Planetary Exploration: Latest Update on Mars.

The Secrecy Agenda: A Turnabout?

David Calvert.

On September 29, 2011 the European Space Agency (ESA) announced that their orbiter spacecraft has discovered that the Martian atmosphere is “super saturated” with water. This is an extraordinary move on their part because of the secrecy agenda that has surrounded the Mars exploration programme from its earliest inception.  Thanks to J.P. Skipper and other like-minded individuals, evidence began to emerge that all was not right with the data being fed to the media and, indeed, to many of NASA’s and JPL’s scientists.

 Irrefutable Evidence.

[Image taken from Skipper’s # 209 report]

Mars water vapourAccording to previous data, Mars’ atmospheric water vapour is supposed to be an infinitesimal 0.3%, as opposed to that of Earth’s 1.00%. This image clearly shows this not to be the case. Nor is this image the only one of its kind. There are many images showing clouds of water vapour in the martian atmosphere such as the one below taken by the Phoenix lander from the surface of Mars and reported on by Skipper on March 28, 2009, Report #160.

Click on the link below to see an accelerated movie taken by the Phoenix Mars Lander of Martian Arctic clouds in motion.

From the foregoing observations it is made abundantly clear that academics and the scientific communities need to put on their thinking caps  and seriously re-evaluate their data.  This also applies to the media types who, for whatever reasons, have failed in their responsibilities to broadcast such momentous discoveries to the public at large.

Why is the discovery of a “super saturated” martian atmosphere so  momentous I here you ask?  To quote Norman Horowitz, Viking’s principal investigator, ‘… Without liquid water, life as we know it cannot exist …”  Since it is  now quite obvious that liquid water is present on Mars the odds of finding life have increased tremendously. To see just how prevalent life is on the supposedly dead world you are invited to click on the link provided here for J.P. Skippers Master Evidence  Directory.

I will assume that by now you have read at least one of Skipper’s reports from the above link and have checked out the official image source links to determine that the images really are as Skipper received them from NASA, et al, and are now asking yourself  how such earth shattering information could have been withheld from the public for so long, and why the scientists appear oblivious of it.

Here is Skipper’s take on it:

Scientists, Where are You?

What is really going on?

I trust the above sites have given you insights into the history and methodology of secret agendas and how they work, and why the scientific community appear incapable or unwilling to rock the boat with regards to it.

So why, after so many decades of deception, have NASA, JPL,  ESA, and other official bodies suddenly elected to ‘drip feed’ us with the truth regarding Mars exploration? I will leave you with an edited version of  J.P. Skipper’s speculations on the subject.

“The only thing I’ll observe is that obviously the academic and science communities will now be needing to do some very serious reevaluation of their Mars science and it is also nice for this work to be the recipient, even if off-handed and indirect, of this kind of validation. So in moving on my reporting here will be a combination of presenting some corroborating visual image evidence to this admission as well as a fair amount of speculation on my part associated with its wider implications.

Of course I doubt that this official release will get much wide-spread media attention here the USA anywhere near worthy of it but maybe I’ll hopefully be wrong about that. We’ll see. Remember now that water equals life! So obviously this “super saturation” terminology has all kinds of implications for the possible presence of Mars water and the life that it logically might enable. So here we’ll be going deeper with more speculation than is normal from me to try and help fit this information into a wider context.

In my opinion, the truth is that the world-wide black ops and secrecy agenda types so deeply involved in space exploration have in general been trying for years now via more subtle methods to jar the academic and science communities involved in that exploration into breaking their conditioning that the secrecy types are themselves significantly responsible for putting on them via inaccurate but key raw science data for decades.

Why? Well I suspect it’s because the secrecy super computer models have been predicting the imminent collapse of secrecy suddenly with little warning if things aren’t changed. That would likely then result in a major prolonged emotional flap that would in turn result in much mud-slinging and secrecy head rolling if there is no counter measure plan of intervention on secrecy’s part. Make no mistake about it, any sudden uncontrolled revelation like that not under secrecy braking control is most definitely not good from the secrecy point of view because it stands a good chance of getting out of control, drawing them and their past practices out in the open, and putting them at personal risk.

The trick is to get this psychological turn around in shaking off the conditioning to happen first in the academic and science communities. This will provide secrecy with the opportunity to influence smaller more manageable numbers of people who are already conditioned to respect and accept that control. This will in theory minimize any damage to secrecy.

So, from the secrecy point of view, the academics and scientists need to do an about-face and come to conclusions contrary to the present accepted manipulated consensus. However, it must appear that they’ve arrived at this slowly on their own rather than go through it suddenly leaving them floundering, upset, and looking for someone else to blame other than themselves. If the process is more gradual and thereby subject to elements of secrecy braking control, it will consist of at first a few scientists coming on board and then their trying to convince their peers based on the “new” evidence who will in turn increasingly try to convince NASA and JPL leadership that something is wrong and must be reconsidered in the research.

Then secrecy leadership will gradually after some calculated resistance allow themselves to be convinced by the growing numbers in the science and academic communities that the public of course places its faith in because of their “credentials.” At that point, I suspect their plan is that everything will be good because we’re now all perceived to be in the same revelation boat and the academics and scientists can be pleased with their enlightened selves for having led the way. Even if some come to suspect that all have been manipulated, they will not publicly acknowledge it for fear of also harming their own credibility in the process.

If this process doesn’t go just exactly according to plan and the secrecy agenda starts seeing too much public heat coming their way as the planning unfolds, anticipate that they will publicly grow suspicious that they too may have been manipulated and were perhaps a little too “innocent” and trusting of the accuracy of the incoming exploration science data and a little too trusting of the computer modeling processes itself. After all, who could have anticipated that someone not us (shift) was manipulating and corrupting the raw incoming research data? Again, with those adjustments made, we’re back to all being in the same revelation boat but now everything is okay because we’ve all learned and we’re the wiser for it.

Of course for such a plan to be successful it will have to ignore any reality that the space exploration research that has been released for public consumption so far is massively manipulated and has been so for decades reaching deep down into the university systems conditioning the future of science that is now our present. That inconvenience clearly demonstrates the intent somewhere on our side of things to manipulate, hide, and alter perception of the real research information.

Note also that it logically demonstrates that the real science research data and its real content hidden from public view does exist somewhere. The presence of this manipulation in the raw data means that someone on our side is fully aware of that real content and its power to disrupt and has chosen secrecy over openness. That includes knowledge of the presence of any others not us that they may wish to plead ignorance of as the plan develops and shift blame to in a false flag scenario if needed. To understand secrecy, you have to be able to think like them even though you may feel a bit dirty in the process.

Secrecy requires compartmentalization within its ranks to be effective and they are not a homogenous group to begin with. That means that decision-making extending from the top down often looses something in the transition. For example, those at mid levels are often accustomed to operating on their own in cells and their individualities can modify top decisions received. That in turn sometimes means that what actually happens is not exactly what was intended by the top. This problem is especially acute if that something is new and contrary to the old ways the rank and file are historically accustomed to.

The net result can be a mixture of actions that on the surface appear inconsistent with each other. For example, as per my book of evidence, the official visual MGS MOC science data released in early year 2000 is, although heavily obfuscated, actually at the same time sprinkled with small amounts of surface water evidence in a liquid state as well as vast forest evidence not all of which has been successfully obfuscated. The number of these cannot be adequately explained just by secrecy mistakes, incompetence, or my own judgment blunders.

