Jeff Sagansky: Co-Exec. Producer
David Kiviat: Co-Exec. Producer
Citation: For creating a 90-minute TV Special, "Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed", that commits several crimes against video documentary conventions, and for exposing not truth but lies.
For writing the pre-title script line "Tonight we will examine all the evidence", then notably failing to examine ANY of the modern lunar images from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
For swallowing the Apollo 20 hoax and giving it false legitimacy.
================A couple of existing members of the Hall of Shame appear as talking heads.
Mike Bara: Laid-off former CAD-CAM technician. In trademark "macho" leather jacket, stuck in front of some kind of fake lunar landscape (Bandelier National Monument?), telling lies.
Ken Johnston: Former Lunar Receiving Lab shipping clerk. In flight jacket, bearing no less than six patches including US Marines Command Pilot wings that he may not really be entitled to. Same backdrop as Bara.
Mike Bara checklist:
Mike talks a great deal about the "satellite dish" in Mare Crisium. IT'S A LIE. This blog has proved it.
Mike tells us about the "giant paperclip" in AS10-32-4822, near crater Manilius. IT'S A LIE. This blog has proved it. On the SyFy show, he stated that the version of that frame showing the paperclip came from "negatives we obtained from NASA."In his rant The Inmates are running the asylum, he says it was a print from Ken Johnston's collection. The latter is far more likely -- NASA does not release original negatives.
Let me do what the producers of this poppycock dismally failed to do -- check the LRO image. Here's a permalink. Zoom in and explore at will. The two craters in the foreground of the Apollo 10 image are Hyginus A and B. The paperclip would be toward the top of that frame. If it existed.
Mike tells us about the Daedalus Ziggurat. IT'S A LIE. Stuart Robbins has proved it. Once again, check the LRO high-definition image Here it is. The ziggy would be dead center. If it existed. What's worse, Mike claims sole credit for having "discovered" this miracle. No mention that he came across it on the web forum Call of Duty Zombies, or that it was originally "found" by Terry James, a.k.a. kksamurai. MORE LIES.
Three days after the show's première, Mike proclaimed that he was shocked... shocked! to discover that the show gave the impression that he was the original discoverer. He reposted on his blog what he calls the forward [sic] to his previous book, setting the record straight (and putting on display his sheer nastiness, yet again.) In fact, it is credible that the false claim was due to poor editing.
Ken Johnston checklist:
Ken retells an old hoax about Neil Armstrong getting on a secret "medical" radio channel while on the Moon, saying “I'm telling you, there are other spacecraft out there. They're lined up in ranks on the far side of the crater edge....” IT'S A LIE. James Oberg has proved it. Moreover, as Oberg also correctly reports, there was no such thing as a "secret medical radio channel." It's true that some conversations with the Flight Surgeon were not released publicly, but that's not quite the same thing.
Ken tells his oft-repeated story about the alien base in crater Tsiolkovsky. This blog has concluded that it's unlikely to be true. Ken says "Apollo 14 came around the back side of the Moon, cameras rolling." But the film strip in question was not a movie at all, it was from the topographic camera, as this blog explained two years ago.
On his Faceache page, Ken said he was the "research producer" of the show. The end credits give that accolade to Don Ecker (he's the joker who referred to the tracks left by rolling boulders as "tank tracks." Great research there, Don.)
Lee Spiegel checklist:
Lee believes the "chevron" near crater Belyayev is an artificial structure. IT'S A LIE, and this blog has proved it.
Lee thinks the "cigar-shaped" feature near crater Diderot is a crashed spacecraft. IT'S A LIE, and this blog has proved it. Once again, check the LRO image. It's cratered exactly like its surroundings.
Lee refers to NASA Mars probes lost "for unknown reasons." He's talking about Mars Observer (1993), Mars Polar Lander (1999) and Mars Climate Orbiter (1999). These missions were lost, but not for "unknown reasons." The reasons became very clear, as James Oberg has shown.
Nick Redfern checklist:
I love Nick's Staffordshire accent, but I wish he'd use it in service of the truth instead of inaccurate speculation. He too says the "chevron" is "man-made." He wonders if Moon aliens are "preparing for an attack" (yeah, sure, Nick. I suggest you take cover, just in case.)
General crimes against tv documentary conventions:
The producers often mix actual lunar images with artwork and model shots, in such a way as to intentionally deceive the audience by pretending that the "anomalies" are more obvious than they actually are.
