Article By Bret C. Sheppard Thurs. Feb. 8 2018
One of the most important things about Ken’s story that caught my attention before I even met him was his account of seeing a base on the moon while working for NASA shortly after Apollo 14 returned from the moon. Stuart Roosa was the Command Module pilot, and Edgar Mitchell was Lunar module Pilot with Alan Sheperd at his side.
I decided to investigate the possibility of this Lunar Base seen by Ken, so I began some preliminary research for my Lunar Anomaly Research Society group on Facebook. I was immediately attacked by hackers soon after the belligerent posts came from James Oberg (self-proclaimed Expert on the Russian Space Agency) Aliases of James Oberg, and Don Davis (NASA artist). Honestly, I didn’t know who they were at the time. Eventually, they took my site down by posting horrible images and videos which I won’t describe. I received a private message soon after my group was closed saying that they work for the government and cordially asked me if there was anything else they can do. I knew at that time that Ken was telling the truth because so much time and energy was spent assassinating his character and anyone affiliated with him. I found out that Ken has been attacked by these people since around 1996 shortly after Ken went public at the National Press Club in Washington DC and was one of the leading subjects in Richard C. Hoagland’s book “Dark Mission.”
One striking thing James Oberg claimed is that Apollo 14 never had any film of Tsiolkovsky Crater and never flew near it. I began looking for evidence of his claim not expecting to find much. I saw a Command Module video from the 16 mm Mauer Camera that Oberg showed Ken at a conference in Houston which of course didn’t show much. The double exposure was unusual for other reasons. Then I thought it was odd that there was no additional 16 mm film of anything else but the landing of the Lunar Module. I looked up how many 16mm cameras were on Apollo 14 and found out there was one in the Command Module as well as a 70 mm Camera that took a lovely shot of Tsiolkovsky on the terminator with the exact sun angles Ken described how dark the edge of the crater is at that time. I already knew I was on to something because Mr. Oberg claimed Tsiolkovsky crater wasn’t filmed at all. I found that image on a thumbnail that NASA hadn’t even released to the public. It was buried on a University website, Arizona State as I recall. Oberg then had to concede that Tsiolkovsky was in fact filmed on Apollo 14.
I thought that was it I didn’t know anything else would show up. Then I read an article that stated Edgar Mitchell Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot had kept a 16mm Maurer Camera as a souvenir all these years, and that it was supposed to have crashed onto the surface of the moon with the Lunar Module. He tried to sell the camera at an auction house, and NASA stepped in to sue him over it. They settled out of court with the promise that Ed Mitchell would donate it to the Smithsonian Museum. Ed Mitchell said, “ I didn’t think NASA cared about those things anymore.” I asked myself why he would keep that camera from the Lunar Module? I thought about it very carefully and knew he was perhaps trying to tell the world something in his later years in life. I knew it had to be related to the missing Tsiolkovsky film. They apparently didn’t film it from the Command Module as Oberg was happy to debunk that. Edgar Mitchell must have filmed it from the Lunar Module, after all, there were two 16 mm cameras on board one handheld, and one mounted to the S-Band antenna. Meagerly capable of sending audio and TV signals back to Earth according to TRW via William Tompkins who worked mostly on pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter and Apollo 11, and Robert Wood who also worked with those S-Band systems for NASA. It came out Later in William Tompkins book “Chosen by Extraterrestrials,” about his affiliation with NASA and ET’s he had experienced first hand as well as Lunar Buildings on the surface of the moon with ships parked on the crater as described in the NASA rumors during Apollo 11. I very much enjoyed his descriptions of the Nordic Secretary.
I thought about this long and hard and thought maybe just maybe this is recorded in the onboard transcripts aboard the Apollo 14 Lunar Module. I searched all day as it was a lot to go through. I finally came across what I was looking for in just a short page where Lunar Module Pilot sees Tsiolkovsky Crater as well as Stuart Roosa from the Command Module as The Lunar Module was coming around the moon on the 3rd day. Edgar Mitchell is setting up an acquisition to capture something with the S-Band Antenna as seen in the next figure.
