UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored Photos, and the Face on Mars by Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern announces his latest, new book:

Click here for Nasa book cover

This week, I'm pleased to announce, New Page Books have published my new book, The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored Photos, and the Face on Mars. I was asked to write an article about the book as part of the publicity campaign, and I am attaching that article for you, in Word format.

Click here for the article (in WORD format)

If you would like to reproduce this article at your website, magazine, or blog, you are very welcome too. I am also attaching the book cover image (see above), which you are also very welcome to reproduce.Click here for the article (in WORD format) Some of you on this list will be receiving copies of the book direct from me.

However, if I have not yet contacted you about that, and you would like a review copy of the book for your blog, website, magazine or radio/TV show, please contact Amanda at Warwick Associates at: warwick@vom.com and title the email "Nick Redfern's The NASA Conspiracies," and include your mailing address, and details of your site/radio show etc, Amanda will be pleased to mail you a review copy.

17 Comments:

  • Word format? Are you joking?

    By Blogger Andrew, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • Is Nick Redfern saying that these conspiracists operate within NASA? There will always be a few people inclined this way when you consider how large an organisation NASA is. Likewise there will be some on the outside who say things like "there are secret groups within NASA who know the Apollo landings were faked, the Face on Mars is real and so on but who are sworn to secrecy".

    I presume Nick's book exposes this twaddle for what it is, and (I hope) concentrates on separating the truth from the fiction.

    Yes, of course there are people in NASA who believe ETs have paid the earth a visit, maybe in UFOs or maybe in ancient times. Thus, however way out your views are, it is a near certainty that you can find someone, maybe even a high-up person, in a large organisation like NASA, who supports your views, and who therefore can leak 'secret information' to you.

    But of course I have not read Nick's book, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut until I do.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • Thanks Nick, this looks like an interesting read. I have requested a review copy. I have also reprinted your article in its entirety here:

    http://aftercontact.org/2010/11/nasa-secrecy-a-legacy-of-cold-war-1950s-think-tanks/


    Best regards

    By Anonymous Kris, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • CDA:

    The book isn't designed to uphold all the so-called Conspiracies. It takes what I hope is a rational approach to it all.

    So, I conclude in the book that the Moon Landings DID got ahead, and I personally think the idea that they were hoaxed is total nonsense.

    I also got hold, via FOIA, of extensive files from the FBI showing how they had investigated both Space Shuttle explosions, because people were theorizing that they were caused by sabotage (terrorists, laser-weaponry - all sorts of things). The files make it clear there was NO conspiracy - it was all accident.

    As for the Face on Mars, I'm unsure what it is/shows, but I interviewed the late Mac Tonnies for the book on this issue, and he felt that rather than engaging in some huge conspiracy, NASA just does not want to deal with the issue of the Face.

    So, certain parts of the book negate the idea of the conspiracies having any validity.

    Some others, such as certain UFO cases as having a conspiratorial angle, I don't rule out.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • What Andrew said.

    Only a hard copy publisher would choose Word.

    Hope it is interesting.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • It is not clear, but I assume everything after the first paragraph in Kris' link is Nick's article.

    I've got a few lines of research going as a result of wondering how and why the US Air Force did not become the US Aerospace Force, and why a civilian agency (NASA) was created. So, this will be an interesting read.

    Doctrinally, sometime after Sputnik (possibly in less than 30 seconds) the AF realized that air and space were in the same domain.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • U S Aerospace Force?
    This sounds too much like space war. Does any other country have an 'aerospace force'? The RAF, RCAF, RAAF, etc have all kept their forces as "Air Force".

    We are not yet waging space wars!

    By the way, when did the ATIC (at Dayton) become the Aerospace Technical Intelligence Center?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • CDA: "U S Aerospace Force?
    This sounds too much like space war."

    It sounds like a branch of service in which space -- think rockets, satellites, space stations, and vehicles (operating in the full domain) and air are considered to be the same domain for operations.

    It never happened, but the concept, if not as doctrine, was accepted by the USAF in the mid-1950s. Sputnik was probably the straw that broke the resistance to the concept.

    A few years earlier when the US Navy attempted to get an official monopoly on earth orbit satellites was a wakeup call for the AF, I think, as much as Sputnik.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • CDA, Nick,

    I would very much like to discuss this, and I do intend to buy the book. Even if it isn't on-point for my research, it will likely cover things, I might otherwise not look into.

