Dec. 19, 1993 - Art Bell
01:46:54
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Angela Thompson between 9 a.m. | ||
| and 5 p.m. | ||
| at area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| That's Angela Thompson at area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| And now, Area 2000. | ||
| Good evening, everybody. | ||
| Welcome to another edition of Area 2000. | ||
| Sunday, 8 o'clock is when it happens. | ||
| I'm Art Bell on behalf of the Bigelow Foundation. | ||
| That makes this program possible. | ||
| And I think you're going to find it indeed a fascinating one this morning. | ||
| We've done a number of programs on Mars and on the artifacts that may or may not be on Mars. | ||
|
unidentified
|
As of this morning we have Professor Stanley McDaniel, who is the cross-track and the author | |
| of this, the McDaniel Report, that's got all this going, and so we'll see if we can get to the bottom of it. | ||
| As is the case just about every program, we're going to go all the way first though, | ||
| back to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where we're going to get yet another glimpse into another reality. | ||
| Glimpses of other reality, if they're a segment. | ||
| Her name is Linda Howe, very popular, and so now all the way back to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and good evening, Linda. | ||
| Hi, Art. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hi. | |
| I also will have something to contribute on the Mars story tonight. | ||
| Good. | ||
| First, since our mysterious subjects on Area 2000 often involve the sky, I thought that it would be perhaps worthwhile to update listeners on some current sky events that are occurring around us right now. | ||
| A phenomenon that happens only twice a year occurs again on December 21st at 3.26 p.m. | ||
| At that moment, the sun will stand still in its winter solstice. | ||
| The word solstice comes from Latin, which literally means sun to stand still. | ||
| At the solstice, the sun stands, in a sense, in the same place as its southward motion relative to the background stars comes to a stop. | ||
| After the solstice, which is only a day and a half from now, the sun's path starts shifting northward again, back toward longer and eventually warmer days. | ||
| And all this is because our Earth tilts on its axis by 23.5 degrees as it orbits the Sun. | ||
| That's where change is the slightest bit. | ||
| We might have a highly cold North and a highly hot South or some other combination. | ||
| But as it is, we have a path that is perfect in just such a way that we have the seasons and the changes that we do in | ||
| life and with us. | ||
| So that if you stayed up late on December 13th or 14th to see the Geminid meteor shower at its peak, | ||
| there is another coming in the early morning hours of December 22, only two days from now. | ||
| That is the Earthquake Meteor Shower, which appears to come from the direction of a little different constellation. | ||
| At least from around midnight on December 22, you should be able to see 20 meteors an hour until sunrise. | ||
| After Christmas and New Year's, conferences begin again and there's no exploration of the unknown. | ||
| The Triad Research Conference series begins January 22nd to 23rd in Scottsdale, Arizona. | ||
| Triad is mentioning this conference this year at the beginning of 94 on the question, are there intelligent life forms out there? | ||
| Triad says that its goal is to bring challenging fields of research to locations around the country so that professional education can reach more people in more parts of the country more frequently. | ||
| For ticket information, there is a phone number to call in Springfield, Missouri. | ||
| That number, if people can write this down, is area code 417-882-6847. | ||
| That's for ticket information for the Triad Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, January 22-23 on the question, | ||
| Are there intelligent life forms out there? | ||
| Researcher Angela Thompson with the Bigelow Foundation also has received a report from Freeport, Texas, | ||
| that a radioman aboard a Coast Guard cutter said that around 1.30 in the morning on Sunday, December 14, | ||
|
unidentified
|
a black shot of a large, old-shaped object moved overhead. | |
| He said the object had an orange glow and that through the binoculars, he thought he could see windows. | ||
| According to the report, the object rose into the sky, turned a blue color, and then disappeared. | ||
| Coast Guard radio man said that shortly afterwards, two very bright objects shot up from the ground in the direction of the object, and they also disappeared. | ||
| Tonight, our guest on Area 2000 is Dr. Stanley McDaniels, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Ferocity at Sonoma State University in California. | ||
| This year, he published an analysis of research on unusual surface features in the Cydonia region of the planet Mars, ...and raised some serious questions about NASA's mission priorities, or lack of priorities, in the Mars Observer regarding the Cydonia region. | ||
| Now the Observer appears to be lost for yet unknown reasons, but Professor McDaniel's report emphasized that the scientific analysis by several scientists of an unusual face-like feature and nearby pyramid-like features in 1976 Viking orbiter photos suggests that the features might be artificial. | ||
| Artificial structures on Mars, if proven, would force a redefinition of human evolution in a larger cosmos that has other life forms. | ||
| Tonight, I discuss that issue of possible artificial structures in the Martian Cydonia region with Dr. Mark Carlotto, a Ph.D. | ||
| in electrical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1981. | ||
| He has worked in fields of image processing and satellite remote sensing for over 10 years. | ||
| Dr. Carlotto has authored scientific papers about his computer enhancement work of the unusual Martian features in such prestigious journals as Applied Optics, Digital Signal Processing, and the Journal of British Interplanetary Society. | ||
| He also authored a recent book about his work entitled The Martian Enigmas that shows how computer enhancement has helped to get more | ||
| detail from the original writing photograph. | ||
| Tonight I begin by asking him if he thought that space was artificial, not made by nature. | ||
| I think that there's a 51% chance that it's artificial. | ||
| Only 51? | ||
| Well, I like to be conservative. | ||
| However, I think the 1% over even odds is more than enough to justify the work that I've done and others have done because the payoffs are so great. | ||
| I like to try to be careful not to oversell this. | ||
| There's really no way of verifying when you're dealing with remotely sensed imagery. | ||
| Ours is just one example. | ||
| But whenever we're doing studies of using satellite imagery of the Earth and doing landform analysis, | ||
| you really need to look at the ground truth because you can be fooled by imagery. | ||
| You really need to go there to know for sure. | ||
| Or you need to have imagery that's just so good that there's no question about it. | ||
| And that's not the case. | ||
| Quite frankly, I feel that I always have felt that there's a fairly good chance that this is artificial. | ||
| But I like to be conservative and kind of keep things conservative in my estimates on this. | ||
| What were your own personal first thoughts when you began to think, my God, this is artificial? | ||
| Like I said, it was almost an intuition when I first saw the Base on Mars newspaper article that something about it just sort of grabbed me, and even the captions. | ||
| I was trying to get a sense of the real artificial space, staring up at the surface of the earth. | ||
| Even though it kind of made light of it, there's something about it that just sort of grabbed me. | ||
| And the more you worked with it... | ||
| The more I've worked with it, the more I'm convinced there is something there, | ||
| because essentially every test and experiment that I've done has indicated that... | ||
| That it is unusual. | ||
| The one thing I did mention was the fractal analysis. | ||
| And all this work is published in a peer-reviewed journal. | ||
| The methodology has been evaluated and it's factored in. | ||
| Methodology benefits like rudder imagery, planetary imagery, as well as terrestrial imagery. | ||
| showed the face to be the least natural object for an area about the size of the state of Rhode Island. | ||
| This is really all the imagery I had available at the time. | ||
| What the fractal analysis does is it, if you will, it ranks the image by its degree of artificiality | ||
| and it uses fractals as a model for deciding whether something in an image is artificial or natural. | ||
| And they use them to model a whole range of natural phenomena. | ||
| In fact, if I've seen Star Trek 2, the genesis, you can see where they create this magnificent planet. | ||
| So I'll start with the geography. | ||
| graphics and fractals. Essentially what we're doing with fractal analysis is turning it | ||
| around instead of using fractals to generate images, we're using fractals to analyze it. | ||
| And when we do this, the base stands out like a sore thumb. | ||
| As being totally anomalous. | ||
| As being highly anomalous. In fact, it's being the most anomalous feature over this area | ||
| I mentioned, slightly greater than the size of the state of Rhode Island. | ||
| And then the question that remains is, if it is artificial, why did somebody build something that was a mile high and a mile and a half long, shaped like a primate head? | ||
| Well, that's anybody's guess. | ||
| I mean, that's a loaded question. | ||
| You know, a lot of people have speculated on terrestrial connections. | ||
| And I think, basically, I guess I like to take things one step at a time, at least. | ||
| In this sort of a conversation, say, just this that if the basis is artificial, then it's going to change all of our lives. | ||
| The juncture we're at right now is Trying to collect better imagery to decide whether this is in fact artificial or natural. | ||
| If it's artificial then it's going to open up a whole range of investigations. | ||
| And the impact of artificial structures on Mars might in fact overwhelm the scientific community. | ||
| Professor McDaniel pointed out in his analysis that in 1960, 33 years ago, The Brookings Institute was contracted by NASA to prepare a report called, quote, The Implications of a Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life, unquote. | ||
| And in that report, it said most significantly that the greatest area of concern might be that of the impact upon scientists themselves. | ||
| Quoting further, it has been speculated that of all groups, Scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature rather than with the understanding and expression of mankind. | ||
| As a result of these possibilities, that major social upheaval and psychological devastation of many scientists might occur The report spoke of the possibility that scientists and other decision makers might interfere with the release of extraterrestrial information, even to the extent of withholding it altogether. | ||
| And that arc is from a report 1960, the Bookings Report, to NASA, right early on, That already implied that if we did have information about other life forms in the universe or the solar system, that the next step might be total repression in order to save the status quo, I guess, of the scientific community. | ||
| And I think this would be a very important subject to discuss with Professor McDaniel. | ||
| Do you really think that would occur? | ||
| Hello? | ||
| Hi Linda, do you really think that would occur? | ||
| Do you really think that the scientific community, I'm asking I guess for your opinion now, would turn it back to the degree that they would cover it up and just sort of close their eyes and deny it? | ||
| I have experienced that personally in my investigations of the animal mutilations for 15 years. | ||
