JimO said...

Maxthe knife, that's a reasonable question, and my response is that my activities on this theme have been so distorted and so misrepresented by partisans that I've decided all exchanges on the subject must be in written, verifiable form. I can't believe that Ken is unaware of these issues being raised. Why doesn't he respond on the record here?

MaxtheKnife said...

Hi JimO,

You write: my response is that my activities on this theme have been so distorted and so misrepresented by partisans that I've decided all exchanges on the subject must be in written, verifiable form.

So, in other words, Jim... No, you have not tried to clarify these discrepancies by speaking with the man who you are attempting to 'smear' or 'discredit' directly.

One would think that a journalist who is supposed to be fair and unbiased would, at the very least, make an effort to attain a first hand explanation... before said journalist started spreading potentially false rumors.

Isn't there some sort of an ethical breech there insofar as a responsible and unbiased journalist would be concerned?

JimO then writes: I can't believe that Ken is unaware of these issues being raised. Why doesn't he respond on the record here?

I can't answer that seeing as how I've never met or spoken w/ Ken Johnston. But, my first impression is... he shouldn't have to. Isn't that your responsibility to make sure he does know and his side of the story is known?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, JimO, but aren't 'journalists' such as yourself supposed to 'know' rather than 'believe' before they go and start spreading rumors and innuendos? Aren't you guys supposed to have all your ducks in a row before you start publishing potentially libelist material?

If I didn't know better, Jim, judging only from what I've read of your postings on this blog, I'm inclined to believe that your problem with Ken Johnston is personal rather than professional.

Say it ain't so, JimO...

robert said...

JimO has left a new comment on the post "When Pseudoscientists Attack":

Maxthe knife, that's a reasonable question, and my response is that my activities on this theme have been so distorted and so misrepresented by partisans that I've decided all exchanges on the subject must be in written, verifiable form. I can't believe that Ken is unaware of these issues being raised. Why doesn't he respond on the record here?
------------

rhw007:

Maybe because for the SAME reason that the people who go against "TPTB" and "Status Quo" are harrased by FOXNOISE MEANSTREAM MEDIA and syncophant pseudoreporters become pathetic in their attempt to be "Balanced and Fair"

GitMo Prosecuter goes PUBLIC

MEANSTREAM MEDIA chases him:

FOX NOISE admits NO FACTS COUNT

JimO bad as O'Reilly..imho anyhoo

Bob...:D

Mike Bara said...

Well Jim, look at the bright side; at least they didn't compare you to Keith Olbermann...

robert said...

Hey Mike..in all kidding...but seriously I don't think Keith would have JimO on..even though it's still MSNBC...besides that's an insult to Keith. again imho

HOWEVER...I am SURE MSNBC would "LOVE" to have a JimO vs Richard debate 10-15 min of some HONEST BRUTAL TRUTH discussions about NASA, images, and the Never A straight Answer agency.

Sorry about using the 'original' NASA pun...but sometimes it's required for the point to sink in.

Bob...:D

JimO said...

It's really elegant in its own way, the graceful dancing and dodging to make me and my supposed character flaws the center of attention. The result: the documents I present -- showing that published claims of facts, in Dark Mission and on this blog, are inconsistent with verifiable documentation -- become invisible, unworthy of response of any kind. Words like 'smear' and 'attack' are thrown around, mostly in my direction, but words like 'documented reality' don't appear. An interesting process, for sure. If Ken were a pilot as claimed in DM, verifiable documentation would long ago have been easy for anyone to find and post. It hasn't been done. What is that telling the rational minds among us?

Ken's military service was honorable and proficient, and all Americans are grateful for this. The records show he had the courage and smarts to get into a flight preparation program, and for reasons unknown, did not complete it. But suppose -- just suppose -- in later years he tells his neighbors and associates he did complete it, and flew combat air missions in SEA, and other 'war stories'... That's not uncommon, and it's just sad, and apparently it's not true. Nothing in DM or on this blog proves it IS true. For other people who want to believe it's true, sure, I'm the bad guy. That's life.

Mike Bara said...

Jim,

Again, if you have a specific statement in Dark Mission that you can quote from that you have proven is incorrect, I have agreed to correct it in the revised edition.