    However, on this side of the pond, it is Thanksgiving and We're due at my sister's for turkey.

    Until later

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • Don:

    Nick is on this side of "The Pond" and enjoying Thanksgiving also.

    CDA is Turkey-free, fortunately.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, November 25, 2010  

  • As far as I have seen, the term Aerospace Forces has been cooking for a long time, and it continues to resurge, but never quite takes hold.

    Hope everyones's Thanksgiving Holiday was a good one.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Friday, November 26, 2010  

  • >Sourcerer said...

    > CDA: "U S Aerospace Force?
    > This sounds too much like space war."

    We do have, of course, the US Space Command, out of Colorado Springs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Command

    And the Air Force has been flying (and still flies) shuttles out of Vandenberg AFB for years.

    Perhaps this is not what you meant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, November 26, 2010  

  • "Air and Space are not two separate media to be divided by a line and to be
    readily separated into two distinct categories; they are in truth a single indivisible
    field of operations. Space is the natural and logical extension of air; space power
    is merely the cumulative result of the evolutionary growth of air power... Precisely
    speaking, we are and have been operating in the “Aerospace Age.”"
    U.S. Air
    Force’s Chief of Staff, General Thomas D. White, 1958 National Press Club speech.





    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, November 26, 2010  

  • I'm surprised CDA responded as he did to my comment that the AAC became the 'air' force and not the 'aerospace' force.

    The quotation in the previous comment occurs between Sputnik and NASA, in 1958. He is complaining about the news media's expression "Space Age" and it being a new era. He is arguing that "space" is part of the air force's concept since the Wright brothers, and that the domain is aerospace.

    In Congressional testimony, the Army, argued against the notion that a branch of service should have overall responsibility for space as the USAF was claiming.

    Since CDA has shown he's got lots of information at hand and knows how to research, and has shown this regarding US military, I'm having to conclude that the history of the USAF and the aerospace concept is pretty unfamiliar here.

    It was unfamiliar to me up to a few weeks ago. I began poking at the inter and intra service politics due to Tony Bragalia's article here on Wright and McCoy at the NICAP meeting, so I'm no expert.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, November 26, 2010  

  • NSC 5814, established as
    national policy on 20 June 1958, explicitly denied the USAF's contention that space was in their domain.

    Above earth's surface was “divided into two regions: ‘air space’ and ‘outer space.’” and that they were not an “indivisible field of operations.”

    US national policy was that space would
    be used only for peaceful purposes, which directly contradicts the doctrine that space was in the domain of a branch of service, or even of all branches of service.

    The following week saw the establishment of the civilian agency NASA.

    How did the USAF manage to lose control of the initiative? I'm only beginning to look into that. It seems, so far, that although they held the concept, the air force let it lie unless another branch of service claimed anything in the space domain. Otherwise, they were not proactive. When Sputnik happened the USAF had nothing to show to Congress or the White House, or the public, so space was taken off their plate.

    Perhaps this political disaster for the USAF is an unintended consequence of their hardnosed attitude to UFO studies. Using Sign and Grudge as a template, they might have purged the officers and scientists who were most capable of conceptualizing "aerospace".

    1958 was way too late for the USAF to begin to become proactive on the concept of a unified domain of air and space.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, November 26, 2010  

  • while the USAF did not have de-jure military control over space, it certainly had de-facto control.

    The year 1958 is interesting, because even though we were experimenting with large scale rockets, the first operational ICBM, Atlas-D, did not go into service until 1959.

    However, SAC, which is of course a sub-command of the USAF, did have full control of the ballistic missile force in 1959 (which was at that time, the extent of our space warring capability) and later, and the USAF has not relinquished it since, tranferring the mission first to Space Command and then to the Air Force Global Strike Command.

    Combined that with the Air Force's space shuttle activities, over teh last 30 years, and imho, there's no question that the USAF both intended, and has a long standing capability, to operate in both theaters, even if it never explicitly declared the fact.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, November 27, 2010  

  • errr yeah thats right. theres no conspiracies. NASA like the other companies of men are just darlings and would NEVER, i mean neve---errrrrr conspire against us. Lie and have secrets......??? ohhh the THOUGHT of such a LIE being told against these 'persons' (pass me my smellin salts Maude!)

    By Blogger muzuzuzus, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home