| I have experienced having people look at the hard data that showed that an excision in an animal was not cut with predator's teeth, that it actually was cut with high yeast, and still insist that it had to be Clostridium bacteria. | ||
| It is a form of denial that is not logical, but it exists, and it has happened in other sciences as well. | ||
| Well, not only is it not logical, Linda, but it's also not scientific. | ||
| How do these people call themselves scientists and block facts? | ||
| Well, this is probably one of the cruxes to why there is a government policy of silence on this whole other alien life-form issue. | ||
| And ours is not to debate this tonight, but I think to explore with a man who's done a great deal of thinking about the whole NASA mission of trying to get out into this solar system and to explore. | ||
| And if in fact there are artificial structures on Mars, why is it that there has been resistance about photographing the Cydonia region again? | ||
| Why is it that science would not be the first in line to say, let's go back and take a look at these features and let's try to get closer photographs? | ||
| Right now, we don't have an orbiter up there with a camera. | ||
| We had hoped that we would. | ||
| I understand that in January or February, we will be launching another unmanned orbiter to the Moon to do a photographing of the surface of the Moon. | ||
| It's called Project Clementine. | ||
| And that there's a possibility that that orbiter may be also sent to an asteroid. | ||
| If we are going to be able to do that, it is possible that these kinds of photographic orbiters might be launched again to Mars in the near future. | ||
| One way or the other, I think that Professor McDaniel would agree, it's important that we at least try to resolve what might be in that Cydonia region to the best of our ability. | ||
| And open our minds to the fact that we are possibly, very probably, not alone. | ||
| It is the most important question for mankind, Linda, without question. | ||
| Another wonderful report. | ||
| Where will we find you next week? | ||
| Let's see. | ||
| Next Sunday, I think I will be back in Philadelphia again after a trip to Tennessee, and I may have a report from there to share with you next Sunday. | ||
| That's excellent. | ||
| We'll look forward to it, and thank you very, very much. | ||
| Yes, and my best to Professor McDaniel. | ||
| I think his report is going to be coming out in book form. | ||
| It's extremely important information, and I'm glad he's on tonight. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Thank you, Linda. | ||
| Good evening. | ||
| That's Linda Howe. | ||
| That was a good report, and it relates and makes it a kind of a neat segue to Professor McDaniel. | ||
| Professor McDaniel is, of course, the author of the McDaniel Report, much discussed in scientific circles. | ||
| The basis of, as a matter of fact, a couple of other shows that we've done, most notably with Richard Hoagland, and we'll ask him about that. | ||
| Professor McDaniel has quite an extensive professional background. | ||
| He's a member of the Board of Directors of the Alan Watts Society for Comparative Philosophy in Sausalito. | ||
| Or was that, rather, in 1972-1974. | ||
| A member of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. | ||
| A member of the American Philosophical Association. | ||
| A founding Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. | ||
| Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University in 1992. | ||
| Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Sonoma State University, 1971-1989-1992. | ||
| University 1971 through 4 and 1989 through 1992. Professor of philosophy at Sonoma State University, | ||
| Florida Park, California 1966 through 1992 and instructor Brooklyn College, Brooklyn College, | ||
| the City University of New York 1964 to 1966. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And I should say, many books and manuals published, but most notably, and I guess recently, the McDaniel Report, a very, very controversial report. | ||
| Here is the professor, Stanley V. McDaniel. | ||
| Professor McDaniel, good evening. | ||
| Yes, good evening, Art. | ||
| Welcome to the program. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| That's quite a background you've got. | ||
| You read the whole thing! | ||
| I did. | ||
| It is fascinating what you've done, and I've had many people talk about it. | ||
| One of the recent guests we had that covered quite a bit of your report I have spoken with all of the researchers in this area over a period of over a year, and Richard Hoagland of course being one of them, so I've had extensive telephone conversations | ||
| With Hoagland and Di Pietro and the others who have done research in this area, yes. | ||
| All right. | ||
| It's almost hard to know where to start, but what made you, I guess, what made you publish this report and how did you get involved with all of this? | ||
| I'd be happy to talk about that because it is rather interesting. | ||
| I had seen a copy of a book by Randolpho Pozos, The Faith on Mars. | ||
| Which was published around 1987, I believe. | ||
| And this book by Pozos, who's an anthropologist, is an account, a pro bono account, of a computer conference that was organized by Pozos and Hoagland on the topic of the Martian phenomena, which lasted over a period of around 1984-85. | ||
| And I hadn't seen that some years back, Uh, thought it was interesting, uh, filed it away, I mean, um, I don't know if that's been on my mind for a number of years. | ||
| And, uh, a year ago, September, when I heard of the Mars server being launched, I remembered that report, uh, and began to inquire, uh, trying to find out what knew about it, and the fact that we were going to photograph these objects. | ||
| And I, uh, I did some searching around, I was trying to find this out and stumbled across a couple of documents. | ||
| One was a 1992 edition of Richard Hoagland's book on the monuments of Mars, which in its appendix gives an account of the apparent likelihood that the Mars Observer would not photograph the objects. | ||
| That upset me, and then I saw also an article by a man named Karl Toren, analyzing the possible geometrical shape of one of the objects in Cydonia, what's called the DNM Pyramid. | ||
| And I was tremendously impressed by the scientific care taken by Mr. Toren, who is a cartographer with the Defense Mapping Agency in Washington, D.C., and very highly qualified. | ||
| And so I began to write up some topics that might be used for a radio program on this issue. | ||
| And in fact, I was trying to get the PBS radio people to do a program on this, and I was writing down some issues that might arise. | ||
| And as I got further and further into it, I began phoning the different researchers, talking with them, thinking, well, maybe this will turn into a paper of 30 or 40 pages. | ||
| And as you can see and perhaps you have it there in your hands, it ended up being a book of almost 200 pages. | ||
| So that was how I got into it. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Prior to the Viking photos, how good was our imagery or what imagery did we even have prior to Viking? | ||
| I think there were Mariner 9 images of of Mars and even of that area and I believe the resolution | ||
| was around 300 meters per pixel if I'm not mistaken. Maybe I may be not quite right about | ||
| that because I didn't devote a lot of time to that and that would have been such a poor | ||
| resolution you couldn't really tell much at all. How much of an improvement was Viking? Well then I | ||
| think it's a hundred it's a 150 feet or around 50 meters per pixel for the Viking. | ||
| So that means each dot on the digital photo is no smaller than 50 meters across. | ||
| Yeah, 50 meters across. | ||
| So we went from 300 to 50? | ||
| I believe that was correct, yes. | ||
| And just as a matter of curiosity, had the Mars Observer done its job, what would the resolution have been there? | ||
| It would have been around 5, I think is what it was. | ||
| In other words, it would have actually settled the question? | ||
| Oh yes, probably. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Probably. | |
| Not absolutely, but it would have given such quality that That a great deal more information will be obtained. | ||
| All right, Professor. | ||
| Let me quickly identify the station. | ||
| We'll be right back to you. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Professor Stanley McDaniel is my guest. | ||
| This is Area 2000. | ||
|
unidentified
|
From Jackie Gons Pleasure downtown, this is KDWN Las Vegas. | |
| It's a Sunday night. | ||
| This is Area 2000. | ||
| I'm Mark Rowe. | ||
| Back there to Professor Stanley McDaniel, author of the McDaniel Report. | ||
| Professor, are you still there? | ||
| Yes, I want to correct myself. | ||
| I said five. | ||
| I was thinking of a different camera at that point. | ||
| No, it would have been as low as 1.4 meters. | ||
| Oh, my. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| So that's very, very precise. | ||
| Yes, indeed it is. | ||
| With what we have right now, and with all the study you've done, how convinced... I mean, you heard the guest that Linda had. | ||
| He suggested a 51% probability that the items on Mars, the structures, are artificial. | ||
| What percentage would you assign? | ||
|
unidentified
|
If I might, can I spend a moment on that? | |
| That was Dr. Carlotta who was speaking, with whom I've spoken a number of times. | ||
| He pointed out that he tends to be conservative on this. | ||
| But the guiding principle behind my report is this, and it's the one that Dr. Carlotta was also following. | ||
| That is, that any reasonable degree of doubt regarding whether these objects are natural or not, ...creates a profound and compelling ethical obligation for the government and NASA to give extremely high priorities to obtaining high resolution photos of these things. | ||
| And so, that's what Carlotto was saying when he said, if there's even a 1% favorable tilt to the data, That that produces a tremendous obligation on the part of the scientists to look into it further. | ||
| One would imagine that with even a 20 or 30 percent probability that would be more than enough under the circumstances. | ||
| That would seem to be the case. | ||
| Now, my judgment is this. | ||
| I have gone through As far as I know, all the research that's ever been done on this thing, and I certainly may have missed some, but I'm not going to name them all, I took that decision in the form of a new scientific methodology, as is understood in the area of philosophy of science. | ||
| And I have found that the data consistently tilts in the direction of artificiality. | ||
| There has not been one single test performed on the available data That does not tilt in that direction rather than intending to disprove the artificial nature of the object. | ||
| So I would say that the chances are higher than 51%. | ||
| As a matter of fact, if you get really deeply into the data, it begins to get... You begin to feel a chill on the back of your neck because it just looks like you've got to say, these things have got to be artificial. | ||
| But being scientists, we have to be cautious and... | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I wouldn't want to give a definite percentage, but I think it's more than 51%. | |
| What about hard math in this area? | ||
| And I don't want to get too technical because it's a general audience, but is there a way, Professor, to do some math and to put probabilities and to input all this to a computer and for it to... Yes, actually a professor of physics right now is in the process of trying to develop a statistical analysis of the data. | ||
| It's been developed by the other researchers, and I have hope that we'll have soon some considerable results. | ||
| I would say that in Richard Hoagland's book, The Monuments of Mars, he also made a move in that direction. | ||