On the last line, Tsiolkovsky is recorded by Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell and Command Module Pilot Stuart Roosa on the 3rd day at 2:30 and 23 seconds. Alan Sheppard said “It looks good through the sextant” calculating distance.
The first line is Edgar Mitchell is setting up the S-Band signal settings attached to the 16 mm mounted camera.It illustrates that there is evidence that corroborates Ken Johnston Sr and his story of a base on the moon in Tsiolkovsky crater. I wondered what Edgar Mitchell saw through that handheld 16mm Data Acquisition Camera ( DAC) that led him to keep it all those years as a souvenir? Was it to tell us in his subtle way that there is life on the moon? After finding this information, I decided to present it in Scottsdale Arizona at a conference with Ken and met Vance Davis, an old friend of Ken’s. He told me that the NSA is actively working on Satellite relay dishes on the moon and that everything I have said so far is the truth. I have also read a lot about Project Horizon the old army plans to build a Lunar facility and strategic military base back in the 1950’s. Vance Davis said they are not all ours.
Just before I met Ken I was chatting with Donna Hare, and she asked me if I wanted to see a reasonably unaltered Lunar image, and of course, I said yes. It was an Apollo 12 image with Alan Bean and Surveyor 3 with the Lunar Module in the background. I showed the picture to Ken in a chat, and he asked me if I wanted to see the next one in the series. I wasn’t ever going to say no to that being the captain of all Lunar nuts. Ken ended up uploading his entire collection, and I was entirely in heaven. I found many anomalies and the first thing he showed me as well as Donna is that the Lunar skies were not painted out. I had gotten to know Donna and knew that she had only the one image like that from the Dempsey Dumpster and maybe a few from her portfolio. It was very brave of both to come forward and get us thinking about these NASA image manipulations. I had studied them very vigorously over the years and have found issues with the digital process NASA uses to convert them as well as other apparent inconsistencies. When Donna mentioned the Acetate that she saw the image strippers use to paint out objects that would confuse the public and then re-film them just like the process Chesley Bonestell created for Disney Animation, I knew this was all true.
I did end up filling an FOIA request to acquisition some of the films and received a reply reasonably quick from JPL. They said that everything from the Apollo era is in the National Archives in Washington DC. Ironically the new home of Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s Mauer DAC16mm onboard Hand Held Camera that he was compelled to keep even though it was a felony to do so. I am grateful to Edgar Mitchell’s subtlety and Ken and Donna for their bold bravery. I have found so much more since then.
For who the crater is named, was the true father of rocketry, and was an inspiration to a young Werner Von Braun. The propaganda for the U.S. space program has it's philosophical roots here and was made clear by a Russian film in 1936 called "Cosmic Voyage" based on Kosmicheskiy reys: Fantasticheskaya novella was initially conceived in 1924 by Russian filmmaker Vasili Zhuravlov, but it was not pursued for production until 1932, for who Tsiolkovsky was a writer and adviser. Tsiolkovsky was the first to conceive the idea of a base on the moon in a book he wrote in 1928 called "The Will of the Universe". It is of no coincidence that the very crater named after Tsiolkovsky just happens to be the same crater Ken Johnston Sr. saw the Lunar base in from the 16mm film he showed to Dr. Thornton Page back at NASA formerly NACA in 1971.
Note: The S-Band signal was developed and operated by the NASA contractor TRW. If there were a definitive second private signal it would come from S-Band signals. The Unified S-band (USB) system was a tracking and communication system developed for the Apollo program by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It operated in the S band portion of the microwave spectrum, unifying voice communications, television, telemetry, command, tracking and ranging into a single system to save size and weight and simplify operations. The USB ground network was managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Commercial contractors included Collins Radio, Blaw-Knox, Motorola and Energy Systems.
NASA claims that the S-Band signal was not used for 16mm video yet it is attached to a 16mm Mauer video camera. It was officially used to send the first Moon landing video.
I also requested the film from the National Archives and still waiting.
