Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mentalcase

Maurice Chatelain

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mentalcase

Hello!

I've just picked up the book "Our ancestors came from outer space" written by Maurice Chatelain.

Some very interesting concepts in this book, including information about the Apollo missions etc. Maurice has an extensive background with NASA. He was the former Chief of NASA communication systems. He started his career with NASA to help create the Apollo program.

All in all, he has some wild ideas. And while I am very skeptical of the AAT, I find his speculations and knowledge fascinating. I've had this book on my shelf for a long time!! I've ran into his theories and discoveries some time ago, but had forgotten his influence with the AAT.

I'm here asking what you all think? Was he qualified enough to make these wild assertions? What truth is there to what he says? I would think some of what he says, has some ground. I've noticed though, that everything he stated, as far as astronauts UFO experiences goes, was mostly second hand knowledge. Although, I'm sure he was in the right place to actually hear some of the most speculative stuff while at Houston during the Apollo missions.

He is also well known for his work on the "Great Constant of the solar system". Which he almost basically proves that thousands years ago, man had known the orbits of all the bodies in the solar systems, including comets, planets, massive asteroids, etc. This section of the book interested me more-so then others, so far..

I've only just started reading, so I'm sure I'll have more questions. WIKI doesn't have any info on his page, which is actually kinda mysterious. The internet is full of half truths regarding him. His book, on the other hand, seems more informative. Perhaps I can search for a biography.

Thanks in advance!

Edited by Mentalcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

I think no amount of qualifications need necessarily be a guarantee against having, perhaps, slightly :unsure2: opinions. Look at how often John Lear's qualifications are trotted out to support his arguments, or how Stanton Friedman is never referred to, by those who agree with him,as Stanton Friedman, but always "Nuclear Physicist Stanton Friedman". And Steven Greer, there's another one, or "physician, ufologist, author, lecturer and founder of the Orion Project and The Disclosure Project" Steven Greer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

I think no amount of qualifications need necessarily be a guarantee against having, perhaps, slightly :unsure2: opinions. Look at how often John Lear's qualifications are trotted out to support his arguments, or how Stanton Friedman is never referred to, by those who agree with him,as Stanton Friedman, but always "Nuclear Physicist Stanton Friedman". And Steven Greer, there's another one, or "physician, ufologist, author, lecturer and founder of the Orion Project and The Disclosure Project" Steven Greer.

That's a great point. I guess my point is more focused on NASA in particular. I can imagine the secrecy involved if there were such instances in the space program. We've all heard the endless amounts of UFO encounters in the space program. This concerns me deeply. When people that are more qualified to speak on the matter, say they've seen things, it should be of utmost importance. And Friedman is a joke, I agree. LOL

I've noticed there always seems to be more and more people from NASA coming forth stating some strange things. For the record, I do not believe we are being visited, but I can't disagree either. :hmm:

Edited by Mentalcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

No one here knows of this man? I was hoping to maybe get Skyeagle, McGruffin or someone with the same interests to speak of him. I can't believe I haven't ran into this guy's name before. I did a forum search before I made this thread, but it was all jumbled in other threads. With the same basic info this book provides. New information or even a debunking by a skeptic would suffice. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

No one here knows of this man? I was hoping to maybe get Skyeagle, McGruffin or someone with the same interests to speak of him. I can't believe I haven't ran into this guy's name before. I did a forum search before I made this thread, but it was all jumbled in other threads. With the same basic info this book provides. New information or even a debunking by a skeptic would suffice. :)

I too am waiting fo rthe bolded part, nice thread by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

I too am waiting fo rthe bolded part, nice thread by the way.

Thanks Quillius!

Yea, as I am reading he goes over some of the more redundant ideas that go with the unexplained, (I.E. Mayan Calender). He really only goes over the math, not really into major speculation, which makes some of his prior chapters seem even more useful/interesting. I probably read two chapters a day, then research the claims myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I think I've seen him in a documentary or two, but I haven't read anything by him. Any opinion I offered would be uninformed. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

Thanks Quillius!