| There is a private section on that issue there, too. | ||
| Yes, well he claims to have developed some new form of physics to apply to some of the equations he used. | ||
| I didn't quite understand all of it. | ||
| But even with, I guess my question is, even with standard mathematical formulas, you're suggesting there is a way to approach this? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Actually, those are two different issues. | ||
| The physics that he's working on has to do with an interpretation of the meaning, the possible meaning of the object. | ||
| And what we're talking about here is a statistical effort to show the probability that things are artificial, which is a little different from that. | ||
| All right. | ||
| What have you done along that line, and what can you tell us about it? | ||
| Well, there are at least two that could be brought into view. | ||
| First of all, maybe I might go back to a comment made by Dr. Carlotto. | ||
| He said that data taken from a distance, photographs, images from spacecraft, are not proof. | ||
| And, of course, he asked for what they call ground truth. | ||
| In other words, somebody actually standing there looking at the thing. | ||
| Now, that's often mistaken to mean that there's no evidence that the things may be artificial. | ||
| The general public often confuses the difference, or doesn't understand the difference, between proving something is true and establishing a probability that it might be true. | ||
| Now, the data that comes in from the spacecraft, the Viking photos, is evidence. | ||
| And analysis of the data shows that that evidence tilts in the direction of what may well be artificial. | ||
| So it isn't as though if you don't have ground truth, you can never have evidence. | ||
| The photographs are definitely evidence. | ||
| Let me ask this. | ||
| If an individual were standing there, virtually in front of the face, is it probable that individual would be able to scientifically come to some determination, or would the scale of the object perhaps... In other words, what evidence could one gather on the ground? | ||
| It's a question that's often asked. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's hard to say until you're there. | |
| If the face happened to be made of some kind of stones that were placed together to form a sculpture, then of course that would be perfectly evident. | ||
| If it was carved, say, in one huge piece, by some means unknown, and then weathered over a million years, Then you'd have to talk about credibility, I think, because even though it may be severely weathered, there may be such detail in it, and in fact we already see detail that's quite remarkable, that there would be no way to conclude other than that it is artificial. | ||
| Professor, what weather would there be on Mars? | ||
| Storms, to start with. | ||
| There are high winds. | ||
| The dust storms are not common in the area of Cydonia, but from time to time, there are planet-wide dust storms. | ||
| So there's wind weathering. | ||
| There has been water erosion on Mars, although I believe in the area that we're talking about, that is not likely to have been the case. | ||
| There's, of course, heating and cooling that produces fractures of various sorts. | ||
| Those kinds of things can produce changes. | ||
| What is the atmosphere of Mars made up of? | ||
| Mostly carbon dioxide. | ||
| Carbon dioxide. | ||
| And it's very, very thin, but it is enough to support winds and weather. | ||
| And it would be, I presume, corrosive in nature. | ||
| The wind certainly would be. | ||
| Well, yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Especially dust blown by the wind, yes. | |
| There's no way to estimate the age at this point of the objects, is there? | ||
| No. | ||
| There is one hypothesis, which is Richard Hoagland's, And he hasn't put it forward as anything absolutely proven, but there does seem to be a sighting line from one of the objects nearby to the face, which would align with a solstice sunrise about 330 million years ago. | ||
| And if that wasn't an intentional alignment for a sighting of some sort, then that might be a possible dating. | ||
| Um, I'm not totally familiar with all of the objects that are there. | ||
| Are there any, uh, what would appear to be classic pyramids? | ||
| who are another group of researchers, feel that that is not likely | ||
| and they believe the objects are in the order of many, many more millions of years old than that. | ||
| I'm not totally familiar with all of the objects that are there. | ||
| Are there any what would appear to be classic pyramids? | ||
| Well, there is a group of faceted objects, faceted in other words they have sides that seem to be | ||
| fairly regular like pyramids, about 8 miles west of the face. | ||
| And then south of the face and south of that group which is called the city | ||
| is the huge object called the D and M pyramid which also appears to have evenly faceted sides. | ||
| The reason I pursued that is because, of course, the pyramids in Egypt were mathematically quite precise, and I think oriented in a mathematically precise manner. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Has anybody taken a look at the objects on Mars for a comparison? | ||
| Yes, an architect, actually an architectural designer named Robert Sierteck in Connecticut, Has done careful analysis of these objects. | ||
| He studied them for four years and Especially the pyramidal shapes in the area called the city and of course when we say the city We don't mean there is a city there, but it's referred to in that way as a metaphor and he came up with the conclusion that the arrangement of the objects and the regularity of the faces that are visible is It's very, very hard to explain other than as an architectural complex of some sort. | ||
| And in my report, I do a quote from a short paper of his on this topic. | ||
| So he has found architectural symmetry in this group. | ||
| And there's even some drawings in my report on this that show some of the measurements. | ||
| I'll tell you, the most outstanding one is this. | ||
| In this group of objects, there's a little arrangement of what appear to be five little hills. | ||
| They're probably around 100 feet high. | ||
| And they're arranged like a cross. | ||
| There are four of them at right angles to each other, and then one right in the middle. | ||
| And this has been called the city square. | ||
| Around those objects, these large pyramidal shapes Um, uh, look, roughly, when you look at them, they look like they're in a sort of a pentagon. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Now, Mr. Fiertek made very careful measurements. | |
| He checked and rechecked from the apexes, or the tops, the very pointed tops of these, uh, pyramidal shapes that surround the city square, and he found that they form an almost perfect pentagon shape, uh, with, um, with equal angles in the right places for a symmetrical pentagon. | ||
| This is of significance not only because it is almost impossible that that would happen by chance. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It would be very difficult to find five mountaintops of major like that. | |
| But also because the large structure to the south of that, called the DNM Pyramid, also appears to have itself a pentagonal shape and is about the same size as the pentagon shape that was found in the city area. | ||
| So that's part of the architectural analysis, and that's of some interest. | ||
| Professor, as you look at the cluster of objects that you have studied on Mars, and then you examine the rest of the surface of Mars, are there other areas where there are anomalies very much like this one? | ||
| In other words, is this a common area or an uncommon area? | ||
| No, the researchers have located Maybe one to two dozen objects on other areas of Mars. | ||
| Some of them have been located by searching in areas similar to the Cydonia location. | ||
| Ones that are located right near what would have been the shore of an ancient seabed, etc. | ||
| Trying to infer what kind of areas would such things be built upon. | ||
| And, uh, I'd say there's a dozen or more, anyway, uh, objects that have been, uh, identified as, uh, suspicious. | ||
| Most, um, interesting is one called the, um, Crater Pyramid, uh, which is, uh, some, I think 200 miles or so, uh, away from the Cydonian area, and it is a very clear-looking, uh, four-sided pyramidal shape that is perched on the rim of a crater, It's the highest thing for hundreds of miles around and doesn't look like it could have been natural, partly because when the meteorite impacted, it apparently caused no damage to this object, which suggests maybe the object was built on it after the crater was made. | ||
| There's no indication that, for example, the material piled up on the side of it where the crater would have impacted and that there would be what they call an impact shadow behind the object. | ||
| So that's a very interesting object. | ||
| But yes, there are quite a few. | ||
| Most of those are outlined in Mike Carlotta's book called Martian Things and Humanity, Roger. | ||
| Well, this probably calls for conjecture, but I'm interested. | ||
| Would you think, which of these two possibilities would you think more likely? | ||
| That an ancient civilization of some sort, that was thrived at one point apparently on Mars, did this, or that somebody from someplace else did it as To leave some sort of message, or... I'm fumbling here, but I think you understand. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, Art, you just outlined the two major theories on the subject. | |
| Vincent DiPietro, Gregory Molyneux, and John Brandenburg have come forward with what they call the Fidonia Hypothesis. | ||
| And it is the hypothesis that these objects exist with... By the way, I should say that their theory doesn't cover or doesn't deal particularly with the objects in the city area. | ||
| They're mostly interested in the face. | ||
| But they believe that these objects were created, or they hypothesize that these objects were created by indigenously evolved Martians, who grew up and evolved on Mars the way we did here on Earth, and that they did look like human beings, which is why the faces look humanoid, and that they then passed away. | ||
| Now, that theory requires them to, um, hopefully it might be that Mars may not have been warm enough in the past for this evolution to have occurred, and that does seem to be a subject of controversy among scientists. | ||
| Most scientists seem to believe that that could not have been the case, but this is still in doubt. | ||
| So, um, it is possible that on Mars there were, um, warm periods. | ||
| There's certainly signs of water erosion and oceans, even, or lakes, And, uh, so that's one hypothesis. | ||
| Uh, Richard Herdman and Will Curran on the other hand, uh, have used the research. | ||
| This probably didn't happen because of the unlikely, sort of, um, independent evolution on Mars, and so their hypothesis is more along the lines that, um, this area was settled in by, uh, extraterrestrial visitors, probably from beyond the solar system, and, uh, for purposes unknown to us. | ||
| So those are the two main theories. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you lean more toward one than the other? | |
| I remain neutral on the topic. | ||
| I would say this. | ||
| The Conceptual and Voluntary Abundance Theory constitutes that the people are at a stage of development socially and culturally approximately the same as Neolithic times on Earth. | ||
| In that being the case, these objects would be more like religious objects and probably not designed to send any specific, sophisticated messages to the Earth. | ||
| On the other hand, the Holden Theory is that there is a mathematical message embedded in the geometry of the relationship between the objects, and this would have to come from a very sophisticated technological civilization. | ||
| So, um, uh, since there is, uh, I'm very favorable toward the evidence that there is a geometrical, uh, configuration up there of some sophistication. | ||
| And so I tend to, um, to give maybe the edge to the Holman-Korn theory. | ||
| What do we know about Mars' past scientifically? | ||
| In other words, you said there was water on the planet at one time, or there's evidence there was water. | ||
| What about atmosphere? | ||
| Is there any way to know what once was? | ||
| I have to bow out on that one. | ||
| I'm not an expert planetologist on Mars. | ||
| That wasn't my job here with this document. | ||
| But I believe that it's understood that there may have been more atmosphere on Mars in the past. | ||
| There have been some articles come out on this recently, um, uh, speculating about, um, possible warm periods with more atmosphere and, um, uh, conditions that could promote life. | ||
| But, um, but I don't, I don't have the data enough to say, uh, whether or not there was, uh, uh, uh, richer atmosphere. | ||
| Alright, let's deal with NASA a little bit. | ||
| They, they claim, I guess, that, uh, that Phazon Mars is a trick of light and shadow? | ||
| This is the strangest thing. | ||
| For a year now, they've been sending out answers to inquiries made by congressmen on behalf of constituents, where NASA says that NASA scientists have determined That the facial appearance is a trick of light and shadow, meaning that the lighting of the way the photographs are taken, and by the way, there's just too much photographs that we really know of that are of any value, and that the lighting angles of these photographs were just accidentally, the shadows were thrown in such a way that it happened to look a little bit like a face, and they say the proof of this is that a photograph taken later from a different lighting angle, | ||
| It shows no face at all. | ||
| And that proves that the original photos showing a face were nothing but a... Now, it turns out that no one has ever been able to identify any Viking photos made that were taken later in which the face disappeared. | ||
| And on inquiries I made to NASA, to Mr. Donald Savage, public information officer at NASA, I had some conversations with him just as I was finishing my report. | ||
| He was unable, even after checking all throughout NASA, to say that at this time NASA has any idea whatsoever which photographs there were that they were referring to when they said there was a photograph taken later in which the face disappears. | ||
| Oh, boy. | ||
| Not very scientific. | ||
| I'm afraid that they really cannot produce such a photograph, and I was shocked when, after they learned, through my discussion with them, that they could not identify such a photograph they maintained, and are still apparently sending to congressmen the statement that there's a photograph taken later in which the face disappears. | ||
| This seems to me to be highly irresponsible. | ||
| I've heard this from so many people about NASA. | ||
| Highly irresponsible, they say. | ||
| What in the world is going on in NASA, in your opinion? | ||
| In other words, what are they doing here? | ||
| Even with the Mars Observer mission, they fought tooth and nail to avoid photographing this region once again. | ||
| We have to be very, very careful with what they say. | ||
| They have made a number of efforts to make it sound As though they're just going to do everything just fine. | ||
| And the way they do this, uh, is to say, well, we are going to photograph the region. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the region is millions of square kilometers. | |
| And, believe it or not, they occupy only 900 square kilometers. | ||
| Uh, the ones of interest here. | ||
| And, so, saying they're going to photograph the region is, um, oh, means nothing. | ||
| Another thing is they will never say that they are going to give high priority to these objects. | ||
| So what happens is they'll give the illusion that they are really going to do something for the public, but when you really look closely at what they're saying, it turns out to be a false promise. | ||
| I have a section on this in my report called misleading assurances, and that is something one has to be very, very careful about. | ||
| Indeed. | ||
| They had a plan, did they not, to restrict access anyway to these photographs? | ||
| Well, this is one of the things that causes one to wonder about what's going on. | ||
| I'll let, if I may, take a moment to go over that. | ||
| Please. | ||
| In previous missions to Jupiter, for example, and so on, where they had photographs, the cameras were under the auspices of the JPL Jet Propulsion Lab. | ||
| And were what they call facility instruments. | ||
| That is to say, they were facilities that all the scientists involved and as well as the public could utilize. | ||
| And as a result, there was no delay. | ||
| As soon as the photographs came in and were converted into visible form, they were broadcast on television and everyone may remember the Neptune episode a few years back where they did that and it was very, very exciting. | ||
| In the case of the Mars Observer, they changed the procedure. | ||
| They farmed out the camera to a private contractor under what is called a Principal Investigator Contract. | ||
| Now, these Principal Investigator Contracts have clauses in them that allow the investigator to retain the data for personal use, as it were, for long periods of time before releasing it to the public. | ||
| This is supposed to be to pay them back for the effort and time they took to develop their experiments. | ||
| Now, in the case of the Mars Observer, the time period was six months. | ||
| If the photographs... The Mars Observer mission was two years long. | ||
| If the photographs of the Cydonian objects weren't made until right in that mission, say, almost two years into the mission, Then the public might have had to wait as long as two years and six months to even see the photographs, much less know whether they've taken photographs of these particular objects. | ||
| Now, toward the very end, when the Mars Observer was about to go into orbit, there was a lot of clamor. | ||
| People were saying, we want photos. | ||
| So they said, well, we're trying to get you proper photos. | ||
| You can come to one of three locations in the United States, and we'll set up a kiosk. | ||
| And we'll, one of them was Houston, I believe. | ||
| And then you can sit there and wait and hope that we might put some photos of the Cytokine area on the screen, but you won't know whether we're going to do that anyway. | ||
| This was kind of a joke, but it was an effort to sound as though they were going to disseminate the information to the public. | ||
| Another excuse they gave for not putting photos of these objects on public TV right away was that it would interfere with their programming of whether NASA broadcasts they like to put out Somebody pointed out these are mostly reruns of old NASA missions, and to imagine that the Cyjonian thing couldn't take priority over reruns of old NASA missions... Yeah, it just doesn't add up. | ||
| That doesn't add up. | ||
| Now, one final thing on this is very important. | ||
| NASA then began putting out a document that said that they were not treating the Mars photos from the Mars Observer any differently than in any other mission. | ||
| Now what they did was they, this was a misleading technicality. | ||
| It's based on a technicality. | ||
| What they meant was, was that for all Principal Investigator contracts, those were not being treated any differently. | ||
| But the big difference was, is that in previous missions, the camera results were not part of the Principal Investigator contract. | ||
| So for NASA to say they weren't treating it any differently than any other mission was technically correct in a certain sense, but effectively it was radically different, and for NASA to do that struck me as not very sincere. | ||
| Well, they have not seemed very sincere throughout all of this. | ||
| I'm curious, with what you've done with your report and Richard Hoagland running about the nation doing interviews and so forth, What is the NASA attitude? | ||
| Let me take exception to that characterization running about the nation. | ||
| Well, I electronically am doing interviews. | ||
| Every time anybody mentions Richard Hoagland, there's been an effort to build up an image that Richard Hoagland is somehow the bad boy. | ||
| I don't know how that gets out. | ||
| But I have dealt with this man for over a year, and I don't find him to be... Nor do I. I think it has to do, Professor, with his enthusiasm. | ||
| He is enthusiastic, and I'll admit that. | ||
| Okay, I'm sorry. | ||
| I just want to take exception. | ||
| I think all of the researchers are very highly... people of high integrity. | ||
| What was your question again, Art? | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| Well, my question was, with Richard Hoagland out there, let's put it that way, and with your report and others, what is NASA's attitude? | ||
| NASA, I believe the attitude is that these researchers are irritants, they're madmen, they're out to make money off of it. | ||
| They're just trying to make a buck off of what is a mistake. | ||
| It's really incredible the ridicule they've been subjected to. | ||
| Just about three or four days before the Mars Observer was lost, | ||
| Dr. Michael Malin, who is not himself a NASA person, but is the principal investigator for the camera we were | ||
| just talking about, put out a statement on the Internet in which he tried to | ||
| ridicule the people, such as Richard Hoagland, saying they built up a cottage | ||
| industry with this. | ||
| They've written books, which he seems to think is bad. | ||
| And he adds, and of course, National Enquirer and other tabloid published reports. | ||
| What they've tried to do is make it look as though the researchers | ||
| are on the same level as the National Enquirer. | ||
| Hm. | ||
| And, uh... It seems to me, with the body of evidence that exists and the scientific, uh, mathematical probabilities, NASA is the one that should be the subject of, uh, mainstream scientific ridicule. | ||
| Uh, I, I have to say that, uh, I have taken the arguments against the objects being, uh, artificial, or probably artificial, I was put forward by NASA people, and I have found that almost 100% in every case, they are fallacious from a strict logical point of view, and do not seem to acknowledge scientific methodology. | ||
| I find them shockingly. | ||
| And as a matter of fact, that's why I really wrote the report once I got into the topic. | ||
| As a philosopher, I was so shocked by the poor nature of the reasoning that was coming out of NASA, Uh, that I really went ahead with in the report. | ||
| All right, Professor, this is a point where we have to take a break, uh, for news at the top of the hour. | ||
| That means five minutes to sit back and relax, and we'll be back at it. | ||
| All right, uh, stay right there, and we'll be back with Professor Stanley McDaniel, uh, right after the news. | ||
| You're listening, of course, to Area 2000 from Las Vegas. | ||
| I'm Art Bell. | ||
| Glad you're with us this evening, and if you'll stay right there, there's a lot more to come. | ||
|
unidentified
|
From Jackie Gons Pleasure Downtown, this is This is KVWN, Black Lake. | |
| We are at the second port of Orion. | ||
| Two thousand and a half miles. | ||
| I'd like to introduce Professor Stanley McDaniel, author of, among many other things, the McDaniel and Faraday | ||
| Leagues. | ||
| Objects on Mars in the Cydonia region of Mars. | ||
| I want to remind you just before we rejoin him, your contact at the Bigelow Foundation is Angela Thompson. | ||
| She can answer questions. | ||
| If you have a story for her, if you have something that you feel deserves to be investigated, I urge you to contact her. | ||