The Bias of James Oberg
CSICOP, and The Brookings Report
James Oberg a self proclaimed Journalist and psuedo-skeptic, joined NASA in 1975, where he worked until 1997 at Johnson Space Center on the Space Shuttle program. He was not there during the Apollo era and met Ken during the Shuttle program. Yet claims to be an expert on Ken's experiences with Grumman and NASA.
As a journalist, Oberg writes for several regular publications, mostly online; he was previously a space correspondent for UPI, ABC and currently MSNBC, often in an on-air role. He is a Fellow of the skeptical organization CSICOP and a consultant to its magazine Skeptical Inquirer. Oberg was commissioned by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories. However, NASA dropped the project after ABC's World News Tonight program ran a story about it, claiming it was beneath NASA's dignity to respond to Moon landing denialists claims. Oberg has said that he still intends to pursue the project, "depending on successfully arranging new funding sources."
Oberg writes that the Moon landing conspiracy theories are fueled by resentment of American culture by some countries. He gives the example of Cuba, where many school teachers claim the landing was a fraud. But besides this, the new wave of conspiracy theorists appear to use alternative publication methods to publicize their claims.
Oberg says that belief in the conspiracy is not the fault of the hoaxists, but rather of educators and people (including NASA) who should provide information to the public.NASA does not, in Oberg's opinion, provide an adequate reaction to the theorists' claims.
One of James Oberg’s mentors was Dr. Thornton Page the very person that saw the Lunar base with Ken and denied seeing it of course, by saying “It was never there” If it was never there then what was the “it” that was never there? Dr. Thornton Page worked with Carl Sagen and was a scientist for NASA as well as a UFO debunker for the CIA and NASA.
In an Open Minds TV interview with Dr. Thornton Page. Dr. Page said these things regarding debunking UFO and NASA conspiracies:
TP: Yeah, well, as I said, I started off with this hostility to UFOs, and got somewhat converted, I still think that, well, some of the investigations was as good as could be done, other parts were poor, and the very large number of reports is what made it so difficult for Hynek and the other people who were trying to run the show, but I must admit that the Robertson Panel was handled very well, the CIA, well they paid us among other things (laughs) and they had the presentations well organized, it was done well.
AH: Was there any kind of indication to come up with a predetermined conclusion, or you were entirely free?
TP: No, no, in fact I made one of the recommendations of the Panel conclusions, was that a serious hazard, our main purpose was to determine whether there was a hazard to the United States from these UFOs, and I thought that probably the most serious hazard was in our communication system because the number of phone calls and letters and telegrams that were sent about UFOs in that scare of 1952 could have actually made difficulties for Civil Defense and the military because of the confusion in communications, but the Robertson Panel concluded that there was no hazard per se. Well, as I remember it now and I haven’t looked at the report for a long time, I think we favored the natural causes as an explanation.
AH: Well, I think there was a clause that they [UFOs] were not a hazard per se, but they were a hazard of what you were saying, in terms of clogging the defense communication system.
TP: That’s correct.
AH: Therefore they had to be debunked or something?
TP: Yeah, that was my doing, my contribution.
I believe Psuedo-skeptics and paid debunkers from CSICOP felt it was important to sway public opinion about the topics of UFO’s and Lunar Bases, even the conspiracy that we didn’t go to the moon at all, which personally I do not believe. I believe we went to the moon with both the covert and overt space programs, and NASA or any other 3 letter agency did not want the public to know what is out there.
The Brookings report and Robertson panel express the views of the Military Industrial Complex. There is a lot at stake for the Robber Barons and Religious institutions which hang their hats on belief systems which no longer serve the public, only special interest groups. It is time for disclosure, and all I mean by disclosure is only the things that were hidden from us by our governments, who have been making everything look like an accident since Roswell.
These paid “psuedo-skeptics” a term created by a former founding member of CSICOP Marcello Truzzi.
Marcello Truzzi (September 6, 1935 – February 2, 2003) was a professor of sociology at New College of Florida and later at Eastern Michigan University, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.
Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him "the skeptic's skeptic". He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", though earlier versions existed.