I wrote the section in question, and if it is not correct it is my mistake.

I remain facinated as to why you are so determined to impugn Ken's integrity, as opposed to attacking me given that I wrote the passages in question from memory without checking with him.

What is it about Ken specifically that is so threatening?

As a meta-comment here, I'd also like to add that I won't allow this to become an Oberg bashing forum. I don't like him much either, guys, but as long as he follows the rules he's entitled to post here. There have been a couple of comments I have spiked because they were out of bounds.

JimO said...

"I remain facinated as to why you are so determined to impugn Ken's integrity, "

Never did it -- all the personal attack comments posted here are directed at me. If I ever made any speculation or accusation about Ken's motives, it was by mistake -- and I request notification of where those comments are so I can retract them.

Your own errors? Read back over my posts -- I cite page number and direct quotes of comments about Ken being a fighter pilot, in your book. There has been no evidence presented that remotely supports this claim. The evidence -- his own military records, obtained via FOIA -- utterly refute that claim.

The questioning of the accuracy of claims made for Ken's experience and responsibility are not issues of personal integrity, they are issues of factual reality. For example, if you write that he was head of the Lunar Photography Division (or some such title) of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, and organization charts show no such division ever existed, that is a question of fact subject to corroboration or refutation.

The ground zero of this line of exposition is that you portrey him as a man with the authority to purge the original Apollo image files, and claim he did so after being so ordered -- a clear case of major coverup. If his credentials were in fact quite different -- a shipping clerk who had control of a few of perhaps fifty to a hundred sets of copies of original imagery, the order to clear out the cabinets (at the end of his job function phase) becomes much less sinister in appearance.

That's where this inquiry is headed. The heart of your book.

Frederick said...

On February 6, 2009 6:27 AM JimO said Ken was an "E-5" (Lance Corporal). Not so, as an inactive Marine I know that Lance Corporals are E-3's, E-5's are Sergeants............keeping the record straight, at least in this regard

MaxtheKnife said...

Hi again, JimO,

My only problem with you and hence your so-called verifiable documentation is that you have completely failed to follow common journalistic ethical practice and standards.

It is commonplace when reading credible news stories to hear, "we tried to reach 'so and so' but he was unavailable for comment". Or, "when we contacted 'so and so' he said such and such which contradicts the information we have just given."

But not you, JimO.

When I asked you several poignant questions about your apparant ethical lapse, you decided not to answer even though you agreed that my original question, "have you tried speaking to Ken Johnston directly" was a fair question. I mean, why do you think I asked you that question? If you want me to believe you, shouldn't I be able to expect a certain level of professionalism from you? Anything less does raise questions, I'm sorry to say, about your motives and credability.

Your unwillingness/failure to comply with common ethical journalism standards says more about you than it does about Ken.

Furthermore, your innuendo does nothing to damage any of the data, which, as Mike points out several times in this blog, you continuously fail to address. Most of it is freely available on the web and isn't even provided by Ken Johnston which really makes me stop and wonder about your train of logic.

Truth and Light, JimO... Bring it... or Begone.

It's just that simple.

JimO said...

Frederick, thanks, in reviewing the documents from FOIA, Ken's official portrait (dated "7 Jan, 1964") lists him as L/CPL, but his official discharge papers state that on Aug 30, 1966, he was discharged at rank of CPL (E-4). Apparently in my statement that he attained the rank of E-5, I was exaggerating his record -- I withdraw that claim and apologize.

Now, Frederick, have you ever known an E-4 to be a Marine fighter pilot? Ever?

Have you ever heard anyone dismiss an official military 'Record of Service' as "innuendo"?

How can we reconcile Bara's claim that Ken was a veteran jet fighter pilot, with the military records? I'm not interested in speculating about motives or character traits, just what can be established as fact.

JimO said...

Here's what Hoagland/Bara had written in DM, page 144:

"In early 1995, Hoagland . met Ken Johnston -- a Boeing engineer at the time, and a former fighter-jock and test pilot for Grumman Aerospace. After his duty tour in the Marines as an F-4 pilot, Johnson had gone to work at NASA in the mid-1960s as the chief Lunar Module test pilot."