Yea, as I am reading he goes over some of the more redundant ideas that go with the unexplained, (I.E. Mayan Calender). He really only goes over the math, not really into major speculation, which makes some of his prior chapters seem even more useful/interesting. I probably read two chapters a day, then research the claims myself.

Sounds like you are doing it the right way mate.

I started by reading stitchins book, got half way then thought I would research a little, ended up here....never finished the book :)

Do let us know howit is once finished as I may purchase it as it sounds like an interesting read so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

Sure thing Quillius!

I just read through the Great Pyramid section and the Maltese Cross. Interesting math, to say the least. It seems he was thinking about these mysteries mathematically, instead of with folklore, etc. There seems to be a common factor between many Earth ruins (based on an ancient ruler of sorts). Not sure how official his findings were, considering he isn't quoted much with these places. But it is interesting to note, that The Constant Of Nineveh seems to be spread through-out the ancient world.

With the link above, don't mind the douche on the left! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maat

Thank you for starting this thread, it's very timely for me to find it. You see, I have been looking very closely at the work of Chatelain, as it may have a significant bearing on my research and findings relating to music. But that's irrelavant. With regard to Chatelain, I have to say that at this point I am rather skeptical of his findings. Bear in mind, however, that I have only had access to secondary sources so far, and it appears that my local library has actually lost the only copy of one of his major works (Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space), so I'm hoping that I may be able to glean some more information here as well.

To my understanding, Chatelain postulated that the Nineveh Constant (NC) was expressed in units of the seconds, modern seconds, but the Babylonians did not express time in modern seconds. Instead of 24 hours, they divided the day into 60 "hours," and further subdivided by 60 to obtain other units of time. In this sense, there were 3,600 "minutes" and 216,000 "seconds" in a day (although they used a value called a "barleycorn" that is equivalent to about 3&1/2 modern seconds). Chatelain's calculations are thus inconsistent in that they rely on the modern day second of approximately 1/86,400 of a day. Also, as you know, he calculated that all of the orbital periods of the planets, down to the forth decimal place, could be expressed as whole-number cycles of the NC. However, being such a large number, (195,955,200,000,000) each subsequent division of the constant produces minute changes in the result that is being compared to the orbital periods. In other words, it's very easy to make anything seem to fit with this constant (you can see this for yourself by taking one of the whole-number cycles of the NC, increasing or decreasing it by one, and dividing it into the NC to obtain a new value for the orbital period of the planet in question in very close approximation). Furthermore, I wonder how much asteroid impacts effect the orbital periods of planets, which has a bearing on how relative Chatelain's research and his tables for the orbital periods are--if this constant was being used as claimed thousands of years ago. But again, all of the sources so far for Chatelain's work that I have found have been secondary, and even though right now I'm very skeptical about his work, I believe it deserves a closer look.

Does he, to your knowledge, explain any of these apparent issues that I've laid out here?

Thanks,

Maat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMcGuffin

This is what I know about Maurice Chatelain, who stated that there were aliens living on the moon, using it as a base.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/moon.html

He is often listed as a NASA Communications Director, although there is no record of this in the personnel who actually worked there in 1969.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol3/table4.2.htm

NASA's history website doesn't list him at all.

In 1979, Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. "The encounter was common knowledge in NASA," he revealed, "but nobody has talked about it until now."

Soviet scientists were allegedly the first to confirm the incident. "According to our information, the encounter was reported immediately after the landing of the module," said Dr. Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at Moscow University. "Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. But his message was never heard by the public-because NASA censored it. "

According to another Soviet scientist, Dr. Aleksandr Kazantsev, Buzz Aldrin took color movie film of the UFOs from inside the module, and continued filming them after he and Armstrong went outside. Dr. Azhazha claims that the UFOs departed minutes after the astronauts came out on to the lunar surface.

Maurice Chatelain also confirmed that Apollo 11's radio transmissions were interrupted on several occasions in order to hide the news from the public. Before dismissing Chatelain's sensational claims, it is worth noting his impressive background in the aerospace industry and space program. His first job after moving from France was as an electronics engineer with Convair, specializing in telecommunications, telemetry, and radar. In 1959 he was in charge of an electromagnetic research group, developing new radar and telecommunications systems for Ryan. One of his eleven patents was an automatic flights to the Moon. Later, at North American Aviation, Chatelain was offered the job of designing and building the Apollo communications and data-processing systems.