Truzzi founded the skeptical journal Explorations and was a founding member of the skeptic organization CSICOP as its co-chairman with Paul Kurtz. Truzzi's journal became the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and was renamed The Zetetic ("zetetic" is another name for "skeptic" and is not to be confused with zetetics, the study of the relationship of art and science). The journal remained under his editorship. He left CSICOP about a year after its founding, after receiving a vote of no confidence from the group's Executive Council. Truzzi wanted to include pro-paranormal people in the organization and pro-paranormal research in the journal, but CSICOP felt that there were already enough organizations and journals dedicated to the paranormal. Kendrick Frazier became the editor of CSICOP's journal and the name was changed to Skeptical Inquirer.
The Zetetic Scholar journal founded by Marcello Truzzi
After leaving CSICOP, Truzzi started another journal, the Zetetic Scholar He promoted the term "zeteticism" as an alternative to "skepticism", because he thought that the latter term was being usurped by what he termed "pseudoskeptics". A zetetic is a "skeptical seeker". The term's origins lie in the word for the followers of the skeptic Pyrrho in ancient Greece. Skeptic's Dictionary memorialized Truzzi thus:
Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it. A kind way to state these differences might be to say that Marcello belonged to the Pyrrhonian tradition, most of the rest of us belong to the Academic skeptical tradition.
Truzzi was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism. Truzzi stated:
They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly.
Truzzi held that CSICOP researchers sometimes also put unreasonable limits on the standards for proof regarding the study of anomalies and the paranormal. Martin Gardner writes: "In recent years he (Truzzi) has become a personal friend of Uri Geller; not that he believes Uri has psychic powers, as I understand it, but he admires Uri for having made a fortune by pretending he is not a magician."
Truzzi co-authored a book on psychic detectives entitled The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime. It investigated many psychic detectives and concluded: "[W]e unearthed new evidence supporting both sides in the controversy. We hope to have shown that much of the debate has been extremely simplistic."The book also stated that the evidence didn't meet the burden of proof demanded for such an extraordinary claim.
Although he was very familiar with folie à deux, Truzzi was very confident a shared visual hallucination could not be skeptically examined by one of the participators. Thus he categorized it as an anomaly. In a 1982 interview Truzzi stated that controlled ESP (ganzfeld) experiments have "gotten the right results" maybe 60 percent of the time.This question remains controversial. Truzzi remained an advisor to IRVA, the International Remote Viewing Association, from its founding meeting until his death.
Truzzi was Keynote Speaker at the 1st annual National Roller Coaster Conference, "CoasterMania", held at Cedar Point Amusement Park, Sandusky, Ohio - 1978. On the subject of riding in the front vs riding in the back of a roller coaster, he said:
The front of the roller coaster is really less stressful than the back part of the roller coaster. The first time you're worried about a roller coaster, you might be better off riding in the front, because you're not at the tail end of the whip. The average fellow getting on a roller coaster (thinks), "Oh boy, the most dangerous place must be the front, because you're right there, nobody in front of you to tell you how to act, and so on; it must be the worst place, so I'm going to get in the 'safe' part in the back." Because that's what we do: we get in the back of busses, we get in the back of planes, and so on. We figure that’s the safe part. Well, there's a certain irony here, because the guy who says, "I'm gonna prove how macho I am, I'm gonna to really conquer my fear, I'm gonna get in the toughest place", and he gets in front. When he finishes the ride, he must feel like, "Gee, it wasn't so bad, after all." Whereas that poor milquetoast fellow who gets in the back, he's probably never going to ride again. So one of the things you might predict is that people who ride in the front of roller coasters are more likely to ride again. People who ride in the back for the first time are less likely to bother to go on it again.
Truzzi died from cancer on February 2, 2003.
Main article: Pseudoskepticism
Marcello Truzzi popularized the term pseudoskepticism in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi discussed pseudoskepticism in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he had founded:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
The term has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994 Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion...I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, "On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification", Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978
Carl Sagan popularized this as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which later came to be known as the Sagan standard.
-Standard article from Wikipedia contributions
The Brookings Report 1960 Washington DC
The implications of a discovery of extraterrestrial life
Recent publicity given to efforts to detect extraterrestrial messages via radio telescope has popularized -- and legitimized -- speculations about the impact of such a discovery on human, values.
