Painting over the stars
But as in previous announcements and pronouncements by Johnston, truthiness is in short supply here. Consider this key passage:
"Most researchers today only have access to the current database of images that are in electronic format. Researchers have noted, there are significant differences between images in Ken’s archives and what is available to the public. Johnston is an eyewitness to NASA personnel scrubbing out details of photos and painting over the stars in the sky."I don't myself know of any significant differences between Ken's photo prints and the NASA electronic archive. Where the differences arise is between the "official" archive and the electronic scans of Ken's prints. But the comparison is between, on the one hand, a professionally scanned image from an original negative or internegative done in a clean room — and on the other hand, a photoprint stored in a ring binder for 23 years, then pulled out and scanned on a consumer-grade scanner. In the case of scans done by Richard Hoagland for his book Dark Mission, the scanner glass is quite clearly contaminated. Compare, for example, the official version of AS10-32-4820 with Hoagland's scan:
Quite apart from the scratches — emphasized by Hoagland's manipulation of the image brightness — there's something in there that surely can only be a human hair.
As for "painting over the stars in the sky," that cannot possibly be the truth because the astronauts' chest-mounted cameras could not have been set to expose both dim stars and very bright lunar terrain in the same shot. It seems certain that what Johnston witnessed was strippers eliminating sparkle in the totally black lunar sky that might have been misinterpreted as stars.
Appended to the release is a collection of a couple of dozen scans which are presumably there to convince us that Johnston really has something worth looking at. In fact, they convince me that the archivist, Bret Colin Sheppard (he actually calls himself an anomalist) lacks rigor to the point of despair. We see some of the usual fuzzy things declared to be "a lunar base", "a parabolic dish array"note 1, "an effigy or statue"note 2, "a sculpture", and so on. We are not told who carried out these scans or under what conditions of cleanliness. In not one single case did the industrious Mr. Sheppard find time to consult the library of ultra-high definition images returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to see what these blobberies really are (if anything at all.) The resolution of the LRO images would be typically 300 times that of the Apollo collection, and considering that LRO has been giving us these free gifts for seven years now, there really is no excuse for this slop.
Think I'm making too much fuss about a mere press release that nobody noticed? Wrong. Notwithstanding its grammatical shortcomings, The Roswell Daily Record picked it up, and to my horror (and that of James Oberg) it found its way into AP, datelined 7th June. For whatever reason, AP decided to add its own bit of untruthiness in the tail-end paragraph: "Johnston was later fired from NASA." Given that Johnston never worked for NASA, it's hard to see how he could have been fired. His status as hero within the NASA-hating contingent is based on this falsehood, but the true story is that he was dropped from the all-volunteer Solar System Ambassador program after his loyalty was questioned and his self-reported career résumé was found to contain important prevarications.
Oberg added a comment to the online AP story, including these words: "If you're going to promote a claim that NASA has been lying to the world for half a century about what Apollo found on the moon, please research your sources more thoroughly." Amen to that, and see Oberg's comments below.
 The so-called "parabolic dish array" is seen in AS15-88-11967. The Johnston version differs only in tiny detail from the official version. It's a collection of small craters behind the rightmost fiducial in row 3. Sheppard presents an over-zoomed detail which is far more likely to be dust or a reflection than anything real. The bright dots appear to be beyond the limiting resolution of the scan.
 The"effigy" also appears in the "official" version of AS12-49-7224. It's just a large rock. The scan provided by anomalist Sheppard is notably dirty, including another hair or fiber.
Also note Johnston's own comment about this particular image, noted in this blogpost.
You just have to love the woo world. It's the only place where a shipping clerk can be an imaging expert, a cad cam technician can become an engineer, and a guy who once ran a museum can become a theoretical physicist. In the land of the blind, even the blind can be king if they can fake it.
In reading the press release, there's no avoiding having to say this after years of argument -- many of the facts claimed there are just plain false, and have been proven false with verifiable documentation. Just a few examples:
1. "NASA officials ordered the destruction of five full sets of the irreplaceable photos of the missions that had been kept for use and study by scientists and NASA employees."
FALSE --the photos used by Johnston as a shipping clerk for lunar samples were provided to him by the accrual photo archive department in another building, None of them was 'irreplaceable' and Johnston had no control over the actual archives.
2. "Dr. Ken Johnston Sr was a marine pilot."
FALSE -- As clearly established by his own military service records, Johnston dropped out of flight school without receiving any certification and was unqualified to 'pilot' anything while in Houston. He is also unqualified to be called "Doctor" based on a certificate he purchased from a post office box in Denver.
3. Johnston was "one of four Civilian Astronaut Consultant Pilots" at NASA.
FALSE -- There is no record that NASA or Grumman ever used this designation for anyone, nor does it appear in any of Johnson's documentation EXCEPT on the front of a logbook in a different font from the other text and inside what appears to be a paste-on label of undetermined origin.
Regarding Ken's story of seeing the 'strippers', you're more generous than I would have been, I have no reason to believe it ever happened. It’s a dramatic feature of his narrative that has appeared only in recent years after two decades of interviews where, as far as I can tell, he never mentioned it before. So he's suddenly remembered it now?
The 'parabolic dish array' is currently being used to generate clickbait for known fraudsters Secureteam10 in their latest youtube nonsense. In that image there is clearly more present on the right than in any other version of the image, and it is also very obviously picture damage. They also cite Johnston and Sheppard as the source of this with the usual 'whistleblower' nonsense puffing up his importance.
I did some digging around about this, and it seems that Sheppard's epiphany revolves around a visit by someone who took him to one side at college in 1982 and showed him some pictures. He then saw what he believes are those self same images taken Martian probe 30 years later. The photos are definitely not the same, and the woman who showed the photos was a psychologist (Ximena Zurita) working on her Masters thesis - as far as I can tell it was nothing more than a glorified Rorschach test.
He also claims that Hasselblad images were developed in space and transmitted back to Earth, while showing a photo of the 16mm DAC camera by way of illustration - such is the depth of his understanding about the photos.
It's all in hi s'book# https://archive.org/details/PARADIMENSIONALSPACEARTGNU
A hopelessly deluded and possibly mentally ill man convinced he is being contacted telepathically by aliens is seeing monsters in the dark and lapping up everything Johnston spews out and adding even more to it. It's sad.