There is no evidence that Johnston was ever a 'fighter jock with a 'duty tour in the Marines as an F-4 pilot' -- his personnel records show he was NOT, ever.

There is no evidence he ever was a 'test pilot' for Grumman. All evidence indicates he was never a pilot of any kind, for anybody.

There is no evidence he ever was NASA's "chief Lunar Module test pilot". He had a technical job as cockpit configuration operator -- 'switch monkey' is what the guys called it -- and it was a responsible assignment requiring precision and concentration, but he was never a pilot (or instructor) and, according to best evidence so far available, never got a millimeter off the ground in anything he ever flew.

That's what the available documents show, independent of what he may or may not personally claim. Documentation generally trumps unsubstantiated first-hand claims.

Now we get to the grandiose DM scenario of him being in charge of all Apollo archival moon imagery.... [to be continued]

MaxtheKnife said...

Lol... When do we get to the part where you actually address the data?!

Which, btw, JimO... is the HEART of the book!

Oh yeah... and as Mike said in another thread... "There is that Face thingy too."

I don't envy you the embarrassment you're going to suffer, JimO.

Soon enough...

~~~Muahaha~~~

JimO said...

Max: "Isn't there some sort of an ethical breech there insofar as a responsible and unbiased journalist would be concerned?"

Uh, Max, before you give lectures on journalistic ethics, have you noticed -- I haven't written anything for publication on this subject. You seem to be suggesting that in ALL my private communications I should follow a form that YOU think is proper for journalists -- even though you've surely noticed that when it comes to comments about me on this blog, those 'standards' are violated more than they are followed? Hence any pious lectures from you to ME just makes you look comically hypocritical, at least, perhaps, to some. You can see my complaints even at the end of 2007 about fantasy accusations about me and my motives and my actions, nasty stuff that still seems to have passed mike's standards.

Can't we focus on what we can determine to be TRUE? And can't you see why some people posting here DON'T want that to happen?

david nineteenpointfive said...

I am kind of curious how an enlisted Marine was a fighter pilot, if that is JimO's new assertion here. Still, seems to be a red herring for the real issues - those heavily documented thingies on the moon and Mars.

MaxtheKnife said...

Uh, JimO... Nice try, but this is a blog, you ARE a journalist, and this 'counts' as published material.

Oh, and the difference here between me questioning you and you questioning Ken Johnston is you're actually here to answer for and defend yourself.

No worries, though.

Soon... even you might 'get it'.

A word of advice... start thinking of ways to dig yourself outta that deep hole you've managed to dig yourself into.

Frederick said...

On February 9th JimO wrote:

"Frederick, thanks, in reviewing the documents from FOIA, Ken's official portrait (dated "7 Jan, 1964") lists him as L/CPL, but his official discharge papers state that on Aug 30, 1966, he was discharged at rank of CPL (E-4). Apparently in my statement that he attained the rank of E-5, I was exaggerating his record -- I withdraw that claim and apologize.

Now, Frederick, have you ever known an E-4 to be a Marine fighter pilot? Ever?"

Yes, until the early to possibly mid-sixties there were still a few enlisted pilots left over from WWII and Korea. However, most of the guys I knew were senior enlisted personnel.

In the late fifties enlisted Marines who qualified could enter the NavCad (Naval Air Cadet) program with less than four years of college. It is possible (although I can't confirm this) that those enlisted candidates approved for the NavCad (and later I believe MarCad) program carried some type of enlisted rank until they advanced through the Marine Officers basic course and later passed flight school by earning their wings and commissions as 2nd Lieutenants in Marine Aviation.

I would think that accessing a former service persons military record would be quite difficult without permission of the individual or failing that presenting as a legal entity investigating a federal or local felony crime. With that I'm bowing out of this tug o' war but hope I answered your questions.

Starborne said...

JimO,
I have zero interest in poking fun at anyone on this board, nor am I interested in contributing to the defamation of anyone's character. I have one question for you. Do you have anything to say about the photographic data that is presented by Johnston via Hoagland/Bara? I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on the rest of the photographs shown in the book with frame numbers listed that were ordered directly from the blacked-out frames found in the Apollo mission books (I would list those frame numbers, however I cannot as I'm lending the book to a friend.), but the Johnston photos will be enough for now. Again, I'm only interested in the data in the photos, not what was written about someone mentioned in the book.