Extremely unconvincing "anomalous" images are overlaid in color so as to appear a bit more convincing. This Apollo 11 image, for example, is zoomed in on about 20 times:
image credit: NASA AS11-41-6139The narrator says over and over again that it shows a flying saucer. IT'S A LIE.
Altogether some 20 lunar images are shown, with the claim that they show artificial objects or structures. Not once, NOT ONCE, do the producers see fit to examine the much more detailed imagery of the same areas that is readily available in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image library. Much of that imagery has a resolution of 0.8 m/px, several hundred times better than the images the producers used.
SHAME ON YOU, KIVIAT, SAGANSKY, KIVIAT, BARA, JOHNSTON, SPIEGEL, REDFERN.
Great as far as you go, but nothing how they dishonestly and clearly with intent, the show misrepresented what then experts had to say? To me that was the most despicable thing about the show, even beyond the lies.
That wasn't quite so obvious to me. Danielle Wyrick was cut to shreds, certainly. If you can come up with a specific example, please post it.
The part of this travesty that had me on the floor laughing was the whole "Apollo 20" spiel. Everything in that entire segment was so painfully fake: Obvious CGI, "Aliens" made from what looks like wax, and the fact that program did so little research that they couldn't identify the rover in the fake video as a Lunokhod.
One thing I saw caught my eye though was the segment where they discussed what look like some boulders with trails in the regolith behind them. Do you know what caused them or if they're real (I wouldn't put it past them to fake some images)
Funnily enough, I just added a reference to both the Apollo 20 hoax and the rolling boulders.
Yes, they're real. Here's an article about them.
Specific examples? The astronaut's comments were clearly taken out of context, the shot where Buzz is sitting looking angry with no comment? Obvious editing shenanigans--no, worse, lies!
Zubrin was a deer (dear?) in the headlights and obviously ambushed. She's a really good journalist, with a great (pretty?) head on her shoulders. WTF?
Claiming crap that can be easily disproved is one thing, intentional misrepresentation and manipulation of 'guests' is far worse in my book. How dare they profit by implying that American heroes lied, even when it's idiots that believe their crap? Isn't there a law? Surely there were contracts signed before the engagement that state how their likenesses c/would be used. I can't imagine any of them agreeing to even appear on such a tawdry, despicable show.
I am commenting from the authority of a prior authority of a top secret Q clearance granted to me through the federal government. Serious. Now, for my thoughts. I think it would be enlightening and insightful for a response documentary on this subject with you and some fellow colleagues expat. Would you be game or interested? I just put this on the table for discussion. I have zero contacts, but if you do get the gig, please give me credit as "Q".
And further more...! On Facebook Johnson admits he wasn't even there when Apollo 11 landed, he was watching with family. How he could he have heard the nonexistant 'secret' back channel conversation? He he was there and heard it or he wasn't.
>>I think it would be enlightening and insightful for a response documentary on this subject with you and some fellow colleagues expat. Would you be game or interested?<<
Yes, as long as my anonymity could be preserved. Hoagland, Bara, and Morningstar have all threatened legal action, and even though they have no chance of success they could make my life difficult if they spent enough money on attorneys.
>>Surely there were contracts signed before the engagement that state how their likenesses c/would be used. I can't imagine any of them agreeing to even appear on such a tawdry, despicable show.<<
Sadly, no. The standard procedure is for the producers to reserve the right to edit interview material however they like.
Given Aldrin's previous encounters with hoax idiots, and the SyFy channel's reputation, he must have had some assurance they wouldn't misrepresent what he said. If so, I smell a lawsuit.
You should have mentioned Don Ecker as well. That right-wing nutjob conspiracy "theorist" / blowhard was credited as the "research producer" so surely a fair amount of blame is his.
Minor update today.
Can someone point me toward the article or post documenting where Ken Johnston is outed as a former Lunar Receiving Lab shipping clerk rather than Data and Photo Control Department manager as he claims?
Trained: That's James Oberg's speciality.
See the 9th article.
I apologize for the recent constipation in the comments pipeline. My POP mail settings got screwed up.
Thanks for the reference. It isn't as definitive as I would have liked, but I get the drift. It seems to be a constant in this business (whatever that is), "Nothing is what it seems." or more to the point "No one is who they say they are.", whether they are claiming to be "aircraft engineers", "NASA managers", "MIT graduates", PhDs, "Ex-CIA", and so on. In the modern world the snake oil salesmen have their own domain names, agents, and television shows.
Post a Comment