Chatelain claims that "all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin-flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence." He goes on to say:

"I think that Walter Schirra aboard Mercury 8 was the first of the astronauts to use the code name 'Santa Claus' to indicate the presence of flying saucers next to space capsules. However, his announcements were barely noticed by the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Religious Hoax

FYI, Chatelain is used as a source in the book I'm reading, 'Missing Times'. He claims he was hired as a contractor due to his knowledge of remote landing engineering for lunar surface. Terry Hansen speculates he came forward due to the fact he isn't a US citizen, so no oaths of secrecy could be bound to him. Given this, it wouldn't surprise me if the US government erased all of his data and history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

Thank you for starting this thread, it's very timely for me to find it. You see, I have been looking very closely at the work of Chatelain, as it may have a significant bearing on my research and findings relating to music. But that's irrelavant. With regard to Chatelain, I have to say that at this point I am rather skeptical of his findings. Bear in mind, however, that I have only had access to secondary sources so far, and it appears that my local library has actually lost the only copy of one of his major works (Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space), so I'm hoping that I may be able to glean some more information here as well.

To my understanding, Chatelain postulated that the Nineveh Constant (NC) was expressed in units of the seconds, modern seconds, but the Babylonians did not express time in modern seconds. Instead of 24 hours, they divided the day into 60 "hours," and further subdivided by 60 to obtain other units of time. In this sense, there were 3,600 "minutes" and 216,000 "seconds" in a day (although they used a value called a "barleycorn" that is equivalent to about 3&1/2 modern seconds). Chatelain's calculations are thus inconsistent in that they rely on the modern day second of approximately 1/86,400 of a day. Also, as you know, he calculated that all of the orbital periods of the planets, down to the forth decimal place, could be expressed as whole-number cycles of the NC. However, being such a large number, (195,955,200,000,000) each subsequent division of the constant produces minute changes in the result that is being compared to the orbital periods. In other words, it's very easy to make anything seem to fit with this constant (you can see this for yourself by taking one of the whole-number cycles of the NC, increasing or decreasing it by one, and dividing it into the NC to obtain a new value for the orbital period of the planet in question in very close approximation). Furthermore, I wonder how much asteroid impacts effect the orbital periods of planets, which has a bearing on how relative Chatelain's research and his tables for the orbital periods are--if this constant was being used as claimed thousands of years ago. But again, all of the sources so far for Chatelain's work that I have found have been secondary, and even though right now I'm very skeptical about his work, I believe it deserves a closer look.

Does he, to your knowledge, explain any of these apparent issues that I've laid out here?

Thanks,

Maat

I know exactly what you mean by secondary accounts. I've been flustered over the amount of nothing regarding him! lol

I'm going to grab my book and try and answer your questions. I'll first try and find an e-book link or something. I'm not great at math. I do understand what you meant by the numbers above and how his system pretty much allows any number to work within it. I do not think that is the case, just a gut feeling. So, I will try and figure this out.

My initial interest in him was based on the fact that there's little to no information available. Plus his hand in the apollo missions has sparked a keen interest. I'll try to respond faster, my topic notifications haven't been activated.

Thanks for your reply!

Same for TheMcGuffin & TRH!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

http://archive.alienzoo.com/conspiracytheory/astronautsandufos.html

http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=36

The last one has info on the Constant of Nineveh. I think I may have posted this link before. Unfortunately David Icke runs this site :mellow: , Divine Cosmos. ehh. I think he covers most of that chapter. So check it out and let me know if this is sufficient enough, other wise, Ill have to copy from my book. I can't find a PDF yet. :rofl:

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paxus

Interesting stuff guys.

I find it frustrating that we can't even seem to know, for certain, if he worked for NASA or didn't work for NASA.

Surely EVERYONE who worked for NASA during the famed moon landing would be well documented...?

*goes off to do some googling*

[good grief.... there is something wrong with the internet, when after googling, 'nasa staff during moon landing' all I get is moon landing hoax sites!]

Question: Who says Maurice Chatelain worked for NASA?

My searches so far....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?centername=&nasaInclude=Maurice+Chatelain

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1132043/bio <-- imdb??

(and note how here it says, "Although he is usually identified as a "former NASA Chief of Communications," especially by UFOlogists, other sources claim he was merely "a low-level engineer who worked for a NASA sub-contractor."

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMcGuffin

Interesting stuff guys.

I did a search at the NASA History Office but could not find Maurice Chatelain. There is an M.A. Chatelain listed as an author of articles, but not as an employee, and I'm not even sure this is the same person.

http://search.nasa.gov/search/advSearch.jsp?start=&filter=0&spell=&nasaInclude=maurice+chatelain&qx=&qt=all&qm=anywhere&dt=at&recPerPg=10&dtype=on&dn1=nasa.gov&dn=nasa.gov&displayFormat=detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paxus

I think it's safe to say that Maurice Chatelain was never directly employed by NASA.

This is not to say that he wasn't ever eployed by a sub contractor of NASA.... who knows?... But certainly all those UFO sites which quote him as some high up 'comms chief' are outright fabrications :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maat

Thanks MentalCase,

Here is a link to the document that I based some of my information off of: document (word format) Check out page 18 in particular. With regards to the link to David Wilcock's site (not David Icke, by the way), if that pretty much sums up Chatelain's work with regard to the Nineveh Constant, then I must conclude that it is far too questionable for me to use in my research. Funny thing is, this was the secondary source from which I discovered Chatelain's work. It has been very frustrating for me to follow up on this and much of the other information spouted by Wilcock in that e-book only to find that it has been highly exaggerated by him in the service of making his point. I find a lot of merit and reason to pursue some of the overall theories presented by both Wilcock and Chatelain, but being overzealous has caused both of them to play a little "fast and loose" with the numbers.

Edited by Maat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

Thanks MentalCase,

Here is a link to the document that I based some of my information off of: document (word format) Check out page 18 in particular. With regards to the link to David Wilcock's site (not David Icke, by the way), if that pretty much sums up Chatelain's work with regard to the Nineveh Constant, then I must conclude that it is far too questionable for me to use in my research. Funny thing is, this was the secondary source from which I discovered Chatelain's work. It has been very frustrating for me to follow up on this and much of the other information spouted by Wilcock in that e-book only to find that it has been highly exaggerated by him in the service of making his point. I find a lot of merit and reason to pursue some of the overall theories presented by both Wilcock and Chatelain, but being overzealous has caused both of them to play a little "fast and loose" with the numbers.

LOL @ my ICke typo! Too funny!!

This sucks, I have a feeling the guy is genuinely from NASA. We have to prove this! Anything I can find is fringe sites that source him. Childress even uses examples of his work.

Chatelaine's book was translated by Orest Berlings. If we can find info on him, maybe we can send an email.

Ok, funny enough, I'm reading the bibliography from the book and almost all the sources for this book, appear to be fringe books. So, maybe this is all BS after all! I'll get back to you guys after some digging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

Can anyone translate french?

http://www.ina.fr/art-et-culture/litterature/video/CPB93003286/explorateurs-des-secrets-de-l-univers-ou-bricoleurs-de-l-impossible.fr.html

I was trying to find pictures or interviews of the guy. I'm not getting anywhere. If someone can find these things, I think it will help varify if he is even a real person. I also tried to find out his wife's name and children, with no avail yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maat

Can anyone translate french?

http://www.ina.fr/art-et-culture/litterature/video/CPB93003286/explorateurs-des-secrets-de-l-univers-ou-bricoleurs-de-l-impossible.fr.html

I was trying to find pictures or interviews of the guy. I'm not getting anywhere. If someone can find these things, I think it will help varify if he is even a real person. I also tried to find out his wife's name and children, with no avail yet.

I can't get the video to play. I believe it has commentary by Chatelain in it. Perhaps we can track down another source for the video, preferrably one with subtitles.