Thank You

P.S.: Mike, would you mind posting a few of the frame numbers I am refering to? Thanks

JimO said...

Frederick: Thanks for the historical context. Yeah, I figure there was officer training along with flight training in MARCAD, but as the records state, Ken never completed it. What he personally claims is that "he learned to fly" in the Marines, and took one ride in an F-4 (typical for cadets?) -- he never explicitly stated that he became a pilot. Mike came up with that claim, it seems.

You wrote: "I would think that accessing a former service persons military record would be quite difficult without permission of the individual or failing that presenting as a legal entity investigating a federal or local felony crime."

Nope, you're opinionating beyond your range of experience here. Visit the 'Stolen Valor' website to see how anyone can access basic military records of anyone else, through FOIA. Yours, mine, Ken's, Bara's (if he ever bothered to serve), anyone who can be unambiguously identified. Try it -- and verify the authenticity of the documents I presented.

JimO said...

Starborne, I'm interested in going beyond the forty-year-old photos as shown -- I want to get the latitude/longitude of the claimed anomalies and then look up those locations on the Japanese, Chinese, Indian, and European Space Agency databases from their recent independent lunar orbital photoreconniassance missions. Just to compare. Might be illuminating, you think?

This task is frustrated by Mike's stated refusal to provide actual latitude/longitude locations of claimed structures. As far as I can tell, there is no actual locational data that is usable for independent verification, of any alleged structure, anywhere in the book -- please correct me, anyone, if I've overlooked something.

But that theme is diverging from this particular thread, regarding credentials -- including stupid and careless 'debunker' accusations about Richard's lack of any, despite him being in the heart of space reportage since Apollo, exactly as he claimed.

His badge and other supporting data was easy to produce and post. That was the constructuve response to the silly raising of doubts about trivia.

Johnston's credentials, however, are not trivia at all -- if his credentials were true, his testimony about seeing and actually participating in alteration of lunar imagery files is significant.

JimO said...

Max: "Nice try, but this is a blog, you ARE a journalist, and this 'counts' as published material."

You can't really believe that. Show me you do, by citing all your complaints to other posters (including published authors who almost made the NY Times Best Seller list -- envy, envy...) who filled these threads with venomous fabrications about me and my motives and my actions last year. Of course you never complained -- I'm the only one being held to these imaginary 'standards'.

...and you still dance and dodge around the questions of fact being discussed.

JimO said...

Starborne: "I have zero interest in poking fun at anyone on this board, nor am I interested in contributing to the defamation of anyone's character."

What is your interest in DM's assertions that respected space scientists such as Mike Duke and Thornton Page were malevolent agents of scientific fraud -- were liars and even traitors to the planet? Do those kinds of defamations get a 'pass' from you, for some reason? Or have you ever asked for evidence to back them up? If you have, please inform me.

Sphinx said...

I really want to understand JimO and I have to say that is hard. I spend a lot of time reading again and again his posts.

So...regarding Ken Johnston.

I don't care if Ken Johnston is a pilot or a limo driver. Why?

JimO said

"The ground zero of this line of exposition is that you portrey him as a man with the authority to purge the original Apollo image files, and claim he did so after being so ordered -- a clear case of major coverup."


Lets pretend that Ken Johnston is the limo driver of director manager of the Data and Photo Control Department at NASA’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the manned Apollo Lunar Program.

And in one night, when he stay in the car in the parking lot, the boss came to him and tell him

- Ken, I need to ask you a favor...
- Shoot boss!
- Do you mind if you take this pile of paper and photos and go bag in the alley and burn them?
- Eh...heh..so the private eye that your wife contract finally caught you last night with that dame?
- What?
- Ha! Ha! Ha!
- No moron! Stop it! This is serious men!
- Oh! Sorry sir!
- Now, can I trust you?
- What's in the documents?
- Is not your damn business Ken. Just go and burn this.

And Ken Johnston take the stuffs, find a dark corner in that parking lot and decided to burn those files.

Let's say that he burn the documents but keep some photos that he find interesting.