It is conceivable that there is semi-intelligent life in some part of our solar system or highly intelligent life which is not technologically oriented, and many cosmologists and astronomers think It very likely that there is intelligent life in many other solar systems. While face-to-face meetings with it will. not occur within the next twenty years (unless its technology is more advanced than ours, qualifying it to visit earth), artifacts left at some point in time by these 'life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus. If there is any contact to be made during the next twenty years it would most likely be by radio -- which would indicate that these beings had at least equal our own technological level.
An individual's reactions to such a radio contact would in part depend on his cultural, religious, and social background, as well as on the actions of those he considered authorities and leaders and their behavior, in turn, would in part depend on their cultural, social, and religious environment. The discovery would certainly be front-page news everywhere; the degree of political or social repercussion would probably depend on leadership's interpretation of
(1) its own role,
(2) threats to that role, and
(3) national and personal opportunities to take advantage of the disruption or reinforcement of the attitudes and values of others.
Since leadership itself might have great need to gauge the direction and intensity of public attitudes, to strengthen its own morale and for decision-making purposes, it would be most
advantageous to have more to go on than personal opinions about the opinions of the public and other leadership groups. The knowledge that life existed in other parts of the universe might lead to a greater unity of men on earth, based on the oneness of man or on the age-old assumption that any stranger is threatening Much would depend on what, if anything, was communicated between man and the other beings: since after the discovery there will be years of silence (because even the closest stars are several light years away, an exchange of radio communication would take twice-the number of light years separating our sun from theirs),the fact that such beings existed might become simply one of the facts of life but probably not one calling for action. 35/ Whether earthmen would be inspired to all-out space efforts by such a discovery is a moot question. Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they have had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior. Since intelligent life might be discovered at any time via the radio telescope research presently underway, and since the consequences of such a discovery are presently unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic circumstances, two research areas can be recommended:
• Continuing studies to determine emotional and intellectual
understanding and attitudes -- and successive alterations of them if any -- regarding the possibility and consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life.
• Historical and empirical studies of the behavior of peoples and their leaders when confronted with dramatic and unfamiliar events or social pressures. 37/ Such studies might help to provide programs for meeting and adjusting to the implications of such a discovery, Questions one might wish to answer by such studies would include:
How might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding a release of the fact of discovery?
Implications of man in space
The evolving man-in-space program may already be having its impact on values and attitudes. Given the people involved and the necessary risks in the program, it is likely that there will continue to be value conflicts in various parts of the general public as well as in the groups which must make decisions about the direction and extent of future activities in this area. The Mercury man.-in-space program has already received much comment in the media, which illustrates the kind of conflicts that can be expected. There have been favorable reports, as typified by the articles on the astronauts, their families, and their training. 38/ There have been unfavorable statements about the “stunt” characteristics of the program and about its apparent tendency to emphasize the glamorous astronauts rather than the scientific- and engineering aspects and problems of the project. 39/ Many commentators have remarked that wives and children are assets to astronauts, who can thus still be considered “normal” Americans; at the same time, their military status permits them to take risks which large portions of the general public might not otherwise consider appropriate for family men. A leading anthropologist who has studied this problem says the astronauts are not models for -other women's husbands -- not one little bit .... Part of the feeling about space, which spreads right through the country, is women's objection to men's going there.” 40/ The actual astronaut launching may highlight the question of a man's responsibility to family versus his willingness to risk death in space. This and similar questions will. be resolved, probably not without emotional conflict, according to the particular person and institutions values held by those involved in various aspects of the controversies.
Here again is an opportunity to conduct before-and-after research on the implications of innovations for attitudes and values. Studies preceding the launching can also provide a basis for better informing the public so that it can realistically appreciate both the accomplishments and difficulties of the program. It is recommended, then, that baseline studies be begun as soon as possible to Determine the present knowledge of, beliefs and expectations about, and the values that underlie attitudes toward the Mercury program and the astronaut. These should be continuing studies so that the impact of events can be anticipated, evaluated, and planned for.
