James Douglas

But does Hoagland explain what Chapter 17, Title 35 of the USC is? It's about patents. It means that patents can be protected under that provision, because for the purposes of the Act NASA is considered part of the DoD (the other agency was the AEC). Let's see what else we can find... Evan is this passage from Hoaglands book? What does this have to do with Ed Mitchell's hypnosis?

ENGLAND DID NOT WIN THE WORLD CUP IN 1966!!!! How myself and the rest of Jock Tamsons bairns wish that statement was true. We might not have had to listen to this strange looking 'sasenach' fitba' commentator going on about it again and again and again...........................and again and again...... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPziZ_I5-U Its a pity the explosion is not the real thing.

Thank you kindly back David. Very interesting. Evan has recommended some Apollo related books and l found a copy of Dark Mission- The Secret History Of NASA by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Barra at my local library. ( THIS WAS NOT ONE OF EVAN'S SUGGESTIONS) http://www.darkmission.net/ Scroll down to the last few pages of this excerpts from the book doc for the strange tale of the gent who with the approval (so it seems) of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory media office was allowed to hand out a document "claiming that “NASA has just faked the entire Apollo 11 Lunar Landing… on a soundstage in Nevada!” http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/nasa_intro.pdf Hoagland and Barra discuss Ed Mitchell's hypnosis on Page 178. " Mitchell struggled so much with the issue that, on his own, he eventually sought the help of a professional hypnotist and psychologist to basically de-program himself! Incidentally it didn't work. According to a Hoagland source with a long professional association with Jean Houston, when Mitchell came to the part of his ( remember, personally requested) sessions in which Houston would repeatedly prod him with " Now try to remember what it felt like when you were walking on the Moon....." Mitchell would repeatedly deflect the question, saying " That's not important.....let's move on." DARK MISSION- FERALHOUSE BOOKS

Not quite - he underwent hypnosis so he could relive the experience. He remarked that when he was there he was so focused on the tasks, the timeline, that he didn't 'take in' the experience. I wasn't aware of this re Michell. I am probably overdoing things in saying this, but as I have pointed out several times before, there is evidence to show a cross connection between the UFO phenomena and mind control techniques. The latter have employed hypnosis and, especially, narco-hypnosis, to de-pattern (erase) memory and overlay that with fabricated memories. The victim remains unaware of what has happened and honestly believes what they think are reliable memories of certain events. It was posted here David. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...1139&st=469 "Unlike most of his colleagues he decided that the problem was not with the questioners, but with himself and the anquish he felt at being unable to recall the feeling of being there. Eventually, he got two friends to regress him under hypnosis, after which he felt something significant had happened to him on the flight- that the epiphany provided no less than a window on the Universe: a clue as to its structure and our connection to it" Moon Dust p.52

Is Ed Mitchell the astronaut who needed to be hypnotised because he couldn't remember what it was like on the Moon? I'm sure it was posted on a thread here recently.

I was able to acquire a copy of The Hunt For Zero Point from my local library for the sum of about 40 p when it was sold off just before Christmas. Not had the time to get through it yet but I intend to as soon as possible as a work colleague has also recommended it. Channel 4 in the UK ran a Nick Cook UFO documentary a few years ago which is well worth the watching. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i340IYwptZ8 Been reading some of the articles at your web site David. Excellent work BTW.

I don't think the camera had a cable attached (it had a battery pack so didn't require an external power source). Remember the lens being used is quite wide angle which is making everything seem further away than with a regular lens. I don't have a problem with your suggestion James. If they were going to fake the footage, using a mock-up of the LM in the vomit comet would make far more sense than some of the other scenarios being bandied about, for example Jack's proposal, endorsed by Duane, that it was filmed on a sound-stage with an entire film crew in attandance. Why not just create an inch-perfect mock-up of the LM cockpit in the vomit comet, and give the three astronauts a 16mm camera to film themselves with? No need for outlandish theories about mystery fourth people, or stage-sets with large film crews etc. There are problems with this scenario from some conspiracists point of view though. Firstly, it isn't a "smoking gun". By that I mean that the footage would have been faked so well that it would be virtually impossible to discern it from genuine footage. Secondly, if they were using an accurate LM cockpit layout (which they would surely do for continuity, accuracy etc - otherwise why bother with the vomit comet), there simply is no room for the "smoking gun" of a fourth person. Some people arguing against Apollo seem hell-bent on shoe-horning the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notion of fakery, rather than folowing the evidence and seeing where it leads them. Is it possible to fake the footage under discussion? I'm sure it is, and an accurate LM cockpit mokcup in the vomit comet would be the way to do it. Does the ability to fake footage mean that the Apollo 13 footage must have been faked? Of course not. There's also the distinct possibility that it was real. There's also the possibility that no HB has even mentioned that they just pretended there was an explosion, and filmed themselves in the LM cockpit while either in Earth orbit, or even on the way to the moon. Which seems strange of course. Why not just land if you're going to the moon anyway? What evidence is there that Apollo 13 even went to the moon? Well, there's the photos they took of the far side of the moon. There's the live TV transmissions during TLC. Duane has recently he can find no empirical evidence that radiation (Van Allen belts, Galactic Cosmic Rays, ambient lunar radiation) was an Apollo showstopper, so what exactly was stopping them from going, even if they didn't land? I realised the handle was the battery power source. I was referring to the camera possibly being tethered to a cable to prevent it floating away. Is it floating in low gravity or is it in a fixed position? Its hard to tell.