And after years he decided to pickup the phone and call George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and tell the world the truth

You, JimO, you simply don't believe this man just because his a limo driver and not a US Navy Seal Officer, or to be more correct because his enrolled in MARCAD training, but do not have a certificate?

What if instead of Ken Johnston it was Chuck Norris? Have you thought about that?

:)

Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.

:)

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

:)

david nineteenpointfive said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29134295/page/2/

When the economy is in the red, can we justify spending even more billions into Mars exploration? Particularly after a handful of people have only had full access to the best information (see Dark Mission)? Hard to see money well spent, when you factor in the past returns to the public. I think NASA will have be more forthcoming with the artifact evidence it has had, and thus earn more dollars like everyone else.

Mike Bara said...

If we can spend $335 million on contraceptives, $2 billion for a clean coal plant in Obama's home state (the largest earmark of all time), $50 million on the National Endowment for the Arts, $300 million to educate us about violence against women, $6 billion for university building projects, $2.4 billion in new welfare programs, $15 billion for Pell grants, $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities," whatever that is (ACCORN payback for creating fraudulent votes, probably) etc., yeah, I'd say we could increase the NASA budget. In this supposed stimulus package, all we are stimulating is the bank accounts of the trial lawyers, the Hollywood elite, the radical left in academia and basically every other democratic political constituency. This is all absurd and won't create a single job. In spite of how corrupt NASA is, the Agency's budget could be easily doubled, and numerous projects green lighted. New probes and satellites could be funded and accelerated, keeping engineers and technicians in productive, high paying jobs. Ares and Orion could be fast tracked, and the result would be thousands of new jobs in our most critical high-tech industries. Instead we are spending money on all of the crap I just outlined and much more, while NASA gets by on shoestring budget and defense is facing a 10% budget cut when we are involved in 2 wars.

And some of you guys wonder why I didn't vote for BHO...

JimO said...

Sphinx: "What if instead of Ken Johnston it was Chuck Norris? Have you thought about that?"

I did reply, but Mike apparently disallowed it. Sorry!

Mike Bara said...

I didn't spike it. Try sending it again.

MaxtheKnife said...

JimO,

I've made my point. To put it mildly, you're ethically challenged. Until you're ready to look at and address ALL the data... IN CONTEXT, I shall waste no more energy on you.

Mike,

If it makes you feel any better, I saw potential in both candidates insofar as DM's subject matter is concerned. But the refelction I see of JFK in Obama was too great for me to ignore.

That said, I know it may have taken me a while, but I haven't let you or the Professor down yet, have I? ;) Trust me... Have faith even... everything is going to change.

Especially NASA.

Because ultimately you are correct in that NASA funding would create a boom similar to that of a war time economy. Probably far more sustainable and useful too.

One thing needs to happen first though...

The Face.

It is the only thing which can pull this world out of it's current economic crisis.

The Face doesn't just mean something, it means everything.

It is, "The Way, the Truth, and the Light".

But you already know that, don't you, Mike? ;)

So stop worrying then.

Soon everybody will know.

DDAVIS said...

Mike Bara wrote:
'[Carl and Richard] even spent time vacationing together on various science cruises in the 1970’s that were witnessed by hundreds of people.'


I participated in the 'Voyage Beyond Apollo' launch cruise aboard the 'Statendam' due to a chance meeting with RCH a few months before. We had a fantastic view of the Launch of Apollo 17. Carl gave an inspirational talk while a slide dissolve unit showed his transparencies. That cruise was quite a gathering of space luminaries, and stands out to me as the best thing Hoagland was ever involved with. It has been said the 'Space Movement' was born there, now manifested in organizations like the NSS (http://ssi.org/), whose list of board members include some who were on that cruise.

Bara also wrote:
'And lest we forget, Carl saw fit to include a gratuitous money shot of Hoagland in his own Biography Channel Obit episode.'


I was also in that auditorium at JPL at the same time. That was quite a moment.

It seems unlikely that Carl had anything to do with the editing of that posthumous tribute...

Don Davis

Mike Bara said...

DD,