If the Mercury program is successful it will be only a prelude to attempts to put a man on the moon and some of the planets. Thus the implications of astronautic efforts, subsequent to Mercury, for attitudes and values should also be studied. Social observers have speculated that manned flight to the moon or Mars might re-stimulate the American frontier spirit, thereby supplying a new form of vicarious living for a large part of the public and perhaps inspiring some to participate in more challenging activities here on earth.
Although the physical requirements for an astronaut probably will be compatible with the preferred American image of masculinity, the psychological characteristics appropriate for long flights through space, alone or in compact quarters with others, may be quite incompatible. Indeed, the very rigors which the astronaut may have to withstand and the special techniques that may be used to make it possible for him to withstand them (such as hibernation or some form of drug treatment) may produce a great gap in the earthbound man's identification with the astronaut. To the average man who is increasingly embedded in the security and organization of urban life, the physical threat and the physical and psychic isolation implied in manned space activities may seem unpalatable and at a great emotional distance from the daily problems he finds challenging and interesting. Thus, the personalities of astronauts, the esoteric technical problems they solve, and the challenges they accept might become matters of indifference to the public, or, in one way or another, represent aspirations and ways of life that are undesirable. 42/ This may be especially so for other nations whose values about “pioneering,” “frontiers” and “conquest” may be different from ours. Since truly large man-in-space efforts will probably require international support, the states of mind in other nations will become important to the planning of programs for which we will need their contributions.
The possibility must be considered that except for short trips -- and even these perhaps biologically or genetically suicidal -- man will not, after all, be able to go very far into space in the foreseeable- future. The weight of shielding necessary to protect him from heavy cosmic ray particles and the intense blasts of energy from solar flares (which are presently unpredictable) may make more than an occasional foray so expensive and unrewarding as to cancel out the advantages of studying space through man's first-hand experiences with it.
This situation could lead to extraordinary efforts to find a way to put a man in space -- efforts not necessarily of optimum social use. It could also bring about an intensive development of robot equipment that could do man’s exploring for him. Application of the robot technology to other endeavors might be extensive and carry with it all the moral, social, ethical, and economic problems and opportunities which have been explored by the more thoughtful science fiction writers.
If it should become necessary to accept the impossibility of the first-hand experience in space, there may be important consequences for American values and aspirations. As a nation, we have come to believe ourselves conquerors of nature and equal to any task if we apply “science.” In recent years this confidence has appeared to be spectacularly justified. The discovery that man cannot for the foreseeable future go into space by any of the glamorous means so regularly predicted might so disrupt our self-confidence as to set off a chain of revisions in values which could either hinder or improve our capacity to deal maturely with our other problems. Whether or not man will be able to study space at first hand in the next two decades depends on information not now available. Since the outcome might go either way, the effects of later man-in-space efforts on values and attitudes in general, as well as with regard to such space activities in particular, require research to:
• Develop baseline data on present attitudes toward and expectations about post-Mercury man,-in-space efforts. These data should include indications of attitudes toward supporting or not supporting such activities and the reasons pertaining thereto.
• Assess changes in attitudes and expectations in the light of subsequent events and statements intended to inform, to encourage, or to discourage support of the program.
• Discover what symbols and ideas regarding man in space would be stimulating in cultures whose support is desired, but whose aspirations and ideals may not be similar to ours.
This report in conclusion demonstrates the direct attitudes on informing the public about new discoveries that could impact or society and economy. The general attitude is that there is a “need to know” basis, and that the public doesn’t need to know, which I vehemently disagree with. This would include evidence and discoveries of ancient ruins in space, the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life in space, inter-dimensional space, as well as quantum space. This would also include discoveries of ET technology and how it would impact our world. The word “Disclosure” is too generalized, but I believe there will be more and more disclosures as time goes on, because it’s about time that we all know these things for the survival of humankind. After all, we too, are an ancient and modern space faring race. The Mainstream media is owned by our government and corporate interests, so it's no surprise that it is biased especially in areas of journalism and propaganda.Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better align an issue with any certain agenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner.