(Part 2 of Hoagland article)

(*Picture: 4822 - the photo where Hoagland found ground for many of his thesis about artificial structures on the Moon)

Also in the studio are Ken Johnston who was the person within Brown-Root & Northrope who was in charge of collecting all the pictures and other infomation, under contract with NASA in the 60's.
Ken Johnston visited one of Hoaglands "Mars/Moon Connection"-lectures where he was introduced to Hoagland and thereby Hoagland had access to Johnstons private collection of around 500-1000 photo-originals from the Apollo-missions. He also found out that Johnston had stored all the photos and other material from the Apollo-missions at his old school which is located almost on the otherside of the building that was blow in Oklahoma City last year.
Johnston says that his pictures are originals from the first stage in the copy-process, but according to NASA-material it is a third generation from the process as the originals is kept on magnetic-tape and from that became positive transparents, and then became negatives that Johnston has. An employee (according to the man himself) at the National Space Science Data Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, USA, says in a public letter to Hoagland that his pictures are NOTáoriginals and that it is scratches and "smudge", from 25 years of use, on the third generation copys that Hoagland claims is "structures" and anomalies. He also says that there's only one original of each photo in the catalogue, while Hoagland claims he has found several different photos under the same catalogue-number and that there is as many as 10 different versions of the most disputed photo - 4822. The anonnymous person at National Space Science Data Center says it isn't true, so word stand against word. But as long as the NASA-man remains anonymous, the issue is a dead end.
Hoagland is supporting his claims by showing two different, according to himself, photos of the same anomalie by NASA. Hoagland came aware of this when a student (Cook) who visited one of his lectures took him by his word and ordered a copy of his own of 4822 from NASA. He then contacted Hoagland complaining about the bad quality and that it wasn't the same copy. As the price of these photos has risen with 800% the last years, no one can blame him for being pissed off as he was living on a students budget. Hoagland belives that the differences between the pictures are because they were taken in sequence, with other words, different pictures of the same anomalie, but from different angles. This claim is supported by Ken Johnston, but is rejected by the anonymous person at the National Space Science Data Center.

The person behind the public letter to Hoagland adds that the only true originals is located at Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, USA. The magnetic-tapes with the raw-data is wheathering away, and NASA knows this, but says their budget don't allowe them to restore the tapes (!!!) NASA has been accused by Hoagland to have misplaced a number of frames, one of them are 4822. Hoagland also accuses NASA to have delayed his orders of frames in order to prevent him to make an comparison to Johnstons copies before the press-meeting. And the frame-numbers on Johnstons private "firsthand"-negatives has different framenumbers than those that are available for the public use, according to Hoagland.

(*Picture: Is this a retouched photo by NASA? The picture, AS10-32-4822, to the left is from Goddard Spce Center, the one to the right is from Houston arcive. Hoagland belives that the reflection is by a huge glass-debris.)

Hoagland don't want to go as far as to say that NASA has polished their pictures to prevent the public to find anomalies, but at the same time he posts this picture (se above) that has nothing unusual on the Goddard Space Centers copy, but on the Houstons-copy has a reflection of something that Hoagland belives is a huge glass-debris and points at the possibilty that NASA has retouched it to hide the fact. Personally I think it looks like another photo taken in a sequence as I feel that it's been taken from a slightly more above angle (if you loook at the shadows) and therefor the "reflection" is gone. But that doesn't explain what the reflection on the Houston-copy might be.
One of Hoaglands goals with the press-meeting was to prove that the Clementine-pictures is withheld by NASA. Clementine was a military DOD, hightech sattelite which took more than 1,8 million pictures of Lunar-surface images from its elliptical polar orbit.And the assignement (according to the military) was to: Test advanced scanning technology, which included to map the moon by photography, and to look for minerals with help of infra-red scanning. The shuttle dissapeared as a computer who controlled the shuttles fuel-injection broke down (according to military announcement). This mailfunction made it impossible for Clementine to photograph the "sensitive areas" where Hoagland claim there are artificial structures. As far as I know there is 88 CD-ROMs with the 1,8 million pictures Clementine took before it dissapeared behind the Moon available for anyone to buy. Articles has been published in scientific literature. But the fact that hits me when I check on the pictures over the web, is that they are of poor quality compared to the old pictures from the 60's that Hoagland has! Wasn't Clementine carrying an extremely high-resolution camera to map the surface?

One of the things that I find exremely odd that Hoagland haven't brought up is the NASA Technical report R-277 from 1968, where NASA discuss over 500 anomalies on the Moon. I have recived a short article from Ed Stewart (with the help of Michael Lindemann of ISCNI and Stanton T. Friedman) where you can read more about it. When I turn to Hoaglands assistent, Gene B. McCarty, and asks him about this, he only mails me the name and state where I can find Michael Lindemann. Perhaps we missunderstood eachother.

But what does the astronauts say about their meeting with these "artificial structures"?
One of them is Ed Mitchell. He was aboard Apollo 14 and are the person (along with partner Alan Bean) that is most frequently shown infront of "anomalies", some of them which Hoagland claims are several kilometers high glass-dome-structures where Bean and Mitchell is standing under, structures they couldn't have missed.
Ed Mitchell was also interviewed by Art Bell regarding his claims of human contact with extraterristriell civilisations and he totaly denies the whole idea:

-The only big suprise was that it was much more difficult to navigate than we thought.
- The kindest thing that can be said is what the Washington Post said. It's green cheese and balony - it simply is not true. It's psuedo science, it's just nonsense..

And in a interview with the UFOlogist Linda Howe (mutilation-researcher) Mitchell once again says that Hoaglands claims are just not there. But at the same time he reveals that he has been in contact with people who claims that the Belgium, (ex.) Soviet and American governments have had direct contact and exchange with aliens. As a source for this remarkable claims Mitchell says he has friends within the US agencys a.o.
On the question if he has been confronted by any government people for this knowledge he says:

- No, but I'm expecting it. (chuckles).
If you're expecting it, what's your response gonna be?
- Go to Hell...
And you feel this strongly now, because why?
- The evidence is mounting...

In the Art Bell interview Mitchells coments of Hoagland finally drops down to such a level they had to be censured. Or what do you say about this:
- Hoagland must have been masturbating too much and whakened his brain cells out of his little pecker.

As Art Bell himself seems to starting to lose faith was a blow to Hoagland. If it was caused by some child-admiration for this pioneer of space, or due to himself loosing faith in Hoagland, we don't know. And if that was the reason to him dropping the "anomalies"-question immediately as Mitchell denied it, we also can't tell. But Bell said that it wasn't any use to bring the matter further as Mitchell wasn't on the same "wavelength". Mitchells partner on Apollo 14, Alan Bean, backs him up when it comes to rejecting to have seen any structures at all on the Moon.

On to part 3 of this article

Back to content menu