That Biography appeared within a day or so of his death, and was already in the can, obviously. And Carl carefully guarded anything that had to do with his public persona. I tend to disagree with you on this. I think he was probably quite involved in the creation of his own TV epitaph.

DDAVIS said...

If you want to believe that Carl Sagan could and would do this, so be it.

Speculation about someone's acts and motives are loosely constrained once they are not around to contradict such things when warranted.

Carl's legacy is the inspiration he spread about how cool the Universe we are discovering is, especially in the planetary arena where productive exploration continues. The megalith of his body of work will stand long and tall against any opportunistic 'vines' trying to creep their way up its sides.

Don

JimO said...

Returning to the main theme of this thread – making sure that Richard’s genuine professional credentials are not misrepresented or misreported – and applying that principle fairly to all major players in this drama, we can also put to rest the “Dr.” title spuriously applied to Ken Johnston by Bara in DM and elsewhere.

The ‘Doctor of Metaphysics’ certificate is found here: http://bp1.blogger.com/_eaaXUONwoEA/R0RdX-3kHiI/AAAAAAAAAFs/IkbgSXOsH7g/s1600-h/Ken%27s_Doctor_of_Metaphysics_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 and here
http://www.elearners.com/resources/diploma-mills.asp, which states, “It is very risky to buy a fake degree, or claim to have a degree without having completed an accredited degree program. Consumers with bogus degrees are liable to find themselves embarrassed professionally, or even out of a job.”

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.

JimO said...

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/F3/32/32.F3d.1423.91-1376.html

JimO said...

Just to be a stickler for verbal accuracy: David Morrison is not a 'pseudo-scientist'. He is a real scientist and he has the documentation and authentic work experience to prove it. Arguably he spoke carelessly and beyond the range of his reliable knowledge when he bad-mouthed Richard. His opinions, and factual foundation for them, are always subject to criticism, on this and any other subject, as I'm sure he would agree -- it's how real scientists operate, or are supposed to.

But to repeat: perhaps unlike other names percolating around this debate, Morrison's own credentials as a true scientist are legit. He is not a 'pseudo-scientist' (we know of other potential candidates for that label) and to try to portray him as such is an ad hominem smear.

DDAVIS said...

One of Jim's posts above reminds me of a central issue behind all this that deserves re-evaluation in light of new evidence.
The presence of large artificial structures on the Moon have been a long standing claim of the interests represented by this site. There should be hypothetical locations for most of these 'items' which could be indicated on a map, even if as a 'probable area' on the Moon. As the new data sets recently made from Lunar orbit become available and new images of postulated 'suspect areas' can be examined the theory of their existence can be better tested. This requires some specific descriptions of what is being looked for and where to look.
So, my suggestion, challenge, etc. to those who claim large artificial structures are on the Moon is to prepare some 'test cases' based on past claims which can be examined over the next year or so once the detailed new Lunar maps are released. The ability to test an idea like this with better data should be irresistible so long as seeking knowledge is the main motivation.

Don

Sphinx said...

Dear Donald

Have you seen the photos taken from the Chandrayaan that have bean realesed to the media?

I mean.....c'mon...there is not a huge difference from what we all see from the previous Apollo Mission.

Is useless if Richard C. Hoagland or Mike point out some locations on the Moon or Mars. The thing is, so far, every agency that dealing with space research have strong conections with NASA, and as long that NASA keep us far away from the truth, give us even now BLACK & WHITE photos from Mars or diff satellites from the solar system, many of the color photos have been re-adjusted so Mars still going to look RED
ESA, the European Space Agency, that give us the most poor black & white photos that I ever see, from Rosetta in September last year.

Not to mention the camera failure...error recevig data, unknown errors, camera malfunctions and after a few minutes by magic the cameras geting back....and so on..

There r so many examples...I don't want to copy/paste all the enterprisemission web page here.

So, my dear Donald, I admire your work, I'm an artist to, I love drawing and do animation but you still have an innocence even at your age and I find that kinda cute. Do you really think that soon as Mike point out a place on the Moon, the next day all the space agency, or lets say only one, one space agency come up and tell us:

LOOK FOLKS! WE FOUND STRUCTURE ON THE MOON!

Peace!

DDAVIS said...

'Sphinx' writes:

'...there is not a huge difference from what we all see from the previous Apollo Mission'.