Hey, thanks for that research Monkey. Very interesting.
"accrual photo archive " was SUPPOSED to say "actual photo archive ".
I wonder where Ken was when he saw this retouching process. That certainly would not have been in the LRL, would it?
The 'parabolic dish array' is this region of the Mare Fecunditatis. Nothing out of the ordinary to see (naturally) on the LRO images:
@Trekker - I like to use Kaguya, Chang'e-2 and where possible Chandrayaan images to debunk this kind of BS as they don't come from evil bad guys NASA. Naturally none of these sources show anything like the alleged 'array'.
I've actually seen adherents of the "they are up there watching us" nonsense defend this by saying that 'they' could easily have been dismantled by the time new probes came along. In tat case it's more fun to go back to the many contemporary images out there. In the case of this supposed feature, none of the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo 8, 10, 11, or Apollo 15 and 17 Metric Mapping Camera images covering the same area show it.
Thanks trekker. I've sent your link to anomalist Sheppard as an excellent example of the kind of due diligence he ought to be doing.
I believe he [Johnston] has caught the woo bug. They start off with a story, get some attention, and then their mental facilities diminish whilst their ego goes batshit crazy. "I've never said this in public before" is their get-out.
For example. Kerry Cassidy started out being a /cough..... "researcher". Now she claims to be an indigo child, a remote viewer, and alien abductee who had all her eggs pinched by naughty grey aliens, a telepath, an intuitive and a psychic.
David Wilcock is claiming an IQ of 187, and states that he has information from aliens that when he is proved to be correct he will not be able to leave the house because he will have achieved rockstar status and be mobbed by adoring fans.
For your (I hope) amusement. I posted this earlier on Richard Dolan's FB page.
Derek James Eunson: I'd love to see a TV reality show called name-drop-a-thon. Starring Greer and Hoagland. I would form it such that they had to speak for 5 minutes without dropping a name. Man, for those two clownburgers it would be like trying to eat a cream cake without licking your lips.
I'd give Hoagland about 23 seconds before he dropped a Cronkite, and Greer slightly more before he told us that his Uncle designed the lunar module, and that he briefed Woolsey.
At least Hoagland is funny. Greer is simply fucking creepy.
Like · Reply · 7 hrs
Derek James Eunson
Greer also looks like a constipated toad.
Expat, you're welcome!
OneBigMonkey, I use the LRO because it's easy! Do you have links to Chang'e-2 and Chandryaan's images? Is the resolution as good as the LRO?
The idea that the bases could have been 'dismantled' is nonsense, as you rightly point out. The resolution on the LRO images is such that any disturbance, footprints, tracks, etc., would be as easy to see as the Apollo landing site 'disturbances'.
Hot new youtube video by SecureTeam ==
Russian press going wild...
Hi Trekker - Chang'e-2's images are a bit hit and miss, not least because they tend to use a 'high noon' view so there are very few shadows. The resolution also isn't as good, but can work well on larger areas. India's can be excellent, and I have managed to find evidence of Apollo sites in them, but the softwar you need to extract them can be tricksy to use.
Chang'e-2 are here:
and you need the Nasaview software to get at them https://pds.nasa.gov/tools/nasa-view.shtml
The site can be flakey, so I went to the trouble of downloading all of them, as well as the Chang'e-1 images (those ones can be a quick way of confirming you have worked out the right one to download!)
Chandrayaan's imagery can be found here http://issdc.gov.in/CHBrowse/index.jsp
You need to register to get at them (and the viewing software, but I've not had any problems as a result. Some versions of java can be a bit twitchy about their java based applications, which is a shame because the globe is the easiest way to find the right location.
If used a lot of India, Chinese and Japanese imagery to debunk 'alien base' nonsense and you can get an idea of how good they are on my site
and also to confirm details in Apollo images from lunar orbit
Hope that helps :)
I have changed the wording of note 1 quite a bit. I initially misunderstood what Sheppard was claiming as his "discovery."
Thanks very much, OneBigMonkey! I'll take a look!
Are the bright dots in the image in your revised Note#1 the same as the blemishes in Ukert Crater?
Hiya Trekker. They look similar, but they are not on the original image. Download AS15-88-11967HR.jpg and zoom in all you like, you won't find them.
Your LROC reference is still perfectly valid, as confirmation that there is no dish array down there.
Visit Ken's facebook page to see him blowing his stack over attacks on his NASA record.
Johnston swears he was 'fired' by NASA-JPL, but the outreach program director told me he suddenly offered his resignation when challenged over a 'PhD' that he had included in his official biography. That's ALSO the version HE told the day he resigned when he called in to Coast-to-Coast to complain, and it is reported that way by the program's website summary.
Date: Friday - October 19, 2007
Broadcasting live from the WNIS studio in Norfolk, Virginia, George hosted an evening of Open Lines. Several callers phoned in at George's request to share their dreams about falling (and hitting the ground).
….Near the end of the second hour, George talked briefly with former NASA employee Ken Johnston. According to Johnston, he has been pressured to resign from his volunteer position at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory because of his contributions to Dark Mission, a new book by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara that purportedly chronicles the secret history of NASA.
Question -- Can a diligent research volunteer get past the pay wall and get the exact transcript of what Ken said, or better yet, strip out the audio for a .wav file I can post here?
The free archive at z-firelight only goes back to April 2015.
The week after he resigned, he attended a press conference in DC to promote Hoagland's book, and -- in this report by Dwayne Day -- specifically described how he was 'forced to resign.' http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1022/1
That press conference can be seen on Youtube. Johnston describes what happened starting at 29:30.
"They said 'We're concerned about what your loyalties might be.' And I said 'Well I've known Mr. Hoagland for quite a few years.' And the answer was 'Well we know Mr. Hoagland, we really appreciate what he's done in the past, but we're not too happy with what he's doing right now.' And we discussed it a little bit further, and I was told 'You know, if you wanted to resign, that would sure solve the problems a lot.'"
He says he refused to resign, but then...
32:22 "I received one week later, on October 26th, just this past Friday, a registered certified mail overnight express letter from JPL ... that said they were accepting my resignation."
So I'd now say "dropped" is more accurate than "pressured to resign."