Here's the Google translation for the description of the vid:

"Emission on the mysteries of the universe in the company of Jean-Pierre ADAM, archaeologist, Maurice CHATELAIN, a specialist in telecommunications, Francis MAZIERES, archaeologist, Ethnologist, and Christine DEQUERLOR, Professor of letters.-Jean-Pierre ADAM, author of "Archaeology before the Sham", tackles violently to the authors of archaeology fiction which have the common goal the non-scientific conformism and the questioning of all the science in archaeology acquisprehistory and Paleontology. It explains the erroneous interpretation of monuments and quote the authors giving these interpretations. Then, it explains the false making, much more serious, he denounced some false, the work of Robert CHAROUT (who refused to participate in the program).-Francis MAZIÈRES, author of "Fantasy Island Easter", responds with anger because he believes that ADAM cannot talk about what he does not know, is not moved to places of discovery in question and the criticism about his writings on the Easter Island. Reaction to Christine DEQUERLOR, alleging that he meet possible hypotheses. Jean-Pierre ADAM refuses to remove this word from forger and wants to go back on the scientific achievements. Reaction of Maurice CHATELAIN who resumed monumental errors in the book of ADAM, he gives examples. Battle of specialists on some errors which have enormously fun ADAM. -Christine DEQUERLOR presents his book: "Birds messengers of the gods". It explains the theory of birds and his interpretation of prehistoric drawings (photo of a drawing) under the fun eye of ADAM, who replied, do not accept its interpretation and liaison with the aliens. DEQUELOR explains why she rejects not the possibility of alien.-Maurice CHATELAIN presents his book, "our ancestors came from the cosmos" and explains his theories: a scientific society advanced in our ancestors, intervention of aliens to communicate scientific data, the ancient civilization on Earth have common habits from where a single ancient civilization, departure from everything, and which received likely initial aliens. - Jean-Pierre ADAM science found the degree of retardation of the human racebelieves that he has vision shortened human history, it responds point by point a way sorry. - Christine DEQUERLOR continues with his belief in the power of magic (hilarity of ADAM). -Francis MAZIÈRES then speaks of the Easter Island and its mystery. Jean-Pierre ADAM comes back to rational proposals before coming to the esoteric character proposals. -Attacks of CHATELAIN who still wants to see the extraterrestrial intervention and refuses the chance. Jean-Pierre ADAM explains with a photo of a gate of the Avenue Wagram in support which can be found just what one wants, ridiculing his calculations. Maurice CHATELAIN said high that he believed in the aliens, all NASA flights were followed by flying saucers, noting that plunge saucers are scarier, and gives examples and predicted a coming of flying saucers in August 1975. -ADAM takes note and makes humorous matches March/Jupiter to arrive on Earth. Maurice CHATELAIN explains how to Apollo, he arrived at the aliens, assisted by occult forces (he says). Christine DEQUERLOR does not occult forces feel and refuses to be classified in the dream or poetry. -Jean-Pierre ADAM admits be spared by occult forces, think that their books sclérosent imagination, are based on false assumptions. - Bernard PIVOT interrupts the discussion and announces the theme of the next show."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

Wow, what a description!

This topic is weird. I just woke up. I'm gonna do some more digging.

Here's a list of things I want to find to try and verify that Chatelain was even a real person. People keep telling me that the government probably erased all traces of him. I doubt that, so I'm leaning toward BS, till I know for sure:

  • Picture of Chatelain
  • Video Interviews
  • Names of family and Kin
  • Anything Official Stating Employment by NASA
  • Anything that may suggest his disappearance, or theories of.
  • A French Translator for this discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

An interesting side note; I thumbed through the book again yesterday and I couldn't find any passages that say his family's names. He only refers to them as his wife and kids. Maybe he was protecting them from the onslaught of skeptics!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damrod

You have piqued my curiosity. I will keep an eye on this thread to see what you guys find. I'm always curious when I see that a supposed NASA "expert" says there are aliens on the moon... :rolleyes:

That being said...is it just me or did anyone else notice the similarities between Chatelain and "charlatan"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

You have piqued my curiosity. I will keep an eye on this thread to see what you guys find. I'm always curious when I see that a supposed NASA "expert" says there are aliens on the moon... :rolleyes:

That being said...is it just me or did anyone else notice the similarities between Chatelain and "charlatan"?

OMG I think I almost pee'd myself laughing damrod!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.