The Apollo 'Panoramic' orbital cameras has a resolution of about 2 m, the 'metric' camera about 30m. the hand held photography probably somewhat worse in resolution then the Metric camera. Apollo only covered a limited part of the Moon, that which happened to be under it's designated orbits, and in sunlight.
A quick look at Lunar Orbiter spacecraft image resolution figures for mission 4, with which most nearside global mapping was done, ranges from 58-134 m although many Lunar Orbiter images show more detail, many less.

China’s Chang’e-1:
* Stereo camera with an optical resolution of 120 m

India’s Chandrayaan-1:
* Terrain Mapping Camera is a CCD camera with 5 m resolution

Japan's SELENE
*Terrain camera (TC) resolution 10 meters per pixel and 2 HDTV cameras

The upcoming LRO will see details down to a meter across.

So anyone wanting to predict things on the Moon that they think they see at the limits of resolution of older photos should be overjoyed that opportunities are imminent to re-examine the areas in question with new and sharper detail.

'The thing is, so far, every agency that dealing with space research have strong conections with NASA,...'

I seriously doubt that this is a real concern. Even if one chooses to hold NASA in the darkest suspicion, Japan, India, and China are quite unlikely to 'cow tow' to foreign government agencies telling them what to release of their own data.

'...and as long that NASA keep us far away from the truth, give us even now BLACK & WHITE photos from Mars or diff satellites from the solar system, many of the color photos have been re-adjusted so Mars still going to look RED'

You seem to be attributing a motive which makes no sense to a method of obtaining images used for over a hundred years. It may seem contradictory but among the best methods of making a color photograph is by obtaining black and white images using red, green and blue filters. The first crude color photograph was made this way. For non moving objects, using a high quality grayscale camera with a filter wheel letting in the desired colors of light is an excellent method, the results combined later. I have done some experiments along these lines which can be seen on this page of my site:

http://www.donaldedavis.com/2003NEW/CLRWORK/CLRTEST.html

which starts with a comparison, done with a 'lower end' decent digital camera, between color photos made with a color imager and from RGB filtered grayscale images of the same thing.

The first measurements of the colors of the Martian surface were made by Viking then Pathfinder using different technologies obtaining similar results. The Rovers and Phoenix lander tended to build upon the earlier data, not contradict it.
My work in progress on the topic of the colors of Mars is seen on this page:

http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/MARSCLRS.html

with numerous examples and links to other pages which may be of interest to those curious about this topic.
By the way, much of the Rosetta material is quite good, considering Mars was not its designed objective.

'Do you really think that soon as Mike point out a place on the Moon, the next day all the space agency, or lets say only one, one space agency come up and tell us:

LOOK FOLKS! WE FOUND STRUCTURE ON THE MOON!'

No I expect anyone proposing a theory to take advantage of new information which will shed new light on it. One should be willing to commit ones self to predicting some physical manifestation one should see be it shadows of structures, etc. in a given level of detail. It's either there in a detailed stereo image or it isn't. There has to be something that can be resolved or shown to be non existent at some level of detail in past alleged 'Lunar constructions'of a stated size. Pick out the 'best' alleged structures, preferably with frame numbers and lat/long numbers or at least a circled 'zone' where something is supposed to be within that area if the location isn't known. State the range of physical perimeters implied from earlier efforts, size, optical properties, etc. I'm sure there are a dozen enthusiasts out there who will be happy to mine the new data as it becomes available from various nations to give a fair search for anything extraordinary at those locations.

Don

Mike Bara said...

Yeah, LRO, a mission run by NASA. Riiiiiiight.

I trust that about as much as I trust Lunar Orbiter data being "processed" by Jim Oberg and his pals.

JimO said...

Your latest delusional fantasy has lost me, again. Since when have I -- or any of my "pals" -- ever been involved in processing Lunar Orbiter data? In your dreams?

Sphinx said...

I think Mike is playing a magician that can see in the future.

LRO will launch in April ( that if all the thing will go OK ) and you, James Oberg, will be invited on NBC as a space consultant, and you gonna tell us how the structures that is on the TV screen is not actually structures, but large volcanic mass of stone forming a cliff...you know...stuff like that.

:)