I'll rely on my memory and notes of my conversation with Ferrari, not on Johnston's self-serving fantasies. She said she pressed him on the question I had asked [based on Mike Bara's quoting the SSA bio website as authoritative proof Johnston's "PhD" was valid], she asked him please show documentation of the PhD -- and at THAT point, he announced his willingness to resign. The issue of him stating in public that he thought NASA had lied to the world about the fundamental discoveries of the Apollo program was also discussed, the exact sequence was never clear to me. Note that he called Coast-to-coast on October 19th, the day of the resignation, a week before the registered letter allegedly arrived [has he ever showed a scan of it?]. The following week, in DC, Dwayne Day heard him phrase it 'forced to resign' at the press conference -- it's in the article he wrote immediately afterwards. So we have both parties to the conversation saying 'resigned'. The first person to say "fired" was Richard Hoagland, that should tell you all you need to know about the reliability of that assertion.
« has he ever showed a scan of it? »
Yes, in that same Youtube vid, it's on screen at 32:48. But my eyes aren't good enough to read it.
I see it, I'll transcribe and post. Good link.
I've blown it up and can read "This will confirm our telephone conversation [in this case?] at which you agreed that effective immediately you are terminating your participation in the JPL Solar System Ambassador Program. Please [??] all references to the Solar System Ambassador Program from your outreach activities and [??] your [??] as soon as possible."
"This will confirm our telephone conversation on the date at which you agreed....
Please drop all references.......and return your badge.
Thank you for your past participation in the program and good luck to you in your future endeavours."
New video interview with Johnston and Sheppard about their book tour blitz at the Roswell UFO Annual Festival next week. They have startling NEW revelations about memories they have just now recovered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU1GgsCh0FI
I've been straining my aged eyes all morning, I'd like to suggest a correction to "The so-called "parabolic dish array" is seen in AS15-88-11967." I think it's AS15-88-11966.
Well, they're such similar shots, obviously taken within seconds of each other. But 11967 is what is claimed by Johnston & Sheppard.
Yep, but I'll show you both, we can all double check.
If I'm right, it's proof that J&S never bothered to even LOOK at the on-line NASA images.
Jim Oberg adds -- my detailed notes on the Johnston/Sheppard interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU1GgsCh0FI [Thomas Mikey]
"Civilian Astronaut Consultant Pilot" == You do realize that this 'job title' looks like it was dreamed up by Johnston, typed on a stick-on label he later affixed to a genuine logbook? How could he be any kind of 'pilot' when he was a flight-school dropout, as proved by his military training records anybody can FOIA? Are you in on the hoax, or just an innocent dupe?
Ken jun 18
bret Sheppard and vip ken Johnston…
Published on Jun 18, 2016
Ken Johnston (Civilian Astronaut Consultant Pilot at the Apollo program). Had for decades been hiding some untouched pictures from various Apollo missions. Now they are all being released to the public.
Meet see and hear Ken Johnston in 15 minutes with Mars Moon Space TV together with Bret Colin Sheppard (Photographic Analyst) telling why he disobeyed his orders while working for NASA.
See some of the anomalies pointed out by Bret Colin Sheppard.
3:20 kj: “When I was director of the data and photo control lab….
i had a top secret clearance at the time”
Sheppard: 6:10 “Just about everybody who looks at it says it’s just a rock, or something, but I +KNOW+ better. It looks like lunar ruins…”
Shep 9:05 “one of the ladies that were there was Donna Hare…”
Johnston: 10:01 “At the very near end of the Apollo program we had people from the government who came to our homes and ask if we had any materials, books and materials, and they confiscated them, took those all back …”
kJ 11:00 “I was warned about not talking too much, it wasn’t until a man, Richard Hoagland, was doing a lecture, in Seattle, that – I wanted to get his book autographed…”]
11:27 … because the pictures they had looked at had been doctored,,,…
12:: Q on tsiolkovskiy crater and a gun sequence camera….
12:15 kj: “Dr. Thornton Page was in charge of the astronomical branch of NASA, they had their offices at the Jim West mansion that was just outside the Johnson space center’s main confine… He had been to my office many times and looked at pictures, he knew I had experience in the Marine corps as a pilot.,and I knew how to operate 16-mm gun sequence camera and he asked me to check out an Apollo-14 reel of 16-mm film…
and we’ere coming around the back side of the moon up on crater Tsiolkovskiy… and the sun angle was such that half of the bottom of the crater was in shadow, in the middle of the shadowed area was a clurter of domes [like fingertips] but they were illuminated from the inside…and one of them had a column of steam or something being projected off the top of it. “
[keeps calling it gun-sequence camera] …
“Years later, I realized Dr. Page had to know exactly what was on that film, what to look at,…he gave me the specific reel only about 15 minutes long.
15:00 shep “just to tell you how specific that reel was… it was capturing tsiolkovskiy crater on the terminator while they were doing a TEI, a trans earth insertion…. They were leaving the moon,
Shep “there were scientists or speculators that said that’s impossible, Tsiolokovski crater wasn’t filmed on Apollo-14 [Johnston – “oh yes it was!”] but I found that, I found those images…those sequences, it’s exactly what ken describes… the same shadow, angles, everything… I didn’t even know if I was going to find it, but I did. So we now know that’s the truth, it was Apollo-14 Tsiolkovski Crater” “
16:30 next week I’ve been asked to be the guest at the annual roswell ufo museum event, 4th of july weekend… hundreds of thousands of people show up… I’m going to be speaking three days in a row on as Thursday, Friday, and saturday…
The truth is out there, all we have to do is go find it…
There are only three images of Tsiolkovskiy from Apollo 14. They're all very dark, so I'm not sure how he claims the astronauts saw clusters of domes lit from the inside, with a column of steam. See what you think:
Wow, those really are dark. But he's talking about film strips from the Lunar Topograhic Camera, not the Hasselblad 70mm frames.
Here's something funny, though. On p.10 of that paper by El-Baz and Roosa we find that the LTC malfunctioned. The 192 useful frames were along a strip from 28.2° E, 11.3° S to 18.7° E, 8.3° S. Nowhere near Tsiolkovsky, which is at 20.4° S, 129.1° E.
I've run off the Apollo-14 orbit of the moon, the only time it was in range of Tsiolkovskiy was after TEI [return to Earth] as it coasted up and away from the moon, and the window shots with the 70-mm were getting 'whole hemisphere' wide-angles, several of which had Tsiolkovskiy near the horizon, on the terminator. I've confirmed, there were NO 16-mm cine 'gun camera' sequences during that brief moment when Tsiolkovskiy was in view. If Johnston/Sheppard thinks this CONFIRMS the smoking alien moon base story, they're farther 'round the bend than I had thought. It utterly destroys the story's credibility by showing it was physically impossible for Apollo-14 to take such views straight-down [as the LTC and the landmark-tracking 16-mm required. EVER.
new youtube video
Keith Laney Interview with Karen C. Patrick and Bret C. Sheppard
Published on Jun 24, 2016
Keith Laney discusses NASA image processing and Anomalies.
I am not mentally I'll as you say on this blog and would appreciate that the comment is removed immediately.
The Maurer 16mm motion picture camera in the Command Module had lenses of 10, 18 and 75mm focal length available. Accessories included a right-angle mirror, a power cable and a sextant adapter which allowed the camera to film through the navigation sextant optical system.
03 1_ 29 53 CDR Ch, it looks good through the sextant.
03 14 29 56 C_,_what.
03 14 29 58 CDR S_re locks good through the sextant.
03 i_ 30 03 C_ W_ll, I thi_: it's got a reddish tint to it out
zhe window. Sort of like, you know, the south-
west desert. You know, red hasn't been mentioned
before. Dc you see Tsiolkovsky over there?
03 14 30 23 _Oh, sure; that's Tsiolkovsky. Okay. I've got it.
Yes. That mother is black out there, isn't it?_and flat. And there are really a lot more color differences than I expected.
this proves that they did fly over Tsiolkovski on Apollo 14 close up and took 16 mm film of the event on the 3rd day of orbit.
probably wont post this but whatever. I sent it to a reporter.
Expat and James Oberg the same person ? Galveston County, Texas, with fine herb gardens, orchards
hobby Oenology ?
Thanks for posting, Bret. This blog absolutely welcomes dissenting opinion.
I've confirmed that your citations from Apollo 14 are accurate. Note that there is no reference to any flashing lights or steam vents. James Oberg may have further comments on the Tsiolkovsky flyover.
The blog did not accuse you of being mentally ill. A comment by OneBigMonkey included the words "possibly mentally ill." I do think that's a bit strong but I'm not going to remove it, sorry.
Since you're paying attention I wonder if you might address the following questions:
- Who carried out the scans that you think contain evidence of a lunar civilization? What precautions were taken to avoid scanner contamination?
- Can the "dish array" be seen on the actual print of AS15-88-11967, or is it only on the scan?
- Why have you not checked the high-definition images from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, to see whether the artifacts you claim are anything real? Surely this is minimal due diligence for someone such as yourself.
- Here, for example, is the area of Mare Fecunditas where your "parabolic dish array" would be if it were something real. Quite evidently, it is not.
Again, I assure you that your comments are very welcome here.
« Expat and James Oberg the same person ? »
No, we aren't. Oberg knows a lot more about the technical side of spaceflight than do I. Plus he speaks Russian whereas my foreign language is French. Helps with the oenology, you see.
1. Ken did not scan that particular image of the Apollo 15 CM, it was in his archive as a slide produced by Finley Holiday for board meetings at the MSC.
2. LRO images are CGI and I do not consider them valid, though I did look and there was a big grayed out patch in the area of the Array anomaly.I wouldn't expect to find it in an official image of any kind it is not where I found it. I found it in a particular image that has never till now been made public.
3 I have done a thorough job at researching this anomaly and knew the exact location. It is nice that someone else looked for it.
4. I would still like you to request to Monkey to change that comment about mental illness it is misleading and wrong.
5. you are not who you say you are. I have reason to believe that James Oberg and Expat are one in the same. I don't like lies. If I'm wrong prove it.
Thanks for coming in, Bret!!
Here's my take on yout illuminating argument:
Crew is on 3rd orbit of moon, Flight Day 4, on back side.
Transcript of Command Module onboard tape recorder [Page 145]
Crew is discussing craters they are passing: Do you have Mendeleyev out your side?
We’re past Chaplygin, we’re going right over Lovelett There are Dellinger and Pannekoek.
3 14 30 do you see Tsiolkovskiy – sure, that’s Tsiolkovskiy
3 14 31 Langemak coming up – almost dead underneath us…
Sheppard: “This proves that they did fly over Tsiolkovskiy on Apollo 14 close up and took 16 mm film of the event on the 3rd day of orbit.”
By no means:
See map, Tsiolkovskiy was far to the south of all other named craters
Crew was not scheduled for photography so soon after arriving [it was the 3rd orbit, NOT the “3rd day in lunar orbit”]
Crew did not discuss or report any unscheduled photography
Post-mission imagery catalog shows NO 16-mm imagery of Tsiolkovskiy, reasonable because of geometric constraints on planned observations
Johnston was SHOWN 16-mm landmark tracking video from Apollo-14 in Houston in 2014 and was adamant it was not what he remembered seeing
If the crew had eyeballed any unusual objects are activity in Tsiolkovskiy, what force on Earth could have kept Ed Mitchell [who was THERE] from telling the world about it?
Here's where to look up all imagery from the Apollo missions. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/
Thanks for the comments and (partial) answers, Bret. Here are my rejoinders:
>>1. Ken did not scan that particular image of the Apollo 15 CM, it was in his archive as a slide produced by Finley Holiday for board meetings at the MSC.
A slide???? Ohhh.... mystery solved. Not only are slides peculiarly vulnerable to random dirt, but because of the relative difficulty of scanning them (as compared to a print) they can pick up reflections. To me, your version of AS15-88-11967 is now eliminated as a serious exhibit.
I'd still like to know who scanned your other exhibits and under what conditions. The fact that a fiber is so clearly visible in your version of AS12-49-7224 makes me think that somebody had a dirty scanner glass and doesn't want to own up. It casts suspicion, Bret, on your entire collection.
>>2. LRO images are CGI and I do not consider them valid, though I did look and there was a big grayed out patch in the area of the Array anomaly.
I do not think you can consider yourself a serious investigator of lunar photography if you write off the entirety of the best and most up-to-date collection of lunar images as invalid. You write that you don't like lies, yet you just wrote a whopper. Here again is the area where your "antenna array" would be if it existed. Where's the "grayed out patch", Bret? Are you seriously suggesting that grad students at ASU would tolerate having their scientific data corrupted? If so, you can't have met many such types or have any real understanding of science.
>>4. I would still like you to request to Monkey to change that comment about mental illness it is misleading and wrong.
All right -- OneBigMonkey, please change it. It's unwarranted.
>>5. you are not who you say you are. I have reason to believe that James Oberg and Expat are one in [sic] the same. I don't like lies. If I'm wrong prove it.
Both of us use genuine personal photographs when posting, rather than avatars. Just compare them, Bret.
Two additional brief comments from Bret Sheppard disallowed. They were simply copy/paste texts describing me and Oberg.
Bret: "I don't like lies."
Have you ever heard Ken Johnston make any statements you consider untrue, deliberately or not?
You can start with his biography on the Roswell UFO Convention website:
I have a list of candidate untruths from that link but I don't want to prejudice your response.
"A slide???? Ohhh.... mystery solved. Not only are slides peculiarly vulnerable to random dirt, but because of the relative difficulty of scanning them (as compared to a print) they can pick up reflections. To me, your version of AS15-88-11967 is now eliminated as a serious exhibit."
The slide was scanned with an Epson Perfection V500 photo scanner and was scanned as film, not a photo. The image is valid because it physically exists, which is much more than I can say for official digital images. This slide was made from proofs not scanned 8/10's
Astronauts as well as pilots are trained to describe unusual sightings as "Bogie's" or unidentified. They would not say something to alarm the public or cause panic. Tsiolkovsky was filmed because they viewed it through the sexton, as you know a specific modification to the viewer of the 16mm camera. I see from your answers that you don't mind being wrong as long as people believe you. The facts stand for themselves, and what you are doing is not factual. It is clear to me that your friends, in this blog, are unreasonable that way, and apparently paid for what you do and if not should be, other wise I would see no sense in your adversary creation. If you disallowed the comment about Jim knowing both Russian and French as well as both wine makers that says it all to me. I cant take this blog seriously because you are suspiciously the same person. I am an expert in my experiences with Lunar photography as well as personal experiences with UFO's. In my mind those who hide these things, or have never had these experiences, have no right to make critical commentary about something they have no clue about. I respect Jim Oberg and the research he has done for the Soviet Space Program though he does not feel the same about my research. My research is ongoing, and when I have made a mistake I correct it. Can you say the same ? I have heard Ken make minor errors in time lines and grammar, very picky stuff that does not discount his story, which is basically based on his personal human experience for which he is an expert. You can't debunk someones experience because you were not there. Edgar Mitchell wasn't even in the Command Module when Stewart Roosa was describing it to him, though he did see it from the LEM.The fact is you are wrong Jim. You are all free to disagree because I certainly do. Jim Oberg worked with Dr. Thornton Page who was hired by the government to specifically debunk these things and Jim must have learned quite a lot from him. It disturbs me that there are agendas like this to hide facts like what the Brookings Institute and Robertson panel described. I have seen and Identified UFO's with my own eyes, are you all experts in what I saw or have experienced in the past as well ? of course not you just call those things crazy, and work on individual credibility, something I could care less about. Basic bullying is what you all do and that's what is wrong with our world. There are many layers to uncover and we don't need unexperienced men, who never saw a UFO, to cover them for us. PROVE YOU ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON ! don't just say your not, or should I just believe you based on your personal experience ? I will get something straight for you. I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. The facts speak for themselves and when lacking, then people can make up their own minds. All I am responsible for is what I truly experience, for which none of you are experts on.
Thanks again, Bret. Some selected reactions:
>>Tsiolkovsky was filmed because they viewed it through the sexton, as you know a specific modification to the viewer of the 16mm camera.
Here's the whole of what was shot on that mission. Could you please tell us what time the Tsiolkovsky shot is at?
>>and apparently paid for what you do...
What the hell makes you think that? I'm not paid to write this blog.
>> If you disallowed the comment about Jim knowing both Russian and French as well as both wine makers that says it all to me.
Eh? Neither of us is a wine-maker. Again, what makes you think that?
>>My research is ongoing, and when I have made a mistake I correct it. Can you say the same ?
Yes. Read this.
>>The facts speak for themselves....
Well, look, Bret. Can you grasp this simple fact? There is no possibility that stars in the lunar sky can appear in the same photograph as lunar regolith. The exposure times for those two subjects are so different that such a shot can not exist. Your labeling of dust as stars in AS12-49-7224 is a flagrant error.
All right, here's the entire text of the two comments from Bret Sheppard that I disallowed:
I have some expertise in the fields of spaceflight, oenology, and certain outdoor games
He privately published several books on the Soviet (and later Russian) programs, and became one of the few Western specialists on Russian space history. He speaks English, French, and Russian. ~ wikipedia
Bret: please say in what way this connects Oberg and me as the same person.
I want to make it clear aside from slides, I scanned mission reports and other documents. The rest were scanned by the same scanner and not by me. EVERYTHING that was scanned has a physical archival representation to include photographs, documents, and original slides. I have studied the original photos and the scans are excellent representations of them even with their imperfections which I clearly discern from what is actually on the emulsion.
>>EVERYTHING that was scanned has a physical archival representation to include photographs, documents, and original slides.
Are you saying that the fiber in your version of AS12-49-7224 is on the print?
I am telling you that I know the difference between lint/dust particles and what is on the physical image emulsion, because I have had that source to compare with. I might remind you again that multiple people have seen the original physical image with their their own eyes, and I look forward to those being made available to the public as well.
The same can't be said for the so called official image seen here which is vastly different in detail aside from the fact that the sky is painted out with an increase in contrast. What Ken's image tells me about the so called official image of the same is that it was certainly manipulated. No doubt in my mind. Any expert in photography can zoom into the horizon and easily tell it's been manipulated by raising the brightness in image software, revealing the truth of the matte pixels compared with the rest of the image. Then do the same with Ken's image of the same to which you will see a consistency of pixels. Try it ! It proves that the official image was tampered with to show consistency with the official statement you refer to about stars confusing people.
Even on the horizon of this low quality image, you can still see the geometric structures on the horizon and image artifacts in the lunar sky, so what exactly is your point aside from wishing Ken's collection didn't exist as control for Lunar images. Nice talking with you James/Expat. Hope that helps with your discernment.
let me know how official this image really is. It looks like low res garbage.