Not sure I understand the question James. The handle wasn't long enough for what? Thanks for the other clip. I've had a brief look, and it does seem to support the fact that there was no room for a fourth person. I'll try to post some more evidence tomorrow. When the bloke on the right makes the movement with his right arm that I assume is what is moving the camera, the handle(in your picture) doesn't look long enough. Was the camera perhaps attached to a cable if it was floating about and that is what he is moving and not the handle? Also (and I don't want to get embroiled in the debate) I noticed in the footage I linked none of the clips last very long and always fade to black. They are definitely in a low gravity environment because you can clearly see stuff floating about. I suppose its a possibility that they could have been filmed like the Apollo 13 Tom Hanks movie in the vomit comet. I am only suggesting its possible.

James The 16mm lunar surface DAC is shown top right - I believe the long handle is the battery pack. I don't think the camera was floating for the entire clip, though it's possible it may have been released during the last 2 or 3 seconds of the clip (it's certainly not very steady then). The handle doesn't look long enough. Was it perhaps attached to a cable? There is more footage here. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBcqPZ5zp4

Well you seem disappointed that noone replied to this one. The premise is that a mystery "fourth person" held the camera while taking this 16mm footage of the inside of the Aquarius, the Apollo 13 LM which was effectively used as a lifeboat after an explosion crippled the CSM. I haven't really heard a satisfactory explanation from anyone espousing this idea as to where exactly this film is supposed to have been taken from a hoax point of view, or why it required a mystery fourth person to take it, or where in the LM he was located. It looks to me as if the data acquisition camera (DAC) was being held by the LM pilot (Fred Haise) while he stood at his station. The camera was firstly pointed at the Commander (Lovell) who was sat opposite Haise. You can also see Swigert sat on the engine bell. The camera continues to pan round and until we see Haise looking out of the LM window. I don't see a problem here: Haise was holding the 16mm DAC with his right had, and he twisted the camera round to finish pointing at himself. They were in zero gravity so the camera had no weight, which would make it easier to hold. In the latter part of the film segment, it's even possible that the camera was floating free. Look at the two still images above. Look at how close to the RHS LM window the camera, compared to how close it is in the second still to the LHS LM window. Difficult to measure exactly, but clear enough to be able to say that the camera is certainly closer to the LHS window than the RHS window - which is what you'd expect if Haise was holding the camera (he's stood in front of the LHS window). For example, kin the second still, see how close the glare shield to the camera (it has some paperwork clipped to it). How would this be possible if there was a fourth person in the LM? At the start of the segment, he would be behind the camera - with Haise behind him! There simply isn't enough room in the LM. Check out this cut-away of the LM which shows where Haise would be (in blue) - Swigert would be where the astronaut coloured in yellow is (Lovell would be sat with his back against the wall of the LM, under the RHS LM window, facing Haise). Would it really be possible for a fourth person to be stood to the right of Haise while holding the camera? I think it's physically impossible. What I don't think is physically impossible, is holding a 16mm film camera with one hand, in zero gravity, then turning it around 180 degrees with a simple twist of the wrist. Source What does everyone else think? Looking at the footage I guess the camera must be attached to a very long handle or perhaps a cable. Was it? And they seem extremely lucky that everything is staying in frame if its floating about.

Wade no offence, but I fail to understand why somebody who was involved with Apollo and was a friend and colleague of the moonwalkers would ever have made that statement in the first place especially considering he shared an office with one of them and should have been aware if his questions were annoying because they probably had been asked before. I've also had a look at that Jay characters website and he makes no mention of ets/UFO's that may or may not have been buzzing about spacecraft heading to the moon. He certainly forgot to include it at his Brian O'Leary de-bunking page. Brian O'Leary allows himself to be 'ambushed' by the tv people to make comments he doesn't want to, and then raises doubts about the landings because of strange answers he received from his friends and colleagues that did go, and you never ask him exactly what he meant but are eager to make sure he catches a clip of Neil Armstrong vaulting up a ladder. Cheers.

Was the the operatic elf using that hand jive when he was singing Kill The King or did he feel the need to develop it to ward off the dulcit tones of Ber-ming-ham rocker Tony Iommi?

Well, my gut instinct tells me that Alan Bean never walked on the Moon. Then you agree with me that Alan Bean knows nothing about the true conditions of being on the lunar surface ? No I don't agree. Alan Bean is/was as qualified as anyone on the subject, since he's one of just 12 men who've actually been there. However, Alan Bean is an old man. I know nothing of his medical history, but it's not inconceivable that his memory isn't what it used to be. It's possible he may be confused over some details. I've heard the argument that all astronauts should remember every single detail about all aspects of the lunar trips, and any discrepancies in their memories are held up as evidence that they were lying or brainwashed. Does that apply to all walks of life, where old men who worked together 40 years ago fail to agree on details, or even say contradictory things? There's also the distinct possibility that my gut instinct is wrong, and that the LM on the surface is at danger from overheating if the cooling system failed. The thermal protection may have mitigated the effect of solar radiation, but not provided 100% insulation. The LM on the surface wasn't doing a BBQ roll, and didn't have most of it's electrical systems switched off, unlike the LM in Apollo 13. I sincerely hope Alan Bean isn't going a touch senile about his trip to the moon because he has to re-live that experience continually to make a living by the looks of it. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/ Not really to my tastes I'm afraid

That would explain the ferocity of the moon landings debate here

It's funny you mention taking it on the chin Michael because that is often the eventuality if you go around asking Glaswegians what foot they kick with. I'm a left footer if you must know. The same foot Mr McCann kicks with. Although I pleased to inform you that I learned long ago the Vatican had its line to the big man disconnected so they'll be no Hail Mary's from myself. Looking forward to the revelation of this 'trich' analyses Chappers.