I suspect that at some point in the past the secrecy top decision makers came to the conclusion that a gradual transition which they can try to control is the way to go. This is represented by number of surface water and bio-life discoveries made in the MGS MOC data time period as well as the subsequent MRO, Phoenix, and now ESA data. I also suspect that this conclusion of theirs was partially motivated by their perception of alien presence intent on riding the wave of coming change that we can all sense on the wind and their likely communicated determination to put a stop to any false flag tactics designed to deflect the change into easily predictable war, dying, and concentration of power into just a select few secrecy types.

It was into this developing scenario 11-12 years ago that my own investigative work made entry and survived even if it did meet with resistance and problems likely mostly generated by lower/mid level secrecy types not fully under control by the top decision makers who are themselves not fully agreed. I suspect some of the top-level thought to allow work like mine and others to continue in order to try and take advantage of it to hopefully help them in the process of jarring the academics and scientists into breaking with the past conditioning and hopefully beginning to think at least a little for themselves.

Unfortunately for them and for us, the higher education academic and science community consensus types have proved a very hard nut to crack partially because of the effectiveness of the past conditioning, inaccurate information, and the almost complete dependency now on computer modeling rather than mixing it in with sufficient independent thought. Also, partially because of egos refusing to admit errors in judgment and the ease with which they’ve been manipulated and scammed.

The truth is that little tid bits of truth as to the real atmospheric conditions on Mars are scattered throughout the official space exploration science data dating at least back into the time of the MGS MOC data. Question that? Note the visual evidence in the MGS MOC derived images included here in this report. Also, remember that visual clouds in the Mars atmosphere represent water vapor. You should know that the Mars atmosphere is supposed to be 95.32% carbon dioxide (CO2) with only a very tiny 4.68% shared by every thing else. In fact, Mars atmospheric water vapor is supposed to officially be only an infinitesimal .03% as compared to a full 1.00% in Earth’s atmosphere.

It’s good to be cautious but not blind. In addition to the images above, take a look at my Report #162 as well as Report #160 for more visual insights into the Mars water vapor atmospheric conditions situation. Incredibly, in Report #160, there is even a link to an accelerated video developed by NASA/JPL themselves associated with the time of the Phoenix Lander data to visually and actively push the concept of water vapor in the Mars atmosphere and push it hard.

However, the seemingly hard-headed and clueless scientists just can’t seem to grasp it even after officially being pushed at formal level and not just by independent researchers like me. Why? Because the scientists think they know that the Mars atmosphere at that infinitesimal .03% just will not allow it. After all, their computer models, thought to be objective, confirm it. Further, they know that NASA and JPL have been historically against this kind of recognition and guess who pays many of their salaries. Therefore is just can’t be regardless of the visual evidence or who presents it!

Remember, this kind of inaccurate older raw basic .03% water vapor data, that the new ESA Mars atmosphere super saturation release is so contrary to, is what is being fed into the scientist’s computer models. With generations of scientists being exposed to inaccuracies like this for so long accepting it as consensus truth and Mars rover images for example confirming nothing but the appearance of desolate dry sand and rock conditions, perhaps you can begin to understand how the academic and science communities can blindly peer following peer dismiss visual evidence to the contrary.

As you can begin to see in my previous reports linked here, the evidence of water vapor in the Mars atmosphere is not new at all as it has been a part of the visual exploration raw science data that has been subtly telling us of this for years, at least for any that can be objective. The only thing that is new is at last the now incredibly blunt revelation at official level of this super saturation aspect making atmospheric water vapor on Mars now ultra obvious. In other words, the problem isn’t with the evidence but with the highly educated (conditioned) human psychology determined not to see it.

Why do they not see it? In my opinion, it is because there is nothing good incentive wise in it for them to do so. No matter how one cuts it, a truth like this means a black eye for them. It always leads back in an evidence chain to them as being too gullible in not asking the tough questions to start with and allowing themselves to be manipulated so easily. In other words, again it is an ego/psychological thing. If leadership like NASA and JPL would just accept responsibility, that might take the pressure (blame) off of the general academic and science communities allowing them to see it better and quicker. However, for the leadership types, it’s a survival thing and so there you see the dilemma.

Remember the official reporting of dust storms that essentially temporarily blanked the bulk of the Mars globe obscuring it from view? Now that ESA tells us that the Mars mid level atmosphere is super saturated with water vapor, it’s easier to understand that very likely the “dust” concept was a misdirection orchestrated by the secrecy agenda. It should come to us as I’ve previously reported before that obscuring storms officially identified as dust has the same look to them as water vapor clouds when viewed from the imaging distances involved. In other words, it’s a clue.

One can perhaps understand the academic and science communities ignoring an upstart independent like me but official releases like this from a respected organization like ESA? Now I suspect that many of us know that ESA is in large part an extension of NASA and JPL. Therefore such a release would not happen without NASA and JPL’s approval. However, the lack of attention this is likely to get in the USA media demonstrates just how deep the past “higher education” conditioning is leading into very inflexible human behavior including at both science and media levels. Still, the bottom line is it’s okay you academics, scientists, and media, the official message is clear! IT IS OKAY TO SEE WHAT IS THERE, SO GET ON WITH IT! YOU NEED TO WAKE UP NOW!

Smaller more subtle clues in the data like 11-12 year old visual examples presented above have failed to jar the academic and science communities out of their conditioning, now the secrecy agenda is stampeding a bit by dual releases within a few weeks of each other confirming the presence of possible Mars salt (assumption) surface water in a liquid state and then this newest revelation of a super saturated Mars mid level atmosphere. Scientists, what do they have to do, spell it out for you in GIANT CAPITAL LETTERS or smack you? Surely you’re smarter than that, conditioning or no! Think beyond your computer models! Start for example by looking at the verifiable visual evidence here in this and previous reports.

 Let me make it clear, this last official release of Mars super saturated atmospheric water vapor is most definitely a game changer, depending on the targeted psychologies involved, and really risky business from the secrecy point of view. They may have done this release through ESA in case they need to try and sacrifice them and their credibility if the going gets too rough with such a bold move but I don’t think any of that will happen. The conditioning is just too deep. In my opinion, the secrecy types are getting very frustrated with the academic and science communities not picking up the ball and running with it when they want them to and in the manner they want them to.

Worse someone who isn’t us may be watching and judging all this poor human behavior. Sound like I’m going too far with that? If so, you need to understand that the secrecy agenda on our end would not deviate so from the old tried and true secrecy and delay tactic’s of the past unless they are feeling very pressed for time and “pressed for time” is a key piece of information here. I suspect their stampeding a bit may be the result of someone else’s implacable agenda playing out here and their finally fully realizing it. Logically I suspect the time of change is now just about upon us and we are about to learn some earth-shaking truths in the months and year or two ahead during which time the old will fall away and new will replace it.

Let’s consider some speculation that might test this same human behavior of reluctance in you and I. For example, the planet Earth we think is about 4.5 billion years old. The accepted general consensus is that man has been here for around 200,000 years with lots of disagreement on that and civilized for only the past 8000-9000 years with more disagreement on that and of course in our diversity we are found in plenty on every continent.

On the other hand, it appears that dinosaurs dominated Earth for roughly an incredible 160,000,000 years with that species also on every continent all around the planet and the most diverse land species ever with many being bipedal. We know that the principle of adaptive evolution does exist whether it explains our presence here or not, yet we are to believe that dinosaurs occupying every portion of this planet and super diverse also with bipedal adaptations did not develop beyond the primitive vegetation and meat chomping on each other animal stages of life in the 160,000,000 years available to them? It’s a tenant supported by the Earth’s fossil record that we’re known to have discovered so far.

Despite the fossil record, I find that hard to swallow. Why? Because I can think and I say it is something that needs to be questioned and alternative paths explored.

But, that’s not the point I’m trying to make here in this speculation. What if we were to learn in any coming change that what really happened was that the dinosaur species still occupies and dominates Earth in a different more original time line and that the past, present, and future we experience here represents a time line purposely altered? If a knowledge scenario like this started playing out in the coming change, would it cause you a problem? That question is my point.

In speculation, it’s the same with Mars and other planets as well as space itself. What if we learn that we have been heavily manipulated on so many different levels of perception? What if we learn that Mars has an atmosphere breathable to Earth humans with tolerable temperatures and water in a liquid state scattered all around that planet’s surface as well as vast amounts of life taking advantage of it? What if we learn that someone else with advanced technology is on Mars claiming it as their home and possession by right of long occupation?

What if such revelations in a chain reaction results in the realization that life is everywhere including on the other planets in our system as well as even our own Moon that someone else claims by right of long occupation? What if we learn that space itself around us is full of life, some of which might be hard for us to understand. What if we learn that we share this planet Earth with someone else not us and with an older claim? Ask yourself the question, is it too much or can you adapt?

In my opinion, although we may not fully recognize it yet, posterity will recognize this NASA/JPL/ESA admission as a turning point in our Earth human development history. It is a potential door of chain reaction knowledge that is just starting to open and what we Earth humans will eventually in the years ahead be facing as we dive down deeper into new knowledge that will be earth-shaking to so many of us because of our past isolation. It may be that in such a testing we’ll be like the current academics and scientists that can’t see the atmospheric water vapor for the clouds in the sky?

Once this door of knowledge is opened, it cannot be successfully closed again to shut off the content. It’s like eating from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Once done, simplicity is gone along with the ignorance of isolation. On the other hand, how can a race or an entity progress if not challenged with new things previously insufficiently considered? The question is do you want to progress or stagnate? Each of us must decide.

In my opinion, this bold but risky to secrecy move to at last reveal Mars super saturated atmospheric water vapor and opening that door, even if it is designed to preserve secrecy as a survival move, is welcome. It demonstrates that at least someone somewhere in the shadows is thinking rationally and recognizing the real problem, that it is with our own human behavior, and like it or not that we are all in the same boat as a race. However, it also demonstrates that someone better in the know that we are is perceiving by taking this much risk that time is either up or just about up and any time for delay is essentially over.

Now I realize that some will be offended by so much meandering speculation on my part in this report over that of my normally more reserved style. I do regret that. However, in the last 11-12 years of working in this field, one cannot help but develop a feel for its intricacies and implications. I’ve decided to share some with you here because of the importance and implications I perceive of this particular Mars water vapor revelation and where it may lead.

Just remember that most of this except for the visual atmospheric water vapor evidence is just one person’s opinion and perception. You must decide any degree of merit or lack of it for yourself.”

Joseph P. Skipper, Researcher 

Author’s Comments Update.

Since the recent release of  NASA’s extraordinary revelation concerning Mars’ super saturated  water atmosphere There has been little to no media information concerning it. I find their silence on this matter remarkable to say the least, given that such a revelation is potentially world-changing in its implications.

Has the world’s media suddenly become hyper-cautious about what it prints or airs? I don’t think so. In the past they have shown little or no regard for what they have disseminated and the lives and reputations they have damaged along the way.

Come on guys! What’s holding you back?  This information has come from an official body, and is not the ramblings of some deluded conspiracy theorist. It’s time to step up to the plate.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.




William Ware Brazel, or ‘Mack’, as he was affectionately known, was a no-nonsense 48-year-old foreman for the J. B. Foster sheep ranch, 30 miles southeast of the small William_Mac_Brazel1cattle town of Corona, New Mexico, when he discovered strange debris in a pasture with ‘out of this world’ properties. What he discovered set in motion a chain of events that led to the US Government, for the first and only time in its history, to state that UFOs not only existed, but that they had one in their possession. Thus, in July of 1947, the seeds of the now legendary Roswell Incident were planted.

But was there more to Brazel’s role in the affair than has previously been attributed to him i.e. that he found some strange metal, reported it to the sheriff, the media, and the army, the latter detaining him for a week before he was finally released, having now changed his original story of finding ‘only’ strange metallic-like debris to that of a weather balloon, and went home refusing to talk about it again.

Certainly, ranchers in those parts were familiar with weather balloons and had no trouble identifying them. That Brazel suddenly changed his story after being detained by the military is somewhat telling. It further strains credulity when hand-picked officers of the 509th Bomb Group, the top US military unit at the time, admitted that they too had been initially mistaken over the nature and provenance of the debris and that what they had in their possession was indeed a weather balloon.

Skyhook  Balloon and Payload

skyhook balloon and payload

It was on the 8th July 1947 that Mack Brazel gave the only interview that is directly attributed to him. It took place in the offices of the Roswell Daily Record and was given whilst he was still in the ‘custody’ of the Army Air Force (AAF). It appeared in the following day’s edition of that paper. He was to give three other known direct interviews concerning the incident.

The first had taken place two days earlier, July 6th and was conducted over the phone to KGFL announcer Frank Joyce from the Chavez County Sheriff’s Office.

The second was in the home of the radio station’s owner, Walt Whitmore, on Monday, July 7th, just before he was taken into custody by the military the next day and the balloon cover story went into effect.

The final interview was conducted by El Paso radio station after the AAF had held Brazel for a few days whilst the ranch was being cleared and ‘sanitised’ of the debris. Again, the prepared weather balloon cover story was undoubtedly repeated.

Researchers and ufologists alike have been bothered ever since regarding Brazel who – among all other Roswell participants – was singled out and effectively arrested for an extended period of time. And what did he mean when he made the cryptic remark to a radio station announcer that the so-called ‘little green men’ were not green. What else had he seen which caused him to make such a remark?

Further, two articles appeared in print on July 9th 1947. The first in the Roswell Daily Record, under the title Gen. Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer, the second in the Albuquerque Journal in the Harassed Rancher … article. Both now retracted the previous day’s proclamation that a ‘flying saucer’ had been found and asserted the military line that it was the remnants of a weather balloon with attached radar reflector.

roswell daily record

Alb journal

In the latter, however, Brazel’s final comments went apparently unnoticed. The article concluded that on at least two occasions Brazel had found weather balloons on his land. What he found on that fateful day, however, did not resemble any of those previous finds.

Mack died in 1963, aged 64 and took what he knew to the grave with him. Even close family members were not made privy to what he knew. What we know of him comes from his surviving family members. He was a throwback to the ‘old-time cowboys’ a no-nonsense sort of guy whose word and handshake were his bond. He was also a man of few words.

His son, Bill Brazel Jr., nevertheless, was able to put together a basic scenario of what happened to his father and obtained from him the fact that he was upset at being ‘put in jail’ for what he thought was a ‘good deed’. Although embittered and outraged by his treatment at the hands of the military he remained silent as to what he really knew, lest his family should suffer the consequences of his saying too much.

We have the testimonies of other parties involved in the incident who claimed they were threatened by military and Government officials to keep quiet about what they knew or pay the ultimate price.

Whether Mak’s youngest son, who was seven years old at the time, knew something the others did not we will never know as in 1960 he disappeared under mysterious circumstance and has never been seen since.

The little Mack did tell his family consisted mainly of his finding the ‘stuff’ which he said had come from an explosion not a crash – because it was all in pieces, and the surrounding vegetation was singed. The curious metal was different from anything he had ever seen as it could not be burned, cut, scratched, or whittled with his knife. He also recalled seeing strange writing on some of the debris that looked like ‘figures’ to him. However, Lorrene Ferguson and Floyd Proctor, neighbours of Mack, recalled his description of the pieces to them as being more like ‘wiggles’, similar to the figures found on Chinese or Japanese firecracker wrappers.

According to Bill Jr., the army had told Mack that they had established the debris had certainly not come from anything made by them.

Descriptions of what each witness saw and handled, regarding the debris, have appeared in numerous books and articles and can be concisely described as:

 [1]: Hand-sized pieces of very thin, very light, though extremely strong metal-like strips, the colour of dull aluminium or lead foil which were impervious to being cut, bent, burned or scratched. Some of them appeared to have a very slight curvature suggesting they had come from the rounded surface of a larger structure, their conditions suggesting they had been blasted from it.

 [2]: Small hand-sized pieces of an unknown quantity of very thin and light ‘metal’ possessing the dual qualities of being both solid and fluidic. When wadded up in the hand and then placed on a level surface it would revert to its original, seamless state without showing a mark on it. This, too, could not be cut, scratched or burned. When held in the hand it seemed weightless.

 [3]: A large amount of small, to hand-sized, thin, brown, parchment-like material which was also impervious to cuts, scratches or burns.

 [4]: An undisclosed amount of very light, thin, brownish ‘I-beams’, reminiscent of balsa wood. Though they could not be broken, these three eighths of an inch square (approximation) and up to 2-3 ft long ‘beams’ could be flexed slightly. They had ‘writing’ or strange, purple pastel symbols along their inner edge, imitating hieroglyphic or geometric formats.

[5]: An unknown amount of pencil-sized or smaller ‘beam shards’, light, and brownish in colour, and devoid of any ‘writing‘. As with the larger ‘I-beams’ they were slightly flexible and impervious to being burned, scratched, whittled, or broken.

[6]: Small pieces of a very strong and black, Bakelite-type substance (quantity unknown).

[7]: An undisclosed quantity of very thin, and very light thread-like ‘wires’ which also could not be broken or permanently distorted.

[8]: A 2-3 inch square, palm-sized, black box, seamless and small, which could not be opened.

[9]: A smooth and seamless, 3-4 inch diameter by 4-6 inches long, dull aluminium ‘collar’, comprising a ‘flange’, also described as a ‘pipe sleeve’ or ‘strut‘.

At the behest of his friends, Brazel stuffed some of the above items into a cardboard box and headed off to Roswell, little suspecting what was about to befall him at the hands of the military. The nature of the material he carried was sufficiently exotic enough to warrant the despatch of two of the army’s senior intelligence officers to investigate.

By all accounts Brazel was a patriotic, law-abiding civilian. Why then did the military feel compelled to put him through an ordeal ordinarily reserved for suspected espionage agents and ‘enemies of the state’? If all Mack Brazel found was ‘funny metal’ then surely it would not have taken the military all that time to explain it away or necessitate his incarceration for a week – if that was all he found.

It wasn’t until May 1982 that investigator William Moore, following a lead from a friend, located and interviewed Frank Joyce.

frank joyceJoyce had been a 24 year-old announcer for Roswell radio station KGFL in 1947, and a stringer for the United Press wire service. He got into trouble with the Air Force for placing their press release of having ‘captured’ a flying saucer, on the UP ‘wire’, via Western Union, thereby, turning what was meant to be a localised story into a national and international phenomenon.

In 1982, Joyce was still a media personality, and was clearly wary of speaking of his involvement in the Roswell affair lest it should jeopardise his career. He was, therefore, not wholly forthcoming with Moore in his interview.

According to Joyce he phoned the Chavez County Sheriff’s Office during his Sunday afternoon radio show to see if there were any worthy news items he could report on air. Sheriff George Wilcox put Mack Brazel on the phone. Joyce then interviewed him off-air. Following his conversation Joyce suggested to Sheriff Wilcox that they should call the Roswell Air Base for assistance, thus launching the military’s involvement in the affair.

During his conversation with Moore, Joyce never once mentioned what it was that Brazel had found during his first telephone conversation with him, but was emphatic that there was no mention of ‘balloon’ or ‘balsa parts’. He did remark, however, on Brazel’s terrified state of mind at the time, but did not elucidate further on why the rancher felt that way.

Then Brazel suddenly turned up at the radio station a few days later with a different story to the one he had told Joyce in their telephone conversation Joyce confronted him over his new story, whereupon Brazel told him. “Look son, you keep this to yourself. They told me to come in here and tell you this story or it would go awfully hard on me and you.”

When Moore asked Joyce if Brazel ever mentioned bodies to him on the phone, he replied, cryptically, “I can’t go into that. I don’t want to say.”

When Moore squeezed him for more information, Joyce relied that he had said all he was going to, and that he had made up his mind a long time ago that he would only go so far with that part of the story … “whatever that thing was,” he concluded, “the rancher saw it all, and it didn’t originate on this planet. What I heard later about the Air Force having bodies of little men from space … was totally consistent with what I heard at the time.”

On March 31st 1989, Joyce was interviewed again, this time by Donald Schmitt and Kevin Randle. He refused for the interview to be taped. He reiterated the same story he had told Moore, but added a few minor details. Apparently, as Brazel was leaving he turned back to Joyce and said, “You know how they talk about little green men? Well, they weren’t green.”

Schmitt and Randle interviewed Joyce on five other occasions, between 1990 and 1992. His story did not change significantly. Nevertheless, when Joyce got to the part where he claimed to have confronted Brazel about the discrepancy he said, “The story is different, especially the part about the ‘little green men’”, to which Brazel apparently replied this time, ‘Only they weren’t green.’

Joyce’s story was clearly evolving with the passage of time. Was he feeling more secure with the passing of the years? Had the fears he had harboured if he revealed too much now ebbed? Or was he simply embellishing his story? The latter is unlikely, as there was no apparent motive or gain to do so.

If Joyce’s story is true then Brazel also came across bodies sometime during his discovery of the debris field and reported this fact to Joyce. This is possibly closer to the truth than the speculation that Brazel was shown the non-terrestrial bodies by the military in order to maintain his silence and complete cooperation on national security grounds. We can safely assume that the former scenario is true as it was borne out by Joyce in a 1998 interview with Randle and Schmitt in which Joyce was more forthcoming.

His initial telephone conversation with the distraught rancher, who was complaining about the stuff scattered around his ranch and the effect it was having on his sheep went something like this:


[angrily]: “Whose gonna clean all that stuff up? That’s what I wanna know. I need someone out there to clean it up.”


“What stuff? What are you talking about?”


[sombrely]: “Don’t know. Don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s from one of them flying saucer things.”


“Oh, really? Then you should call the Army Air Base. They are responsible for everything that flies in the air. They should be able to help you or tell you what it is.”

[At this juncture Brazel apparently really started losing his composure].


“Oh God. Oh my God. What am I gonna do? It’s horrible, horrible, just horrible.”


“What is? What’s horrible? What are you talking about?


“The stench. Just awful.”


“Stench? From what? What are you talking about?


“They’re dead.”


“What? Whose dead?”


“Little people.”

[Joyce was sceptical but decided to play the role of Devil’s Advocate with Brazel].


“What the …? Where are they? Where did you find them?”


“Somewhere else.”


“Well, you know, the military is always firing rockets and experimenting with monkeys and things. So, maybe … “


[shouting] “God dammit! They’re not monkeys, and they’re not human!”

[Brazel then slammed the phone down on him].

Joyce then told Schmitt and Randle that when Brazel came into the radio station sometime later to retract his statements in favour of the balloon cover-story, he was accompanied by the military and was under a great deal of stress.

Joyce challenged him about the ‘little green men’ comment he made in their original telephone conversation, to which he replied that they weren’t green. Then he left with his escort.

But this was not the last that Joyce was to see of Brazel. One or two days later Joyce’s boss, and owner of KGFL, Mr. Whitmore, turned up to see him and took him for a ride. They were accompanied by an ‘odd looking fellow in a uniform’ that Joyce didn’t recognise. They drove north out of Roswell into Lincoln County, stopping at a one-room shack just off the road.

His boss then told him to go into the shack, which he did, alone. Shortly after, Brazel entered. “You’re not going to say any more about what I told you the other day, are you?” he asked Joyce. Joyce assured him he would not.

“You know, our lives will never be the same again.” Brazel said. With that, he left. So, too, Joyce and his companions. From that day on Joyce never saw Brazel again, nor the strange uniformed passenger who accompanied both him and his boss.

In order for single-witness claims to be deemed credible, they require the corroborative testimonies of others. Over the intervening years such testimonies have been given.

Dee Proctor, who claims he was with Brazel on the day he found the debris, took his seriously ill mother, Loretta, to a remote site 2.5 miles east-southeast of the debris field in 1995 to show her where Brazel had found ‘something else.’ Why, one has to ask oneself, was he compelled to risk the life of his mother in order to do so? What other information did he share with his mother?

William Moore (1985), claimed that via a governmental ‘confidential informant’ he was told a year earlier that several badly mangled bodies had been recovered in a state of decay southeast of the debris field, and it was suspected they had ejected from the craft shortly before it exploded.

The controversial MJ-12 documents appear to contain and confirm this account of the Roswell incident.


Hope Bakla (1998) and a friend were having lunch in a Corona restaurant one day when and elderly man came in and sat next to them. He engaged them in conversation, later telling them his name was Jack Wright, and told them he was returning from an Albuquerque hospital where he had just been told he would not require open-heart surgery for a heart condition. He spoke of Roswell and asked of they were going out to the crash site. They appeared ignorant of the now famous incident. He filled them in on the details, stating that his father had been a ranch foreman for the Proctors at the time of the incident and he sometimes helped him out (he was in his early teens then).

One day, he said, Brazel had come over to the ranch in a state of excitement, and wanted someone to return with him to the Foster ranch to see something. He and a few other kids decided to follow Brazel back to the ranch. The first indication that something was wrong came when they saw a number of hawks and buzzards circling something in the distance. Eventually they came across a small body on the ground, then another. The ‘little people’, as he described them, had very long, thin fingers, and that the image was indelibly imprinted on his brain to that very day.

That a man, given a new lease on life, would make up such an unbelievable story seems unlikely.

Meyers Wahnee related a story about the Roswell incident, and his involvement in it to his family during the last year of his life in December 1981. He had been a pilot and Air Crew Commander of the 714th Bomb Squadron, 448th Bomb group in 1947.

He said there were three separate sites and that bodies were found and flown first to Texas, and that many of the men involved showed fear. He also mentioned ‘decomposing body parts’ found among the Foster ranch debris field. In what amounts to a death-bed confession, he told them, “It really happened.”

If we accept these testimonies then it means that it affects what we know of the Roswell incident, inasmuch as Maj. Jesse Marcel and CIC Capt. Sheridan Cavitt, who accompanied Brazel back to the Foster ranch on the 6th and 7th of July to investigate, must have known about the bodies. Brazel had to have told them about them, as he wanted the mess cleaned up.

Whether Marcell actually saw the bodies is a matter of conjecture. On July 8th, the time when the bodies would have been taken to Roswell, he had been despatched to Fort Worth, returning on the 9th. Interestingly Cavitt refused Marcel access to his report upon his arrival back in Roswell.

Because of what we now know there are a lot more questions that require answers. Investigations are still on going to find them.

Given the amount of evidence isn’t it about time we laid to rest, once and for all, the weather balloon hypothesis, so favoured by the hard-nosed, bloody minded, and uninformed obstructionists and sceptics.


UFO Magazine (2000): Sept/Oct. issue, pp. 56-63; Nov/Dec issue, pp. 28-33; 66-9. Quest Publications International Ltd.
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters (2002): Constable and Robinson Ltd.
Wood, Dr. Robert M, and Wood, Ryan S (1998): The Majestic Documents. Wood and Wood Enterprises.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.


An examination of the Moon landings conspiracy theory.

David Calvert

On Sunday evening of July 20, 1969, Neil Alden Armstrong ensured his place in the history books as the first man ever to set foot on the surface of the Moon. Almost from the outset this monumental achievement became dogged by rumours of a conspiratorial cover-up that persists up to the present day. But what evidence is there to support the conspiracy theorists’ arguments that man never went to the Moon, and that the entire scenario was carefully stage -managed by NASA? To reach any kind of conclusion as to whether there is any kind of validity to their arguments, we must first examine the evidence put forward in support of their long-held viewpoint – beginning with the Van Allen Radiation Belt.

The Van Allen Radiation Belt.

radiation Belts.jpg


The radiation belt comprises of an inner and outer belt of energetically charged particles trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field. The inner belt is concentrated mainly around the Earth’s equatorial plane and extends over altitudes of 650 – 6,000 km. Its radiation is strongest between 2,000 and 5,000 km, and fluctuates in intensity with the solar cycle. The outer belt has an altitude of approximately 10,000 – 65,000 km, and is strongest from 14,500 – 19,000 km. It is through these lethal radiation zones that the Apollo astronauts had to fly to reach the Moon, leading many sceptics to speculate that in order to do so their spacecraft would require so much shielding to protect them from the fatal radiation doses that they would barely manage lift-off velocities, let alone journey to the Moon. However, the time the astronauts spent in these regions of space was minimal, and they received only 1% of a fatal dose, showing that whilst the belt is an obstacle to space flight it is not an insurmountable one.

Photographic Anomalies

The bulk of the conspiracy theorists’ arguments come in the form of photographic evidence, such as the one above, taken during the Apollo 11 mission. Image analyst,shadow lengths and professional photographer, David Percy has noted that in this shot of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin the shadows appear to differ in length. Armstrong’s shadow is appreciably foreshortened. Since light travels in straight lines, and should not create unequal shadows, how can this be so? The answer to that question lies in a simple experiment.

Shadow Experiment.

Take a clean sheet of A4 paper. On it make two marks relative to the positions of the astronauts in the above image. Place two equally sized objects onto these marks. Position a static light source, such as a reading lamp, so that the objects create long shadows. Next, mark the point where these shadows end. Remove both objects and measure the distance between your position marks to the shadow end marks. They will be of equal length. Now reposition the objects onto their original marks and this time take hold of the sheet at the end furthest from the light source and carefully push it towards the light, making sure that the opposite end doesn’t move. This should create a hump in the sheet. You will note that as the hump draws close to the object furthest from the light its shadow foreshortens, whereas the shadow closest to the light does not, thereby demonstrating that the terrain over which it is cast creates shadow foreshortening.

It can be safely assumed from this simple experiment that the terrain behind Armstrong has a slightly raised elevation, and it is this that is causing the difference in shadow lengths. Note the appearance of the soil in the top left quadrant in the photograph. It appears lighter than the mid to foreground region, as one would expect of a raised mound being struck by sunlight at a less oblique angle. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the unequal shadows were created by two separate light sources, such as studio lights, as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

As a further example on the theme of light and shadow, take a look at the following image.

aldrin shadow

This image of Buzz Aldrin shows the sunlight streaming across his left shoulder. His right side should be in deep shadow because the contrast of light and dark is more pronounced on the Moon. NASA’s explanation for this is that the sunlight is being reflected off the surface onto the suit. Hoax theorists, however, claimed that Aldrin contradicted this explanation when he said there is no refracted light on the Moon, thereby supporting their contention that another source of light (i.e. studio lighting) was responsible. In fact, both statements are true and are not diametrically opposed.

How so? Though the words refraction and reflection sound similar, there meanings are entirely different. Refraction occurs when light passes through a transparent material. Whereas, reflection occurs when it bounces off an opaque material. For light to refract it must pass through a medium different from the one it was travelling through. In space light travels at 100% because there is nothing to impede its progress. Its speed is reduced to 99.7% when it travels through air, and is further reduces to 75% when it travels through water. Because light waves slow down when passing through a denser medium, they bunch up. That is why if you place a pencil in a glass of water it appears to bend. Therefore, as there is neither air nor water on the Moon, refraction cannot occur. It was this phenomenon of refraction to which Aldrin had alluded, and not reflection.

Note, too, the fall-off areas in the Aldrin photograph. Because the Moon has no atmosphere to pollute the light, hoax theorists claim these areas should be bright and crisp and not gradually fade into darkness. This so-called ‘anomaly’ is due to simple optic and lighting effects, however. The mid-to-foreground surface regions are being viewed from a different angle than that of the distant background surface. As Armstrong is focussing specifically on Aldrin in this shot the background naturally appears out of focus. The local terrain and light from the lunar module, which is situated to the left of Aldrin, also reflect significant amounts of light, as evidenced by the illuminated area directly behind him.

The Case for Shadow Divergence.


Sceptics claim that the divergence of the shadows in the above image is impossible if the sun is the only source of light on the Moon. ‘Surely’, they argue, ‘the shadows must fall in the same direction?’ This, they believe, is proof positive that another light source is being used. Not so! This is yet another terrain effect caused in this instance by ground slant, as the simple experiment below demonstrates.


Note the shadow effect evidenced in this experiment. Each of these shadows is cast by a single light source. The model LEM in the background, and the marker pen in the foreground, serve as shadow controls showing the directions shadows take on nonslanted ground terrain. The shadow cast by the model rock runs in a different direction due to the ground slant over which it is cast.

Helmet Reflection.

helmet reflection 2

The reflection circled in red on Aldrin’s helmet above is considered by many conspiracy theorists to be either a helicopter or a metres-tall glass structure of some kind. Even under greater magnification this object does not resolve itself into an identifiable body. How then have the hoax theorists managed to come to their conclusions? In actuality what is being reflected in the visor is nothing more than the American flag. To its left is the Solar Wind Collection experiment. This was determined by the positions of the two astronauts relative to the objects and the lunar module reflection on the right of the visor. The reason that the flag and the SWC seem so far away is due to the convex, spherical shaped visor that makes objects appear further away than they really are.

The Cross-Hair Anomalies.



The reflected light phenomenon is also responsible for the cross-hair anomalies as seen in the above image, taken during the Apollo XVI mission. The cross hairs appear on all lunar photographs and appear on the glass plate between the shutter and the film, making it impossible for them to appear behind the image being photographed. Empirical studies have shown that it is conceivable that the bright reflected light bouncing off the Lunar Rover Vehicle’s antennae has obliterated the fine line of the cross-hair in this image, making it look as if it is behind the antennae.

The ‘C’ Rock.

C rock anomaly

The above image is taken from the same photograph as the antennae image and shows what appears to be a rock  with the letter C imprinted on it. Is this, as conspiracy theorists have speculated, an identification letter left on a studio prop? It is worth noting at this juncture that the image is a 3rd or 4th generation copy of the original, in which the letter does not appear (see below), suggesting it is an artefact accidentally introduced during one of the many scans of this print. It could be something as innocuous as a piece of lint or hair.

C rock first generation print

 Radioactive Fingerprints.

The rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts weigh in at 32 kg. When they were analysed by geologists they discovered several differences between them and Earth rocks. Some contained more iron, magnesium, and titanium, but less silica and aluminium. Some samples were found to contain higher levels of radioactivity than Earth rocks. Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA’s Johnson Space Centre (JSC) is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC. Here is what he had to say on the Moon rock controversy: “They differ from Earth rocks in many respects. Just as meteoroids bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest energy cosmic rays. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.” He adds, “Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energise particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blast waves and in the cores of galaxies. Indeed, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. It would be easier going to the Moon to get one.”

He goes on to say, “Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples – not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren’t all NASA employees either. We have loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries, who have no reason to cooperate in the hoax.”

Footprint and Tyre Track Anomalies.

The lunar surface is covered in a fine dust that the astronauts likened to ‘talcum powder’. These easily compacted dust particles are actually micrometeorites, Laid down since the Moon’s formation 4.5 billion years ago. It has been argued that as the Moon has no moisture clearly defined tracks and footprints made by the astronauts should not exist. This argument is borne from a false premise, which the reader can easily dispel by spreading dry talc, or any other like medium, onto the surface. As you will see, any imprint you make will be clearly defined. Also, if the Moon landings were faked in a dry Earth desert terrain, as has been maintained, then any tracks laid down in the sand would lack the definition of the lunar tracks because dry sand, as well as being coarser, does not compact easily.

The Fluttering Flag Anomaly


Cited as indisputable evidence that the Moon landings were faked on Earth is the fluttering American flag planted by Aldrin and Armstrong. On a non-atmospheric world there can be no breeze to cause such a motion. How, then, is the flag seen to flutter?

On Earth a flag is designed to be blown into position by the wind. As there is no wind on the Moon the flag would simply hang limply down, and so an extendable rod was incorporated into its design to combat this problem. The unnatural rigidity along the top of the flag is evidence of this. The rod simulates a wind- blown, ripple effect because it is not fully extended. Surely, if an errant breeze was to blow through a film set, causing the flag to wave in what is supposed to be a vacuum, at least one of the film crew would have noticed such an obvious fact and they would simply have done another take! And wouldn’t experts have been employed to oversee such glaring inconsistencies in the first place?

Some video clips purportedly show the flag waving in the breeze after it was planted. Untrue! The only time the flag is seen to flutter is when the astronauts are planting it into the lunar surface. The movement of the flag was caused by the back and forth rotation of the pole in order to get better penetration into the lunar surface. As there is no atmospheric resistance the flags motion takes a while to dampen down. There is no evidence, whatsoever, showing the flag moving when the astronauts are not holding it. a fact that hoax theorists never mention.

The Hasselblad Space Camera.


 For the purposes of this article we will concentrate on the camera used on the Moon’s surface – the Hasselblad 500 EL Data Camera (HDC).

The midday sun on the Moon ranges from 260° – 280° F. At those temperatures, sceptics claim, film would crinkle up into a ball. However, to combat this problem the lunar landings and subsequent explorations were conducted when the sun was low, so that temperatures were actually quite moderate. The camera films were kept in magazines with a silver finish, thus providing protection from the temperature extremes. The camera, too, is silver coated to protect it from thermal variations, thereby maintaining an internal uniform temperature.

When camera film is wound on the resultant static electricity generated onto the surface of the film can cause unpleasant patterns to appear. This static build-up is normally dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film and, in an Earth environment, by the air humidity. How then, as the HDC was used in the vacuum of space that has no humidity and employs a glass reseau plate that is a non-conductor to move the film on, was the film not seriously damaged by the resultant build-up of static charge?

To overcome this problem the side of the reseau plate facing the film was coated with an exceptionally thin conductive layer that is led to the conductive parts of the camera body via two contact springs. Two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer affect contact. Problem solved.

The Absence of Blast Craters.


To set down safely on the lunar surface the LEM had to give out 3,000 pounds of thrust to slow its descent that would have created a massive hole beneath it but according to sceptics, in pictures of the Lunar Excursion Module the ground appears untouched. Is this evidence of fakery? No. There are many photographs showing radial disturbance of lunar soil (regolith) given out by the engine blast. The image of the Antares module above, for example, shows a blast crater beneath the descent engine, as the image below clearly shows.

blast crater

You might think that 3000 lbs worth of thrust would leave a much bigger crater than that seen here. In an Earth environment that would be the case as the air in our atmosphere constrains the rocket thrust into a narrow column, thus creating a lot of pressure. In a vacuum, however, the exhaust is spread out considerably more, thereby lowering the pressure and making it much gentler. If we apply a little math you will see what I mean. The engine nozzle is approximately 54 inches across, which gives it an area of 2,300 square inches, which equates to only 1.5 lbs per square inch of pressure. Not excessive by any means.

Why Create a Hoax?

It has been speculated by many hoax theorists that one reason for NASA hoaxing the Moon landings was because people were unhappy about the horrors taking place during the Vietnam War. In order to take their minds of these atrocities, and deflect the public outrage toward the Government, NASA hoaxed the landings. We are further invited by the disbelievers to check certain dates. The US, they claim, abruptly stopped going to the Moon around the same time the Vietnam War ended, because the deception had fulfilled its purpose. They would have done well to have checked these dates a little more closely themselves. There was nothing abrupt about the discontinuation of the Apollo Moon landings whatsoever. As far back as the first Apollo landing in 1969 – when the Vietnam War was still years away from cessation – plans were already in the offing to end the programme. What is more, the Apollo mission was initiated more than four years before the conflict in Vietnam was even considered to be a war.

Another reason often touted for the faked landings is that Russia and the US were involved in a heated battle to see who was the better of the two superpowers. The US, fearing they might lose the space race and lose face, then set about their deception. Does it seem credible that the Russians would simply hold up their hands and say ‘Okay, we give up. You win.’, when it would have been far easier to discredit the Apollo missions if they were truly being faked? Hardly. Had they the slightest inkling that the Moon landings were faked the Soviets would have exposed it. Instead they tried to cover up their own failed attempts at putting a man on the Moon by claiming they were not even trying to do so – a fact that we now know to be untrue. They had a very aggressive manned lunar programme.


In 1994 an article was published in the Fortean Times that stated: ‘. . . mankind has no proof at all that we ever set foot on the Moon, other than the photographs that NASA elected to publish.’ A bold, but false statement. We have the testimonies of those who went there, of those thousands of individuals who played their part in getting them there, the photographic evidence, the rock samples, and the video and audio evidence are all overpowering proofs. None of the so-called ‘anomalies’ presented by the Apollo sceptics as clear evidence of a gigantic conspiracy stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, they highlight an ignorance of scientific principles, a lack of critical thinking, sloppy research, and omission of facts that run contrary to their cherished beliefs. To date, the conspiracy community, regarding the Moon landings, has produced no irrefutable evidence.

Conversely, NASA have recently released new images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) that show quite clearly several of the Apollo landing sights from orbit that shows not only footprints and tyre tracks, but also the paraphenalia they left behind.

Apollo 11 Landing Site

orbital photo of Apollo 11 landing site


This image shows tracks left behind by the lunar roving vehicle (LRV), and foot tracks left by the astronauts.

It is true to say that this article is by no means a thorough and exhaustive examination of the conspiracy theory. To do it justice would have resulted in a tome of many thousands of words, which I leave to those more qualified to do. However, I trust it has brought to the readers’ attentions the cautionary note that it is wise to question what the experts tell us and not accept blindly what they say. But that it is equally as wise to question those who question the experts. If, however, you still maintain that man has never set foot on the Moon, then perhaps I could interest you in a bridge I have for sale.

Neil Alden Armstrong was the command pilot on Apollo XI and was the first man to step foot on the Moon on the Sunday evening of July 20, 1969. He famously said, ‘That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.’ In total he and Aldrin spent 22 hrs on the Moon.

neil rmstrong


When Buzz Aldrin was asked during an interview how he felt about claims that he and Armstrong never went to the Moon he replied, ‘Well it’s a waste of my time. Idon’t have much respect for the people who entertain that thinking and generally am not interested in engaging in any discourse with them. All that does is encourage them and it’s not going to change their thinking at all.’

buzz aldrin

© David Calvert 2011

 Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.



David Calvert

The Milky Way galaxy

It is estimated that within our galaxy alone there are approximately four hundred thousand million stars, and where there are stars there may be planets similar to that of our home world. It is in these vast reaches of space that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is being conducted.

It is generally accepted within the scientific mainstream that intelligent life does not exist within the confines of our Solar System because of the data received from probes sent out to our neighbouring worlds. But what if that data was flawed or, worse still, falsified in order to maintain that belief? Could intelligent life be much closer to home than we think, or are led to believe? Thanks to Joseph P. Skipper, et al, truths are emerging into the public domain that there may well indeed be intelligent life in our Solar System, and that they occupy our distant planetary neighbour Mars.

Skipper was an insurance investigator with an interest in space exploration and decades of investigative experience behind him. It was after viewing an official science data strip that his ‘suspicion meter’ started rising. He knew that what he was looking at was not any kind of natural geology, but evidence of life on the supposedly dead and inhospitable planet. ‘If no natural geological explanation fits’, he contends, ‘then one logically has to consider seriously that these anomalies are forms created by life of some kind.’ If this is true then why has NASA failed to report such a startling discovery to the media? The answer to that question may lie in a report prepared for NASA by the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, on November 30, 1960 and titled, Proposed Studies On The Peaceful Space Activities For Human Affairs.


brookingOn page 215 of the document it names the Moon, Mars or Venus as possible candidates where artefacts left by life forms may be discovered. It goes on to say, ‘Anthropological files contain many examples of societies sure in their place in the universe, which had disintegrated when they 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 behaviour.’ It then suggests two areas of study, the first dealing with the emotional and intellectual consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life, the second dealing with the behaviour of peoples and their leaders when confronted with such a discovery. Questions arising from these studies, it suggests, would include: ‘how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends?’ Tellingly, on page 225 this sentence appears: ‘It has been speculated that of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures’.


Sixteen years later the McDaniel report was published. It is a scathing indictment of NASA’s handling of the scientific Mars data. In his Executive Summary, McDaniel McDaniel Reportwrites of the extensive analysis of the 1976 Viking Mars mission photographs of the Cydonia region, carried out by independent investigators who concluded that the photographs appeared to be evidence that some landforms could be artificial. To date, NASA still insists that there is no credible evidence of artificiality. ‘NASA has regularly sent false and misleading statements regarding the  landforms to members of Congress and their constituents.’ writes McDaniel. ‘Furthermore, they have condoned efforts to unfairly ridicule and discredit independent researchers, and have insisted that there is a “scientific consensus” that the landforms are natural – despitethe fact that the only real scientific study of the landforms indicates a clear possibility that they are artificial.’

Clearly, the Brooking Report was instrumental in NASA’s decision making in order to avoid political change and the devastating effect it would have upon the scientists themselves. Such a discovery, after all, would put at risk their own cherished theories and funding. What is more, NASA’s behaviour regarding the Martian objects is in direct conflict of their policy that a ‘verified discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all humanity.’

Admiral Inman NSAWhat may come as a real eye opener to many is that the real control of the Mars exploration does not rest with NASA but with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and its partners. It was discovered that  Navy Admiral, “Bobby” Inman a famous and skilled ‘super spook’, was chairing the JPL oversight committee in secret. When this was discovered a high-ranking NASA official ousted him. Under the ‘super spooks’ control however the Mars exploration programme had been effectively hijacked and had become subservient to a possible military agenda for, perhaps, the acquirement of extraterrestrial technology.

Let’s not forget Operation Paperclip, at the closing of WWII, when the Soviets and Western allied forces became involved in a race to seize top ranking German scientists and their rocket technology documents.


Mars. The Living PlanetMars appears red to us because its surface is largely composed of red iron oxide dust, commonly referred to as rust. Its atmospheric composition – so we have been led to believe – is 95% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and 0.7% oxygen, carbon monoxide, and water vapour. Its atmosphere is therefore poisonous to human life. Prior to January 10, 2004, NASA had released images showing an orange or red sky. The images had been doctored to give the appearance of a lifeless and dead planet. In reality the first colour image from Mars, taken by Viking Lander I in 1976, showed a beautiful blue sky. The landscape of brown and reddish soil was littered with rocks with patches of green on them. The world never got to see these images because according to the men who worked at the Viking Image Formatting and Processing section of JPL they were ordered to destroy the Mars blue sky negative and to falsely redden the images to make it look like there was no life, no green algae or lichen. The book, Mars The Living Planet, by Barry Digregorio, Dr. Gilbert Levin, and Dr. Pat Straat, tells of how the tests carried out by Viking Lander were rigged to deny life.


Over twenty years ago Viking principal investigator, Norman Horowitz, stated that ‘liquid water does not exist on the surface of Mars … Without liquid water life as we know it cannot exist.’ Thus he established the paradigm of a barren Mars today. Mars’ atmospheric pressure on average is about six millibars. Its average temperature is about -60° C. Because of the low atmospheric pressure and low surface temperature water can only exist as ice or vapour. However, at certain times and locations on the planet, when the air pressure and temperature are high enough, it is theoretically possible for liquid water to exist, but its evaporation rate would be so great that it would quickly vaporise.

From the above and other scientific data we are indoctrinated into believing Mars is a hard frozen wilderness. Its temperature is not only cold enough to freeze water. 3-5 times over but also cold enough to freeze CO2 as snow right out of the atmosphere. And yet there are images that refute these scientific tenets and suggest that the Martian atmospheric temperature conditions are not nearly as bad and hostile to life as officially promoted by NASA, JPL, et al.

Water is a prerequisite for life and it is perhaps telling that in images of standing liquid water on Mars there is also prima-facie evidence of civilisation around these bodies of water, despite attempts to hide it beneath layers of image tampering techniques, as shown in Skipper’s second report image at


The reflections in the water and the surrounding rectangular structures surrounding the ‘reservoir’ become more distinct when one inverts the colours. To counter the argument that Skipper is himself responsible for the image tampering, he has provided documentation at the end of each report so one can check behind him to confirm and validate that the official NASA science data is as he received it. You will require a graphics software programme such as PhotoShop, however, to analyze the images.


As one might imagine, where there is water there should be biological life too. There are many images showing what appears to be vegetation, only on a vast scale in comparison to what we see on Earth. NASA dismisses these as ‘geological structures’ or ‘rock formations’. When shown similar images the late Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer and father of global communications, likened them to Earth’s Banyan trees and repeatedly supported the idea that some of the images can only be reasonably interpreted in terms of vegetation.



Our only natural satellite, the Moon, has come under similar suspicion of photographic tampering as the images on Skipper’s site show quite clearly. Vast towers and rectangular forms have been subjected to smudge tampering techniques. However, early imaging techniques were not as sophisticated as today’s and some of these forms can clearly be seen poking through and, in some instances, left out completely. If they are merely geological forms then why have the powers that be gone to such lengths to hide them?

Moon structure


In the 1970s satellite imaging resolution limits available to the military were equal to, if not better than, those being released today. Are we to believe that up-to-date and state-of-the-art Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) and Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) satellite imaging systems are inferior to those of some forty years ago and that there have been no significant technological advancements in this area over that period of time? It is unreasonable to assume that JPL, with its heavy military connections and funding and at a cost of billions of dollars, would do such a thing. Certainly, much of the image tampering has been done at closer resolutions than is being admitted to. The question still remains; why would they go to such great expense and trouble to hide the evidence? And what do the images contain that they are so afraid to show us?


Truth, as defined in the Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary, is ‘That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.’ and scientific method as ‘The totality of principles and processes regarded as characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation …’ But where is the truth in planetary exploration? Has it become subservient to the military industrial complex with its own secret agendas, of which President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961? And what regard is there for scientific principle as elitist scientists embroil themselves in this web of intrigue?

Truth, it would seem, has become the first casualty in this war of fact and falsehood. But the truth, whatever it may ultimately prove to be, is out there for those who wish to seek it: a grass roots movement that is gathering momentum and members thanks to the likes of Joseph P. Skipper and others.

New facts have come to light since I first wrote this blog which suggest that more recent pictures, which purportedly show surface water, skeletal remains, and living creatures, on the Martian surface. The following links below show a few images of said anomalies. Were they taken on Mars or somewhere much closer? .If the latter case is true then some of the above images are questionable.





© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.