| And you can do so during the business week at area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| at area code 702-456-1606. That's area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| Once again, here is Professor Stanley McDaniel. | ||
| Professor, are you still there? | ||
| Yes, I am, Mark. | ||
| Excellent. | ||
| Excellent. | ||
| Alright, well, we're still at NASA, I suppose, and I guess what I want to know is, first of all, why private contractors became involved at all. | ||
| I mean, this is American taxpayer money that funds all of this and | ||
| So why did they get private contractors and why did they hold on to photographs and? | ||
| So forth why not just keep the whole thing in essence public? | ||
| I I don't know the details of that, but I can say that apparently it was to save money because | ||
| private contractor would develop the experiment construct the hardware and the place that hardware on the spacecraft | ||
| and Of course the information gathered from the various | ||
| experiments Available to the American public | ||
| Uh, the only problem is that when you're talking about photographs of these controversial objects, where NASA has behaved in a, uh, very questionable manner, It raises the specter that during the six-month period in which the public has no idea what's going on with these photos that changes might be made in them, or that they'd be lost, or, for that matter, we don't even know whether they would photograph the objects. | ||
| So, in particular, the private contractor for the photograph is an especially problematic thing, Now, I have put in my report a set of recommendations, one of which is that in any future private contractor arrangement, the Martian object would be exempt from what they call the proprietary period. | ||
| In other words, let the private contractor do what he wants, Uh, with, uh, other images. | ||
| But every image that comes in from that area where the face is located should, uh, be exempt from the proprietary six-month period. | ||
| Has that been officially proposed to NASA? | ||
| Uh, I have put it in my recommendations, which have been sent to a number of congressmen and, uh, and also, uh, to the president's office. | ||
| I don't know whether the president has read it or not, but, uh, I, uh, I've done the best I can. | ||
| That raises one point. | ||
| I have had to try to distribute this document at my own expense, and I ran out of funds way before I could send any to more than a very handful of congressmen. | ||
| I'm trying now to raise funds to pay for sending free copies to all of the members of Congress, and it has been difficult. | ||
| to get this done. So I have to say that at this point only four or five people in the | ||
| government have actually been sent a copy of this. And as far as NASA goes, I've only | ||
| managed to send about three to NASA officials, which, by the way, have been ignored, received | ||
| no commentary on them. | ||
| Hmm. This, to me, Professor, it's just a gigantic mystery. | ||
| In other words, with all of this evidence, more evidence than they have pointing to anything | ||
| else on Mars that might be of interest, for them to so actively ignore setting this as | ||
| you'd think it would be their outstanding number one priority. | ||
| You would think so. | ||
| There have been theory after theory. | ||
| One of the first ones I ran into was the theory that NASA didn't want to seem like they were doing something crazy because Congress would cut off their funding. | ||
| In other words, they say, now we're going to look for things that were built by aliens, and Congress would say, you are not. | ||
| I had not thought about that. | ||
| But you're absolutely right. | ||
| Any evidence that these objects are artificial, I mean hard evidence, would, as was suggested in the first interview this morning, force a redefinition of human evolution That's right. | ||
| And it was suggested that perhaps some of the biggest impact would be on scientists rather than society. | ||
| I happen to think there would be a gigantic impact on society, but Linda postulated that scientists would be impacted and perhaps would go into massive denial. | ||
| Do you think that could be? | ||
| I'm afraid I have to say I do think it could be the case. | ||
| With our atmosphere today, where we've seen movies like Star Wars and Star Trek and so on, many people feel that at least the American public, or the public who watches those kinds of things, is better prepared than they would have been, say, 60 or even 30 years ago. | ||
| And that's probably true, but there are an awful lot of people still who believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, so it would impact them rather heavily, I think. | ||
| What about the social impact? | ||
| And I love to ask this of my guests, but if somehow you got hold of irrefutable photographs that would show these objects were artificial, would you hesitate before you published? | ||
| Would you hesitate at all? | ||
| Would you sit down and think through the social implications? | ||
| Forget your colleagues, but the social implications. | ||
| Well, it's the business of science to put forward the truth. | ||
| And that information would impact many scientific theories about the nature of the universe, including physics and quantum and planetary science. | ||
| And so it would be a scientific sin, if I may put it, to withhold such information if that were decided. | ||
| So you wouldn't give it really a moment's thought? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| I'll tell you what. | ||
| There may be some negative effects, and the government could be worried that the power structure would be altered or something. | ||
| But the positive effects would be incredible. | ||
| In California alone, if you can imagine what a boost it would give to the space industry, there would be a manned mission to Mars mounted almost immediately, I think. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I can't imagine that not happening. | ||
| And so the industries that have to do with space and space-related materials would be given a tremendous shot in the arm. | ||
| It could divert attention away from the craziness we've got on the planet today and begin to alter our sense of who we are in a positive direction. | ||
| So then other than the one motive, possible motive, you mentioned on the part of NASA that they might be the subject of ridicule or a funding cut, more importantly. | ||
| Right. | ||
| What other motive might NASA or the government have for not wanting any of this to be public? | ||
| As I worked on my report, I ran across different theories. | ||
| I myself don't know what one to choose, but One that was suggested was, of course, the Galileo Syndrome, which is the thing that happened to Galileo, namely that the establishment structure depended upon its particular view of the universe, and Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter was seen as undermining that, and so they tried to phase him out, as it were, in order to hang on to their | ||
| their particular viewpoint that's one Another one though that's interesting is the one that I've | ||
| come across in the UFO area the idea that | ||
| extraterrestrials may have in fact contacted government people and so on and | ||
| That this whole thing is part of some widespread massive conspiracy to hurt | ||
| The Martian objects are concrete evidence of the possible existence of extraterrestrials, either contemporary or past. | ||
| for whatever reason I would suppose. Do you favor that? | ||
| Well, I would say this. The Martian objects are concrete evidence of the possible existence of extraterrestrials, | ||
| either contemporary or past. | ||
| There, that face sitting up there is a huge, massive statement. | ||
| And so it's a real moat in the eye for anybody who wants to try to cover up | ||
| the possible reality of extraterrestrials. | ||
| It could be the focus of our real cover-up, because it is so obvious. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Let's talk a little bit about SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. | ||
| I guess that a lot of that has been defunded, or a lot of the funding that was going to flow has stopped. | ||
| How sound was the science behind the whole project in the first place? | ||
| As far as the particular radio telescope project that we identified as SETI went, I imagine the science was quite sound. | ||
| But the problem with the whole SETI endeavor was that it did not include the concept of looking on other planets in the solar system. | ||
| it went under the assumption that the only messages we would get from anybody would be | ||
| from radio waves coming from distant stars. And as a result, the effort was directed only | ||
| at receiving radio signals and not at looking at anything on the surface of other planets. | ||
| Well, you're really suggesting that the possible evidence is hiding, in effect, in plain sight right there on Mars. | ||
| That's correct. | ||
| Now, there's one other very important aspect there, and that is that the people interpreting the messages and looking for the kind of message you would get are almost all from one very limited range of science. | ||
| Anthropologists, archaeologists, psychologists, sociologists, none of those people are involved as far as interpreting messages. | ||
| And in the case of the objects on Mars, the criticisms have come from NASA geologists and astronomers, but they cannot recognize possible information that would be of an archaeological nature, for instance. | ||
| And in fact, Carl Sagan, who is one of those NASA astronomers, recently, just this year, I believe, wrote to someone that the time to call in archaeologists was only after the planetary scientists at NASA had decided that things were artificial. | ||
| So, rather than say that we should use archaeological knowledge to find out or evaluate whether the things are artificial, he says, we astronomers We'll make the evaluation first and then if we think they're artificial then we might call in an archaeologist. | ||
| While we're on subject, Dr. Sagan, why has somebody who would be such a force for good in these areas seem to be, I'll use the word obstructionist, With regard to the whole UFO controversy, what evidence exists, the abductions which have been the center of a lot of recent study, and the objects on Mars. | ||
| Why is he obstructionist? | ||
| Well, I can't guess what his motives are. | ||
| I don't know him personally. | ||
| I've never talked to him. | ||
| I do know that there are some interesting things that took place. | ||
| For example, Dr. Malin, the camera operator for the Mars Observer camera, had made a statement in rejecting the Cydonian objects that he was not going to assign his priorities on the improbable assumption that Mars may have ever been inhabited. | ||
| Now, Dr. Sagan had written in around 1960s, and I'm looking for it here in my document, trying to locate it, because I actually have it quoted here in my document, but he had written that the chances of extraterrestrials visiting the solar system were 1 in 10,000 years, or once every 10,000 years. | ||
| In fact, here it is, here. | ||
| In 1963, Dr. Sagan wrote a A paper called Direct Contact Among Galactic Civilizations by Interstellar Spaceflight. | ||
| And he concluded that on the basis of topography projections of mathematical primers, the solar system is likely to have been visited by space-flying civilizations on an average of once every 10,000 years. | ||
| And in that article, he even suggested that these visitors might have constructed bases with the remnants of them on the Moon or other planets in the solar system. | ||
| Now, if someone as prestigious as Dr. Sagan could imagine that it is a possibility, anyway, that we've been visited more than once, then Dr. Malin's argument that it's very speculative and improbable is apparently at odds with this. | ||
| So, even among these people, they were contradicting each other. | ||
| Now, Dr. Sagan, being someone who says that we might have been visited, and so on, It's very strange that he would then take a position ridiculing the Cydonian objects, among others. | ||
| Precisely, but that's not been his only area of ridicule. | ||
| Yes, I'm not as familiar with the UFO area, so I haven't seen too much of that, but I have seen the ridicule he has lavished upon the face on Mars. | ||
| All right, back for a second to the Viking photos. | ||
| Have we gone as far as we can go? | ||
| I know that computers continue to get better and faster with more storage, and that video enhancement techniques have come a long, long way. | ||
| How are we doing with that? | ||
| Have we gone as far as we can go with state-of-the-art? | ||
| Well, I don't think so, and I think there's a great deal more that can be done with just the Viking images. | ||
| That's apparently agreed upon by several researchers. | ||
| In addition to that, what's very important is for other scientists who are in the fields of geology and archaeology and anthropology and so on to make independent evaluations of even the data that we currently have. | ||
| So as to spread this information out among the scientific community and give it some air of legitimacy if indeed they find it so. | ||
| And that is beginning to happen a little bit, but I would encourage interested scientists to To try to get involved. | ||
| So I think that's an area of expansion. | ||
| Dr. Carlotto has suggested that the entire surface of Mars should be subjected to the fractal analysis that he was speaking of in his interview earlier on the show. | ||
| And that would be a very, very fine thing to do. | ||
| So there's a lot that could be done even with the Viking material. | ||
| So there's even the possibility that with the Viking material and the right science applied, you could give NASA effectively a scientific kick in the rear end? | ||
| That's what I think has to be done. | ||
| It was mentioned when Linda spoke of Dr. Carlotta's qualifications, she mentioned that he had had scientific articles peer-reviewed, published in prestigious journals, such as the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. | ||
| What she did not mention was that the major scientific journal of planetary science in the United States, the journal Icarus, Turned down Dr. Carlotto's articles, and not for the reason that they were not scientifically sound, but for the reason that the subject was considered unsuitable. | ||
| Did they offer any definition beyond that? | ||
| No, I believe they just simply refused to have anything to do with any article that had to do with possible Martian artifacts, and as a result, Scientists in the United States are not generally privy to, in other words, they're not aware of the nature of the research that's been done. | ||
| And I think that that influences many, many scientists. | ||
| All they hear is the propaganda put out by NASA that ridicules the researchers, and they don't realize that legitimate research has been done. | ||
| This is so frustrating. | ||
| Do you find Any handle in NASA at all? | ||
| Are there any people in NASA at all that reach out, or is the attitude fairly similar? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| There's a lot of them. | ||
| There's some 24,000 employees at NASA, I think. | ||
| I have no way of knowing. | ||
| I hope that some of them will see my report and will think carefully about it. | ||
| But the people I have talked to or seen statements from seem to me to be impervious. | ||
| I don't think anything's going to jolt them except a rather large-scale scientific or public movement. | ||
| Is there anything, if you could make a wish, that the public would get behind something, what would you say to the public since you're speaking to them at the moment? | ||
| Well, I think we have to realize that it may look as though Worrying about artifacts on Mars is a minor problem in comparison to all of the social problems we have today, such as violence and gun control and so on. | ||
| But I think that needs to be thought through carefully and reassessed, that if anything could contribute more to our understanding of ourselves and perhaps bring about a revolution in our way of seeing ourselves and behaving, it might just be knowing that we're not alone. | ||
| And knowing that, at least at some time, being similar to ourselves existed elsewhere. | ||
| And they might even have been our own ancestors. | ||
| So I think that the level of importance given to this particular study should be a lot higher than many people maybe credit it. | ||
| Boy, I'll say. | ||
| Alright, the Mars Observer that would have settled this, or at least told us a whole lot more. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Richard Hoagland has a lot of very strong theories on this subject, and he thinks basically the Mars Observer was sacked. | ||
| And I wonder if you agree with him on that? | ||
| Well, of course, it's a very strong thing to have to say. | ||
| People have said that there's no way that it could have been done deliberately because so many people have to be involved in a mission like that, that it couldn't be covered up. | ||
| However, I'm not making a judgment on it, but I will say this. | ||
| I think it's awfully strange. | ||
| There are a lot of very strange things about it. | ||
| One outstanding one is That the Mars Observer did not cut out on us until after they had uploaded the instructions for putting it into orbit. | ||
| So it went all the way up there. | ||
| And it experienced that very same thing. | ||
| By the way, they turned off the transmitters a couple of times before they got to Mars. | ||
| And as you may know, it was turning off the transmitter that seemed to trigger the problem when they tried to turn it back on again. | ||
| They couldn't get signals back. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| But they had done that before on the way up, and for it to go out on us when it's about hours, literally hours away from orbit, and after the instructions that would put it into orbit had been given to it, was a very strange coincidence. | ||
| In other words, it could then go into orbit and we wouldn't know it. | ||
| Alright, there are a couple things I want to ask you about. | ||
| One is, I had heard that it was in the process of pressurizing. | ||
| Uh, some sort of fuel tank or something or another. | ||
| Is that, is that correct? | ||
| Yes, there had to be some explosive bolts fired which create a vibration and the reason they turned off the transmitter was to protect a vacuum tube. | ||
| Ah, I see. | ||
| Um, so then there were things that were going on that potentially could have meant an explosion? | ||
| Yes, yes. | ||
| It's possible, although for a long time they said they really didn't think that could have been what happened. | ||
| There was another curious thing, though. | ||
| Just as it was getting ready to go into this phase, what they had done was they'd initiated a power-in-burn, which, or they were going to. | ||
| I think they actually did it. | ||
| Now, what this was was a way of powering the spacecraft into its initial orbit using fuel that had been saved because of their Very precise initial launch, actually. | ||
| And with that option, they were going to be able to start photographing Mars, to start one whole photographic cycle early. | ||
| A mapping cycle, they call it. | ||
| And so, they were going to be able to photograph it as much as at least 20 days earlier than originally planned. | ||
| and there was a time of value there because there was a solar conjunction which is a situation | ||
| where the sun gets between the Earth and Mars coming up on around December 16th. | ||
| In fact, it just started just a few days back. | ||
| And that would interfere somewhat with the reception of photographs from Mars, actually | ||
| would interfere with them sending signals back to control the spacecraft. | ||
| So getting in 20 days early would have been a great advantage and they could start taking | ||
| photographs early. | ||
| Now as that started to happen, NASA suddenly changed its scheduling and said that they | ||
| weren't going to really start their mapping orbit until the originally planned time, even | ||
| though the spacecraft was going to be going early. | ||
| This led to the speculation that they wanted an early period to take photographs that the | ||
| public wouldn't be aware of. | ||
| It was a very strange occurrence and this happened just in a few weeks prior to the | ||
| actual orbital insertion. | ||
| The public pressure got quite hard on NASA at that time. | ||
| I was aware of letters being sent to Glenn Cunningham at JPL and so on, and the public was really making an onslaught, I think, there to try to get them to let the photographs out. | ||
| And then, at the peak of all that, they lost the spacecraft, or reported it lost. | ||
| So there was sort of this funny business going on around there. | ||
| So I think that Mr. Holcomb's viewpoint, he has said it's mere speculation, but I think that it's not entirely unreasonable. | ||
| He also feels that contact will be magically re-established with the observer. | ||
| In the first couple of weeks of... You'd think that until recently. | ||
| I've talked to him on the telephone just a few days ago, and as now he thinks with the success of the Hubble mission, there may be not the same need for NASA to recover the spacecraft. | ||
| Oh, just hold on one second while we once again identify the station. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Stay right there, Professor. | ||
| This is area 2000 from Las Vegas. | ||
|
unidentified
|
From Jackie Gons Plaza downtown, this is KDWN Las Vegas. | |
| Professor, um, let's, um... | ||
| Let's talk a little bit about Hubble. | ||
| It was a success. | ||
| Richard Hoagland felt that it would not be, and I really shouldn't say that because it's my understanding it's going to be about six weeks, is it not, until we know whether all that stuff they installed up there is functional? | ||
| Yeah, yeah, that's true. | ||
| They have to go through many tests. | ||
| So, insofar as the installation went, it, I guess, is a success. | ||
| Would Hubble have any application at all for looking at anything as close as Mars? | ||
| I have heard that that is more difficult for the Hubble. | ||
| I have to beg off there that I don't know the details. | ||
| Richard Hoagland does know, and I'm sure many others do, but I don't know, except that I have heard that for some reason Looking at nearby planets is less desirable for that instrument. | ||
| All right, back then to the Mars Observer very quickly. | ||
| By the way, I don't think it could, with all of its power, I don't think it could give us what the Mars Observer would have given it. | ||
| Sorry. | ||
| Back to the Observer for a second. | ||
| Another thing I heard that puzzled me greatly was they, early on, when they had this failure, they suggested to the public, you may recall, that a transistor, which had given them problems and been reason for a previous failure, was thought to be what was wrong. | ||
| And something clicked when I heard that, and I said to myself, a multi-million dollar spacecraft, or satellite, And if they've already had one failure, and they knew it was one specific transistor, what are the odds they would send a billion-dollar instrument up with the same problem? | ||
| I mean, that's just scientific ignorance. | ||
| What happened to the Challenger? | ||
| This is a terrible situation. | ||
| We would assume there would be so many backups and redundancies. | ||
| Of course, the thing has to You do have to look at the weight, but yeah, that does seem very strange. | ||
| Another thing that is strange is that there were apparently tests they could have performed, which they did not perform. | ||
| I think they finally did, yes, they did finally try to operate the French-Russian device. | ||
| There was a signal, a one watt signal they could get from another radio on the Mars Observer | ||
| and they tried that and were unsuccessful. | ||
| There was another suggestion that they use the laser altimeter, which was a laser beam | ||
| that would help the observer find its distance from the planet and aim it at the Earth and | ||
| possibly pick up that signal. | ||
| I believe they rejected that as too much trouble or too expensive. | ||
| So it's not clear that they carried out every possible test to get it back. | ||
| Do you consider it possible that they may still suddenly announce in some great surprise that, gee, they've located it or it's back on the air? | ||
| If they're running it clandestinely, then it is possible. | ||
| If they're not, then it might not be possible because the batteries would run down If the solar panels weren't oriented properly, it would only take a matter of hours before the power would finally go out. | ||
| So the thing wouldn't have enough power left to return to us unless it had managed to keep its solar panels in the right orientation. | ||
| It was Richard Hogan's view, again, that it might even be sending pictures back now. | ||
| And I don't know a whole lot, scientifically, about frequencies that are used, or power levels, or who might be able to hear it. | ||
| And Richard was looking for an observatory, some sort of... Right. | ||
| ...that might check on signals that are coming back. | ||
| It could have begun taking photographs as early as November 8th, I believe. | ||
| Based on the data up to the moment that we lost it. | ||
| Let's approach it from this angle. | ||
| If you were in NASA, and you wanted to do the whole thing secretly, would it be possible? | ||
| In other words, could you take photographs and either store them for transmission later, or take the transmissions as the pictures were generated, and do the whole thing secretly? | ||
| Could it be done? | ||
| Well, the argument against that is that it takes too many people to run the mission, and therefore it couldn't be hidden. | ||
| I don't know how that would be. | ||
| Given the government's activities, it's possible, I think, that a whole clandestine operation could be underground underneath JPL or somewhere. | ||
| Or at perhaps another large Earth station somewhere else on Earth. | ||
| Yeah, who knows? | ||
| I mean, if there was a deliberate need to do that, it certainly could be done, I imagine. | ||
| However, as far as getting the photos and messing around with them, that isn't impossible. | ||
| That's quite possible, I think. | ||
| It takes quite an antenna to pick up these things, and you have to know just how to do it. | ||
| A gentleman named Lee Clinton, who is a radio amateur, has done an article on this. | ||
| Uh, indicating just how amateur radio people with the proper antenna equipment could, uh, search for signals. | ||
| And, um, that's been published in a couple of places. | ||
| Do you happen to know the frequency range? | ||
| Uh, no, I don't, but he wrote this article giving that, and it is available either through Richard Hoagland or, I believe, that Lee Clinton is on Internet. | ||
| Uh, excuse me, on CompuServe. | ||
| CompuServe, alright. | ||
| Yes, and, uh, his last name's C-O-I-N-T-O-N. | ||
| First name L-E-E, and one could look, I don't have his computer number in front of me here, | ||
| but one could look on the ID list there and maybe find out how to get in touch with him. | ||
| I think that he logs onto the space forums there on CompuServe fairly regularly. | ||
| Oh, yes. | ||
| I happen to be an amateur radio operator, so... | ||
| Aha! | ||
| Well, so you could possibly understand what he was saying. | ||
| All right, what is our... assuming that Mars Observer is history, what is the next best | ||
| Clementine was mentioned. | ||
| What's going to Mars in the future? | ||
| What's the next chance? | ||
| I understand that the Clementine that is being launched, I believe, in January to go to the Moon could be diverted and sent to Mars instead with relatively little expense. | ||
| The Clementine option was one of the ones put forward At the time when NASA was saying they were going to try to get a quick return mission, one as soon as possible, and I believe that the JPL people, for unknown reasons, refused to look at that option. | ||
| My understanding now is that NASA has apparently dropped the idea of trying to get a quick return mission and is just going to go for Well, I'm not a great believer in conspiracies, but it sure does look like NASA doesn't want to go to Mars. | ||
| And it looks like when they were on their way to Mars, they didn't really want to be. | ||
| And one can conjecture that they made a choice late not to. | ||
| And I just... Something smells fishy with this whole business, but one has to ask. | ||
| And I will, Professor. | ||
| If they were concerned about what was there, or public revelation of what was there, then why launch a billion-dollar spacecraft that you're going to have to end up turning off or taking away from the public as they did? | ||
| In other words, it was bad PR, it was a bad move, and if you didn't want to go to Mars, then why launch? | ||
| It could be that they really wanted to find out what was there, that they have very deep | ||
| suspicions themselves even though they are not letting us know that, and that their purpose | ||
| in sending it up was just to do what we wanted them to do, namely find out, but they weren't | ||
| going to let us know. | ||
| In fact, that's one of the reasons that one might think the mission is ongoing secretly, | ||
| is that now they may be finding out what they needed to know. | ||
| I grant you that the idea that they are doing it on purpose and that it's still operative | ||
| is considered very far out by many, and I'm not espousing it, but I want to say that in | ||
| 200 pages of analysis, it took me over a year to research, the thing does smell. | ||
| That's the way I would put it. | ||
| It doesn't compute, as they say. | ||
| Just very briefly, we do have ground, we have people walking on the moon. | ||
| We've got lots of good pictures of the moon. | ||
| Are there any similar objects or areas of interest on the moon? | ||
| Well, it's very interesting. | ||
| Dr. Sagan has argued that the face on Mars is Just an accidental formation, no matter how much like a face it looks. | ||
| He says, well, out of millions of objects on the surface of the planet, you're bound to find one or two that look like a face. | ||
| Now, the fact is, is that nobody has ever found anything on the moon that looks like that. | ||
| And the moon is covered with the most bizarre kinds of shapes and forms. | ||
| If Sagan were right about it, we'd probably find at least one or two faces scattered around | ||
| in our own deserts as well as on the moon. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So the fact is that nobody has seen anything like that. | ||
| However, there is a literature of interest in strange occurrences or reflective phenomena | ||
| that have occurred on the moon, and I think it's still an area for research. | ||
| There may be stuff there that isn't being looked at as carefully as it should be, and | ||
| I think some people are presently following up that course. | ||
| Just briefly, we went to the moon, we sent men to the moon, and then we kind of came to not a full stop, but nearly a full stop in terms of exploration. | ||
| Would you say that a manned mission, for example, to Mars is absolutely justified Based on what we know so far? | ||
| Oh, absolutely. | ||
| I couldn't think... The future of the human race, I believe, has at least one point of reference in space in the other planets of the solar system. | ||
| That's one of the economic expansions, if you want to look just at pure economics. | ||
| And the science fiction writers today have been really I've been hard at work for the last decade or so, speculating | ||
| and developing scenarios for how asteroids could be used for mining, not to speak of possibly even population | ||
| expansion. | ||
| So there are many people, including myself, who think that is the way that we need to go. | ||
| Do we have the technical expertise now to send men to Mars? | ||
| I'm sure we do. | ||
| I was looking at a video produced by NASA, I believe it is, just recently, and they were saying that the only thing standing in the way was finances, but technically we could do it, yeah. | ||
| All right, Professor, I would like to open the phone lines for just a few moments here and take a few questions from listeners. | ||
| Would you be willing? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| All right, good. | ||
| Let's do it. | ||
| In the local area, everybody, metropolitan area, it's 383. | ||
| 8255, 8255. | ||
| Toll-free out of state, it is 1-800-338-8255. | ||
| The wildcard lines, area code 702-385-7214, and the first-time caller line 702-385-7213. | ||
| And let's see what we've got here. | ||
| Good morning from Jackie Gaunt's... | ||
| Good evening from Jackie Gaunt's Plaza Hotel. | ||
| You're on the air with Professor Stanley McDaniel. | ||
| Hi, my question is... | ||
| What do you hope to accomplish by writing this report? | ||
| All right, that's a good question, actually. | ||
| Where are you calling from? | ||
| San Diego. | ||
| All right, thank you. | ||
| What would you say is your prime motive, Professor? | ||
| I'd be happy to answer that one, because it's one that many people may not believe, but my motive was philosophical ethics. | ||
| I'm a philosopher, and philosophers have criteria for reasoning, and what I was mostly motivated by was my discovery of the The extremely poor reasoning that was being used against the researchers and the very high quality of the researchers' activities. | ||
| So my primary motive was to study what is called the epistemology of this topic. | ||
| In other words, the nature of how knowledge is found and to critique and evaluate that aspect of this whole thing. | ||
| So my basic motivation was academic, I guess you'd have to say. | ||
| All right, let's see what we've got here. | ||
| Wild Card Line 2, good evening. | ||
| You're on the air with Professor McDaniel. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, Radio Free America. | |
| Yes, sir. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'd like to ask Dr. McDaniel a question. | |
| If taxpayers' money is being used to finance all this, and all of a sudden it's being hijacked by private investors, Wouldn't that tend to reflect badly on our government, namely that elected officials aren't representing the people of the United States? | ||
| All right, thank you. | ||
| Well, did you want an answer? | ||
| Well, I think he did, yes. | ||
| So go ahead and tell him what I think he wants to hear. | ||
| Well, certainly it would, and there are some people who are thinking that NASA may be violating its own charter, | ||
| if not in the letter, at least in the spirit of its charter, which is to make information on outer space freely | ||
| available to the American public. | ||
| NASA, of course, is saying they are going to make it available in the case of the Mars Observer. | ||
| We'd get it eventually, but this six-month proprietary period was simply not appropriate | ||
| for an issue of such importance as artificial objects that might exist on Mars. | ||
| Professor, what would it take to get together a group of scientists, appropriate scientists, | ||
| to look at all the data you have and to expand on it and put together, in effect, | ||
| a report that would force NASA to probably talk about a manned mission or talk, in other words, | ||
| a fairly significant amount of scientific evidence they could not ignore? | ||
| My experience in the response that I've gotten from those scientists who have seen my report indicates that reputable and solid scientists could be brought together in a conference to do just what you're talking about if such a conference were funded. | ||
| And I don't think it would take a huge amount of money to fund a conference like that. | ||
| It would be in the order of tens of thousands of dollars, but it wouldn't be millions. | ||
| It would be within the range of any Any philanthropist who would be willing to put forward those kinds of funds? | ||
| Well, other than doing this program, that is my connection with the Bigelow Foundation, but that is certainly the kind of work and the kind of thing that they're funding, and I wonder if you've discussed it with the Foundation, or whether they've come to you, or perhaps that's something that should be done. | ||
| Well, perhaps that's something that should be done. | ||
| Let me just put it that way, and I'd be happy myself to talk to anyone or they could talk to researchers on that topic, but I really do think... Let me say, Art, that you pinpointed just what I thought of. | ||
| I think that the most important strategy today that could take place would be the one you suggested, namely to get the scientific community involved in a way that no one could say that they're a bunch of poops. | ||
| Uh, to date, uh, NASA's had a free reign trying to ridicule the investigators to make them out as crazy. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And if you get, uh, you know, twenty, thirty, or even a hundred really solid scientists and they look at the data and come up with a good conclusion, I think that's the best thing that could be done. | ||
| Alright, very good. | ||
| Uh, line one, good evening. | ||
| You're on the air with Professor McDaniel. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Good evening, Art. | |
| Good evening, Doctor. | ||
| Doctor, just to let you know, according to Richard Hoagland, he had four copies of your report supposedly delivered to the President. | ||
| And from what he hears, it's like NSA. | ||
| Never says anything. | ||
| I think that is correct, yes. | ||
| Plus, caller, if you write to the President, you will generally get back a letter saying thank you for your input. | ||
| And there's a mechanical signature at the bottom. | ||
| Amazing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I would think that being a philosopher, as you are, what probably would have grabbed you, and I don't know your background in mathematics, would be the pure mathematics of it. | |
| And that's something that really intrigued me, hearing Richard Koblenz, I would think just that the mathematics itself, because to me mathematics is pure science. | ||
| And there's really no way to alter it that I know of. | ||
| Yes, there's material in my report, there's new research that hasn't been put in any other document so far, and it involves a very careful analysis of, um, of the, uh, what's called the geometry of the DNM pyramid. | ||
| That establishes very strong, very high probability that the model of that pyramid put forward by Errol Thorne is accurate. | ||
| And this particular side of the mathematics is in my report for the first time ever. | ||
| As a matter of fact, that research was done while I was writing the report and I got it from the author of it and was able to insert it on the fly, you might say. | ||
| So, yes, I think you're right. | ||
| There is... We didn't get to go into that as far as we could have, Art, when we talked earlier, but there is this mathematical side, yeah. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Thank you, fella. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And, Art, it just tells me another thing. | |
| Question everything people tell you. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Again, that seems to be the path to follow, and then to force some hands. | ||
| Do you think, with good, solid scientific evidence, That the majority of the mainstream scientists would ignore it, or would embrace it? | ||
| And I mean with good evidence. | ||
| I think the majority would be willing to embrace it if they were given a fair shot. | ||
| As it stands, the balance is tilted the other way because of the ridicule. | ||
| So I think if the data were really got out, for example, if a journal like Icarus would be willing to print this material, Well, you've already indicated some difficulty in getting some things on this published. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| There's been an information blackout, and they've tried to keep it in the realm of National Enquirer-level material, and that isn't fair. | ||
| So I think, as you said, a conference of that sort that you were talking about would be a good start on that. | ||
| All right. | ||
| The other thing I'd like to do is send as many copies as I can of this report to scientists. | ||
| So that's another thing. | ||
| What reaction have you had so far to what you have done, to your report? | ||
| How has it received? | ||
| It has not been as widely distributed. | ||
| It will be published by North Atlantic Press in January, I believe. | ||
| It'll come out in a regular paper format. | ||
| Until then, it has been available only in a home-done spiral bound, although it's of good quality. | ||
| You may have seen it there. | ||
| No, not yet. | ||
| I would like to. | ||
| So it hasn't gone around too many. | ||
| I'd say at the most we've had maybe 200 total that have gone out. | ||
| All right, let me understand. | ||
| In what manner is it going to be published? | ||
| Will it be as a regular paperback in large size format with some diagrams? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And that should be in mid to late January. | ||
| That'll be available from North Atlantic Press. | ||
| In the meantime, it has come into the hands of a number of reputable scientists. | ||
| I could mention, for example, Dr. Robert M. Schock, who is the Associate Professor of Science and Mathematics at Boston University, and is the man that did the very exciting work on the geological dating of the Sphinx in recent times. | ||
| And how would you characterize his reaction? | ||
| He believes that it is, I could quote from him, he says, I am convinced that it is not only worthwhile, But extremely important that the investigation into the Cydonian objects be continued, utilizing the best techniques and resources available among the scientific community. | ||
| And I have a similar support coming out from a number of other reputable geologists and physicists and astronomers. | ||
| So those scientists who have seen it have been favorably impressed. | ||
| I'm sure also if it were given to certain NASA scientists that they would probably throw it in the wastebasket. | ||
| I did send one of these to Dr. Bevan French at NASA headquarters and I received absolutely no response from whatsoever. | ||
| I never got an answer back. | ||
| Boy, to me, this just does not add up. | ||
| As I always understood science, it is the... Science is just hard facts, and anybody who'd call themselves a scientist and would ignore evidence or ridicule evidence is very suspect. | ||
| Well, it's very strange. | ||
| I talked to Dr. French on the telephone prior to sending him this, and he sounded as though he was interested in the topic and didn't know Uh, all that much about it, and wanted to know more, and then I send him a 200-page, uh, uh, detailed analysis of all of the material, and with argumentation, and, uh, he doesn't, uh, you know, he never replies. | ||
| So, I don't know what's going on. | ||
| All right, Professor, one more quick call, um, maybe a couple, on the, uh, Wild Card Line 2, you're on the air with, uh... Good evening, um, Mr., uh, Dr. McDaniels. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Your mention of the professor at Boston University with reference to the Sphinx, is he the one that has put forth the idea that it is 10,000 years old, also not eroded by sand but by water, and that it may be the establishment of a colony pre-existing the Egyptians and even possibly aliens? | |
| That is correct. | ||
| All right, thank you. | ||
| Yes, there was a TV special on this just recently. | ||
| All right. | ||
| 10,000 years old? | ||
| I believe that's a minimum number that they discovered, yes. | ||
| It would be older. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Wild Card Line 3, time grows short with Professor McDaniel. | ||
| Good evening. | ||
| Hello? | ||
| Hello. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Yes, turn your radio off, please. | ||
| Turn it off? | ||
| Yes, turn it off. | ||
| Turn off your radio, please. | ||
| Well, I can't reach it. | ||
| All right, well, then we'll move on. | ||
| Line 2, you're on the air with Professor Stanley McDaniel. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hello? | |
| Hello. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Art, you asked a question earlier that was really interesting. | |
| You said, why would they send a billion-dollar project into space knowing there was a problem with it? | ||
| Were you talking about the Mars Observer? | ||
| That is correct. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Maybe it wasn't a billion-dollar project. | |
| It could have just been an empty can. | ||
| If NASA is compartmentalized as it's supposed to be, There might not have been anything in there and they could have diverted the funds somewhere else to some other technology. | ||
| Well, that's a lot of conjecture. | ||
| Your conjecture is as good as anybody else's. | ||
| Well, it's certainly an interesting option, although I think that at launch time they discovered these contaminations in the camera area and so on and so on, so probably people did see that it had instruments in it. | ||
| Uh, but, uh, but it's worth considering. | ||
| I mean, it comes with mobility, I think. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Cutting the defense budget, they need money going somewhere else. | |
| Uh-huh. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And they say, gee, we sent it up there, it doesn't work. | |
| Sorry. | ||
| Mm-hmm. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you, Caller. | ||
| Uh, anything is, of course, possible, I suppose, when you don't know. | ||
| Um, so, Professor, you're, I guess, to sum up here, uh, where do you go from here? | ||
| Where do you want to go from here? | ||
| Well, I finished my project, and I would To some degree, rather leave this one behind now and go to other things. | ||
| I've got lots of other things I'd like to be doing. | ||
| However, I'm finding that just being the author of this, I'm having to remain engaged to some degree. | ||
| And I would like to support what I just told you about, namely trying to get mainstream scientists to look at this. | ||
| And to have someone from the conference that would allow that to happen. | ||
| Certainly with the publication of this, the widespread publication, you're likely to be right back into the thick of it again, are you not? | ||
| It is hard to avoid, but to the best of my ability, I'm going to maintain a low profile. | ||
| All right, well, I'm certainly glad you decided to come on the program this morning. | ||
| It's been an extremely informative and you're a good interviewer. | ||
| Thank you very much, Art. | ||
| Professor, thank you. | ||
| Bye-bye. | ||
| Take care. | ||
| That's Professor Stanley McDaniel, author of the McDaniel Report. | ||
| And I hope you enjoyed all of that. | ||
| I want to remind you, the Bigelow Foundation, Angela Thompson is your contact. | ||
| That's Angela Thompson at area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| That's area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| 702-456-1606. That's area code 702-456-1606. And I'm sorry, the clock is what it is, and | ||
| we have simply run out of time. | ||
| We'll be back again with Area 2000 next Sunday, between the hours of 8 o'clock right here, 8 and 10 o'clock, right here on KDWN Radio. | ||
| So thank you all and good morning. | ||
| This has been Area 2000, a program that introduces our listeners to the scientific approach for discussion of two particular subjects, UFOs and near-death and after-death experiences. | ||
| To contact the Bigelow Foundation, please call during the week between 9 a.m. | ||
| and 5 p.m. | ||
| Area code 702-456-1606. | ||
| Ask for Angela Thompson. | ||
| That's area code 702-456-1606. |
Export Selection