Well, you aren't answering the question, and you aren't answering why you think Oberg and I are the same person either. Neither are you identifying the time on the Apollo 14 16mm film at which Tsiolkovsy appears. That's a lot of questions you're avoiding.
I wouldn't dispute that the sky in the "official" AS12-49-7224 may have been blacked. I know that was done to some of the images. But you know, Bret, considering that you vandalized your version by artificially colorizing part of the lunar terrain, you are in a poor position to accuse anyone of manipulation.
And... "geometric structures" my ass. They're rocks.
>>let me know how official this image really is. It looks like low res garbage.
Yes, it's pretty bad. This is the good one, from NASA rather than LPI. I think the LPI image library dates from the time before high-speed internet, when nobody wanted to d/l anything larger than 2MB.
When I highlight an area, it is manipulation, but I didn't call my artistic representation an official image, nor is it any different than showing how fake the background is by running up the brightness. It is an example. When I tint the image it preserves the integrity of the information. I do that so people can see what I am talking about. Are you saying that is what NASA does with all it's images ? Are they just trying to show us what they are talking about when they say there are no stars ?
>>When I tint the image it preserves the integrity of the information. I do that so people can see what I am talking about. Are you saying that is what NASA does with all it's [sic] images ? Are they just trying to show us what they are talking about when they say there are no stars ?
This is getting tedious. No, I am not saying NASA does that with all its images, or even any of its images. It's not a question of saying there are no stars -- I've already explained to you why there could not be stars. There are a few Apollo 14 images in which the planet Venus was bright enough to be captured. It's interesting and it makes the point.
I have addressed your questions, you just may not have liked the answers given, but they are within the realm of my knowledge about this subject. Just as your answers are within the realm of your knowing.
>>... geometric structures...
Here's what Ken Johnston himself had to say about that image, interviewed by Kerry Cassidy in January this year:
"A lot of these anomalies that people will see -- I don't necessarily see them, 'cause I'm pretty much a straightforward engineer .. We know that if we stare at the wall long enough we can make all kinds of pictures."
By the way, Bret, you have dodged another important question. Where in the LRO image I showed you is the "grayed out patch"????
Here's the image again in case you've forgotten.
WHERE IS IT, BRET????
You named your profile picture Shoyster.jpeg and your image or anything about you is hidden all across the internet. The only thing that pops up is Harry Shoyster ( directer of the Defense Intelligence Agency), and that's not you right ? Both you and Oberg are into orchards and wine making and both of you speak french. Seems to me to have enough similarities to suspect some kind of good cop bad cop scenario. What are you guys pulling here. You haven't fooled me. You won't even tell me your real name Expat.
I like to know who I am addressing.
I have no way of showing or uploading that image on this blog and I am not avoiding anything though it would be my right at this point.
>>Both you and Oberg are into orchards and wine making and both of you speak french.
Orchards??? Where do you get that from? As I wrote before, neither of us is a wine maker. I study wine -- I have no idea whether Oberg is even interested in the stuff.
>>I like to know who I am addressing.
Well, hard luck old son. I'm pseudonymous and it'll stay that way.
>>I have no way of showing or uploading that image on this blog
A link will do. Let's see it, Bret!
About you staying anonymous I get it and don't blame you.
Thanks for the link. It's a shame you cropped it so the coords can't be read. But I can see that the view is at 32m/px. There are three more zoom steps you can use. I think you'll find the bad mosaicing will go away. Try it. And if you can, give us the coords please.
nope the image just gets worse as I zoom in and zooming out gives no detail
What am I saying? There are SIX more zoom steps...
What you have there is a mixture of Wide Angle Camera and Narrow Angle Camera. Unfortunate -- but it's nevertheless plain that there's no dish antenna array there. So fine.
Let me help you understand I am not comparing Ken's image with your suggestion, why would I do that when I know nothing will be there. If it were really there it would have been removed long ago. I know for a fact that is the truth. It is sad that the government/NASA has done such a disservice to humanity. Expat/Oberg whatever have done nothing for this research but criticize those who want to know the truth after being lied to far too often. The only thing I have seen you do is cyber-stalk Ken as well as others and that is illegal. James posted on my art page and deliberately tracked me down. I would suggest stopping these actions as they are recorded, unless you work for the government and are paid for what you do then that makes it ok ? you both need to grow up and join the human race and leave folks alone.
Regarding the Apollo-12 image that Bret interprets as ruins ["The"effigy" also appears in the "official" version of AS12-49-7224. It's just a large rock. The scan provided by anomalist Sheppard is notably dirty, including another hair or fiber."] -- would an LRO image of the landing site from where the photo was taken have enough resolution to show the rock field from overhead?
Here it is, Expat: http://bit.ly/293UxWP
>> If it were really there it would have been removed long ago. I know for a fact that is the truth.
Who would have removed it? The grad students at Arizona State Uni who do all the data processing?
>>you both need to grow up and join the human race and leave folks alone.
I thought you believed that we both live in a world of orchards and vineyards. That's very human isn't it? Where the F did you get that "orchards" from? LOL.
>>would an LRO image of the landing site from where the photo was taken have enough resolution to show the rock field from overhead?
Not really. Here it is, with absolutely no sign of a statue-building civilization.
"absolutely no sign of a statue-building civilization"
Could somebody annotate a copy of that with where the photo was taken from, and the field-of-view boundaries? Or has that already been done at ALSJ?
BS: "I am not comparing Ken's image with your suggestion, why would I do that when I know nothing will be there. If it were really there it would have been removed long ago. I know for a fact that is the truth." Thanks for helping us understand, your theories are unfalsifiable, you believe there is no contrary evidence that has not been faked by deceivers. That includes lunar images made over decades by Europe, Japan, China, India, new NASA probes controlled by universities, the unanimous testimony of on-site witnesses, and me. Do I get it now?
Seriously, thanks for joining in this forum, sorry you thought me joining your forum was inappropriate. My desire is to test ideas and theories and presented evidence, not criticize people, a principle I fall short of in practice. I did get a chuckle out of the suggestion that expat and me were the same person, that was a genuine eyebrow-raiser, even a major facepalm. No, it's not true.
You still fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the issue of Tsiolkovskiy imaging from Apollo-14. Ed Mitchell was on board both during the early orbits with the long slant view, and the departure climb where the 70-mm were taken -- I have not seen a plausible explanation of how he would not have seen [and later told about] the alien base in Tsiolkovskiy, if it were there.
Another word to Bret -- any scientific frontier needs divergent thinkers who interpret initial findings out of step with 'mainstream' researchers. They seek out non-fitting observations. They formulate theories in competition to the majority. They often spark illuminating controversies, or force investigations onto more productive routes. They can sharpen and broaden the arguments of the 'establishment'. They almost always turn out to be wrong. Once in a great, great while, they turn out to have a bigger share of 'ultimate truth' than the original majority did. They need to be sincere self-confident and enthusiastic and methodical, even though the track record of such divergent assessments of new frontiers is very dismaying. They are an essential set of players in every scientific revolution. Swing away, Bret. You certainly have impelled me to look more closely on many aspects of this debate.
question -- Regarding the Apollo-12 image that Bret interprets as ruins ["The"effigy" also appears in the "official" version of AS12-49-7224. It's just a large rock. The scan provided by anomalist Sheppard is notably dirty, including another hair or fiber."] -- would an LRO image of the landing site from where the photo was taken have enough resolution to show the rock field from overhead?
It's even better than that! Conrad took two pans of the opposite rim of Bench crater, from several steps apart to provide stereo imaging -- and the stereo scans include the "Sheppard's Ruin" structures. When you do stereo on that region you immediately see how imaginary was the reconstruction of the 'artificial' structures.
blow up the horizon section I call "Sheppard's Ruin",
you can even generate a stereopticon pair to see it in 3-D.
The overhead LRO image shows the debris field on the far rim -- the south rim -- of the crater that from the ground could look like what Sheppard and Johnston think is an alien base remnants.
There is a reason why I say that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images are bogus.
1. Any where I look on the map I see the same craters and textures, randomized with fractal technology.
2. The craters, textures such as lit rocks with shadows are the same rocks with different shadow sises and rock sizes, but yet the same rocks.
3. The darker texture patterns are also the same throughout, gully type scores, and the general gray moon texture is almost flat.
4. The whole thing looks like it were made of clay or plaster. It generally looks produced with forethought.
5. They used the old Lunar Orbiter maps from 1966-68 for topography accuracy.
6. I have caught them doing this to many old lunar orbiter images by comparing them. The only difference is better graphics, lighting differences, and better computerized randomization.
Thank you Jim for the comparison, the other image is blurry, but still, you can see "T" like squares in those ruins.
Most people are not looking for small anomalies, and the images are good enough for most. Here is a Hubble before its painted with colors. The initial space image data we actually get from orbiters is not so great. A great deal of artistic interpretation is involved with the process and that is what we are seeing in the end result. YAY for hiring artists, but the public should know the truth about the process.I think mapping location search is still useful with that map. I am not trying to discredit folks at ASU, they do a fantastic job showing us the moon.
Bret: Thanks again for your comments. I reject your thesis unreservedly. If you can not see variation in the lunar surface as revealed by LRO then you need an optician, frankly. Your idea that these images are just tarted-up versions of the Lunar Orbiter shots can be falsified very easily. The resolution of the Lunar Orbiter imagery was ~60 m/px. It is not possible to derive from that images whose resolution is 120 times better. Moreover, LRO shows impact sites of Apollo hardware and these, of course, would not be on the 1960's photo-set. I don't understand the link you included with your point 6). You seem to be saying that comparison of the 1960s images with the LRO equivalents shows them to be the same terrain, therefore the LRO images are faked. Hmmmm...
You write "I am not trying to discredit folks at ASU" but of course you are. Worse than that, you are saying that the whole of their work with LRO is a sham. To accuse the School of Earth and Space Exploration of flagrant deceit is a serious charge, and I think you would need far, far better evidence for that charge to be even contemplated seriously. Again, I reject it unreservedly.
Likewise, yesterday you wrote of the so-called parabolic dish array "If it were really there it would have been removed long ago. I know for a fact that is the truth." How do you know that for a fact? How could you possibly know that for a fact? The only way would be if you had seen a "before and after" image pair with the dishes missing in the "after." That is so improbable that I for one discount it out of hand.
Bret, your dish antennae, your statue, your ruins and pipes, and your stars in the sky are all in your imagination. I'm sure you have followers who love your work and think you're wonderful. But here in this blog you're dealing with people who actually know about lunar imagery, and people who do not believe NASA haters like Richard Hoagland.
I don't believe Richard Hoagland on most things, and his thinking in absolutes turns me off. I am learning more and more about the imaging process used to render images from data sets, and am using NASA software as well as the montage software used to construct pieces of rendered data. I don't mind the adversarial comments and all you guys do because thats how any good religion starts out. In this case the devil is in the data. The new software used to look at LRO data PDS is called cspice and lro_lend_pds. I find it difficult for most to use, but I'm from the old dos days, it wasn't to difficult for me. I'm sorry if you don't understand commuted arrays and equations but that is how we get our imagery. All digitized imagery is CGI, and you bet I have control images to compare them with.Not that most know how to do it, but JPL,ASU and LOIRP is very open with their raw image data, and the guys that have done all this have done an excellent job interpreting it with old DOS software and open source UNIX software. The only problem I have is that the products put out in the end look nothing like the original data and is presented as a matter of fact even with the high amount of CGI. I love looking at them at any rate, and will do my best to show original data when possible. This pertains to 70 mm Hassleblad images of the landings. They are what they are and some were taken with a Nikon camera something I remember from the 80's. It was my favorite camera. The 70 mm products have been manipulated in a way to make them look consistent, I don't believe there is completely nefarious manipulation going on but would NASA really know what Lunar ruins look like if there not even looking for them ? and when asked about the subject they even take offense ? Science needs new scientists who still are interested in discovery. These are qualities the rest of us have when we are curious. I have been shown blurry images of the same area to somehow prove that what I saw in the clear image isn't there. I really don't understand that childish level of deception, other than the fact that our image makers do not want us to know what is really out in the universe. Many NASA employees have come forward with their legitimate data that proves that there is water on Mars as well as the moon, and that there are structures on the Lunar surface. Ed Mitchell from Apollo 14 stated off the record that there are lunar ruins as far as the eye can see, and from what I have seen, I believe that.
NASA doesn't hide the fact that the majority of their space imagery is considered artistic representation, the Hubble colorizations for example.
>> Many NASA employees have come forward with their legitimate data that proves that there is water on Mars...
Actually the recent announcement about transient brine flows on recurring slope lineae (RSLs) was from Ojha et al. of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, not NASA. Here's a reference. This blog wrote about it last September.
>> as well as the moon...
That was from Hauri et al. of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, not NASA. Here's a reference. This blog wrote about it in May 2011. It's important to understand that the quantities of lunar water are truly minuscule. So difficult to detect that it took an ultra-modern instrument to find them, locked inside the glass spherules that were responsible for Apollo 17's orange soil
>>and that there are structures on the Lunar surface.
Nonsense. If you mean artificial structures, no such data have ever been released by any branch of NASA.
>> Ed Mitchell from Apollo 14 stated off the record that there are lunar ruins as far as the eye can see
He did not. Poppycock, Bret.
Does NASA paint out the sky ?
"LOIRP; Update: Compare our image (left) with the best quality USGS image (right) - Click on image to enlarge. Here's the full resolution TIFF image (caution: over 600MB). By the way the odd craters."
What are these domes and structures that were built? Apollo radio public broadcasts from the Moon also used terms and phrases “FLASHES OF LIGHT”, “BUILDINGS”, “ROADS”, “TRACKS”, and “HUGE BLOCKS.” When news reporters asked space program officials what these terms were all about, they were absurdly told that these are metaphors for geological formations. However, the scientist “who taught geology to the astronauts”, admitted he was totally baffled by those terms! This geology expert, Farouk El Bez admitted the clincher when he said, “Not every discovery has been announced.” When news reporters asked him about the flashes of light, Mr. Bez replied, “there is no question about it. Not natural.”
>>Does NASA paint out the sky ?
Yes, as already conceded. It is virtually impossible to prevent some sparkle from appearing in totally black areas during film processing, especially with reversal film. The purpose of blacking is to remove that sparkle, which might be misinterpreted as stars. You yourself, Bret, are a prime example of people who are ignorant enough to think stars could appear in the same film frame as sunlit lunar regolith.
A good debunker looks at all the facts. Who , What, When , Where , Why, How. Not just what makes them comfortable and believe me, I must do the same. I don't mind being wrong if the data proves something, but I have a right to ask good questions. Thank you for the science links on water. I was aware of them but always a good read. I don't think there are lakes on the moon, but Mars is a different story.
>>This geology expert, Farouk El Bez admitted ...
That would be Farouk El-Baz, not El Bez. A highly renowned selenologist, now Research Professor and Director of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University. Nobody who studies selenology would ever make a mistake over Dr El-Baz's name.
I hope you don't wonder why I would have reasonable doubt. If those aren't stars then what in the world are some of those things. When the data came back the software did not know how to interpret black areas or dark areas. If it tried to interpret the Lunar sky and we got that weird grayed out effect, but if there is any object it will try and interpret what is there no matter how small. To ignore that data is truly ignorant.
Misspelling a scientists name isn't really the issue is it James/Expat. Stay off my girlfriends page James Oberg. Truly a stalker.
>>When the data came back the software did not know how to interpret black areas or dark areas.
OMG Bret you truly, truly have a problem understanding lunar imagery. It's worse than I thought. The Hasselblad images were conventional, physical, film magazines. There was no "data came back" and no "software." It was a darkroom process. Jesus.
I never said there was software involved with the development of 70mm film. How would you know if there were stars or not , when they painted the sky black ?
>>Misspelling a scientists name isn't really the issue...
Agreed, it isn't. It's just that in this particular case it marks you as a dilettante in this discipline. that's all. Add to the fact that we now know you think the Hasselblad images were transmitted from the Moon and processed by software, and there's really no hope for you. I suggest you stick to your well-worn paths on the Internet where people love you and accept whatever you write. We here may not be professional working scientists (well, only a few of us are) but we take the science approach as rigorously as we know how.
What I said was quote " This pertains to 70 mm Hassleblad images of the landings. They are what they are and some were taken with a Nikon camera something I remember from the 80's. It was my favorite camera. The 70 mm products have been manipulated in a way to make them look consistent, I don't believe there is completely nefarious manipulation going on but would NASA really know what Lunar ruins look like if there not even looking for them ? and when asked about the subject they even take offense ? " What software was I talking about regarding those images specifically. I didn't ever say 70 mm Lander images were transmitted from the moon and I can say that three times if you like.
I didn't ever say 70 mm Lander images were transmitted from the moon
I didn't ever say 70 mm Lander images were transmitted from the moon
I didn't ever say 70 mm Lander images were transmitted from the moon
>>I never said there was software involved with the development of 70mm film.
Yes you did.
>> How would you know if there were stars or not , when they painted the sky black ?
How many times do I need to write this? THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARS. Only in a few Apollo 14 images was the planet Venus bright enough to be rendered.
The only discipline you follow here is bullying. You have said nothing to add to a discussion about Lunar images. Nothing that isn't officially known.
I'm convinced that James oberg/Ex Pat know what the hell your talking about and are only interested in attacking Ken , me and my girlfriend. It is obvious what you are, just bullies and that pretty much loses my respect.
OK, fine. With that, this discussion is closed. Thanks for participating.
Linda Moulton Howe has found another Apollo 14 70mm frame of Tsiolkovsky. It's AS14-75-10301.
Check out her interview with Ken Johnston in Roswell.
Look on the bright side, she gives the first ACCURATE bio summary of Johnston I've ever seen on UFOria website: "Ken Johnston, D. Th., former Marine and NASA aerospace human test engineer, NASA Manned Space Center, 1966 - 1972, Clear Lake, TX"
NOT a PhD
NOT a pilot
NOT a test pilot
She wavers when she calls him an 'aerospace engineer', he only had his HS diploma.
Then she plunges back into the pit of eternal darkness by quoting the bogus Buzz Aldrin confession about alien's superior technology. So whatever credit she earned at the opening, she blows halfway through by reverting to form.
But hey! Give Sheppard some credit for finding those additional Tsiolkovskiy views on the hitherto-unused tail end of that film magazine. They only go to confirm there's nothing alien-looking in the crater, but he did contribute useful data to the debate, kudos. Useful to our side, bad luck for him.
"Ken's Moon" is open for reader reviews and comments on Amazon, come on over.
Post a Comment