Richard C. Hoagland, former NASA consultant and recipient of Sweden’s Angstrom Medal, argues the 1958 Brookings Report forced NASA to conceal artificial structures—like moon-based "crystalline skyscrapers" in Ukert crater and glass domes in Mare Crisium—visible in Apollo, Lunar Orbiter, and Pentagon-funded Clementine images. His team’s advanced analysis reveals geometric precision (e.g., double-inscribed equilateral triangles) and erosion patterns suggesting pre-human construction, possibly by hyperdimensional robotics. Hoagland dismisses NASA’s data suppression as a cover-up to avoid "anthropological devastation," linking findings to Hopi prophecies and Mars anomalies like the 1976 Viking mission’s life signals. He urges private missions and public access to raw archives, claiming evidence could redefine civilization’s origins or extraterrestrial intelligence’s role in Earth’s evolution. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening or good morning and welcome to Coast to Coast, A.M. P.M., the first or last hour as the case may be.
Yes, as promised, Richard Hoagland is here by the skin of his or our teeth.
We just got him before showtime.
And he'll be here in just a moment.
And he's, of course, author of Monuments, Monuments of Mars, and an awful lot more these days.
And he's got something to say about the moon.
And so we'll be talking with Richard Hoagland in just a moment.
First, a programming note.
And I know a lot of you are going to jump up and down when you hear this.
But beginning one week from this Sunday, the latest, the 56th affiliate for Dreamland, Kogo, K-O-G-O, in San Diego, is going to begin carrying Dreamland live.
That's one week from this coming Sunday.
And I thought a lot of you down in Southern California would want to know that, San Diego, Los Angeles, and on up the coast.
I'm currently the leader of a research project called the Mars Mission, which involves a range of astronomers, scientists of persuasions ranging from geology to image processing to mathematicians, anthropologists, even some artists and psychologists.
And what we're trying to do is to figure out a set of objects discovered on a set of NASA images about 20 years ago, taken of the planet Mars by the unmanned Viking mission.
And it's kind of the first extraterrestrial archaeological research project in history, I guess you could say.
Before that, I was head of astronomy departments at museums.
I was at the Hayden Planetarium in New York.
I've been a NASA consultant.
I've been a consultant to Walter Cronkite at CBS News, science advisor at CNN.
Well, I point them toward the New York Times for July 20th, 1969, which finally apologized to Robert Goddard for calling him, some 50 years before, a fantasy visionary who was not grounded in science.
Everyone who tries to do something that has never been done before is accused of being slightly, you know, non-anchored in reality.
And, you know, you just have to take that along with the rest because ultimately it's the evidence which will prove you right or wrong.
And, you know, about 10 years ago when I began this, I wouldn't have given a prayer that we would be proven right maybe within my lifetime because there were no missions going back to Mars.
There was no general scientific consensus that there was any possibility of artifacts in the solar system.
It was an extremely isolated position.
Now we have, you know, hundreds of scientists who have joined us in various ways.
Richard, I've got a computer, and recently I went up on America Online, got a gift reader, and got the gift pictures, several of them, of the monuments on Mars, of the face on Mars.
And I've been looking very carefully, as best I can.
Got a nice high-resolution monitor.
I must tell you, that face looks like a face.
Yeah, I mean, it really looks like a face, Richard.
I don't know that I've got enough detail to see some of the other objects.
I can see surrounding objects, but I don't know that I can make out with the detail of the picture I have enough detail to call them any specific structures.
Are they harder to...
Obviously, you've got more sophisticated techniques than I guess I do.
Imagine what has happened in the computer world in a generation.
A generation in the world of software, in the world of desktop computers, in the world of microprocessing has been almost as much a revolution as from the first Wright brothers airplane to the Apollo spacecraft going to the moon.
I mean, we have literally come up factors of thousands in computer speed.
We've gone up factors of millions in computer storage capability in the number of image processing operations that can be done per second, MIPS as they're called.
You have more computer power on your desk art now in 1994.
And I've checked this with an engineer the other day because as we get into the discussion on the new part of our research, you'll see why this is very relevant.
An ordinary, let's say, half-meg hard disk, 30-megahertz DOS-based system is more computer power in one machine on a desk than all of NASA had 30 years ago.
All of NASA spread all over the country in a dozen centers had just 30 years ago, a little over a generation.
So when you look at these images, what you have to understand is that they were recorded as digital binary information on magnetic tape, you know, sent back to Earth, recorded here on Earth.
Sure.
And any of the advances which have been wrought in the way of seeing things on these images is not because we're making up stuff, but because the algorithms allow you to reach down deeper and deeper into the noise and extract that last bit of signal.
And the other objects that are around the face that are, in fact, they're several miles away, to the, you have to look to the west, all right?
Those geometric, angular-looking things that look very pyramidal, they will be brought out by a combination of noise suppression algorithms and things like sharpening, unsharped masking, a variety of techniques now that everyone has access to that literally only a handful of the world's most sophisticated computer programmers could have done 30 years ago.
The democratization of this technology art is absolutely incredible.
It's the beginning of the superhighway, and what you're looking at is only the beginning of that highway for you, so keep going.
Well, my question is, without yet going into what is on the moon, how does the imaging quality of the photos we've received from the moon compare to what I'm seeing from Mars?
All right, we need to go into a little bit of various technology.
The images from Mars were acquired with what Brian O'Leary told me at breakfast the other morning was the most infernal idiocy ever turned to astronomy invented by man, namely the image Vitacon camera.
He was the deputy team leader on Mariner 10 that went to Mercury and Venus.
And he had a devil of a time with the technology.
We were kind of comparing notes in Albuquerque the other morning when I was down there for a conference.
The same kind of camera was flown during Viking to Mars.
An image in Viticon is a little pencil, actually a cigarette-sized vacuum tube, which writes an image on the front face plate of the tube by means of an electrical current, a beam of electrons, and various magnetic fields.
It's a very tiny, but it's a vacuum tube TV camera.
Now, the modern TV cameras that you have in your camcorders, and you have in your studio cameras, top of the line, and you have in your space missions, those are not Viticons.
Those are solid-state CCDs, charge-coupled devices.
the chip camera is probably a thousand to ten thousand times more sensitive it is a hundred thousand times more linear meaning the the lightest and darkest things it can photograph and not overexposed or underexposed right is enormous compared to the i mean well Wow.
That's the technology now.
That's not counting the imaging algorithms and the sophisticated mathematical techniques of enhancing, shading, contrast, stretching, all those things that you do with images once they come home.
Now, why is the technology important?
Because you're only as good as your front end.
You know, if you have a lousy radio art, I don't care how good a signal you're putting out, if the radio is bad, we're going to sound terrible tonight in somebody's living room, right?
If we had today's technology, the technology available on Clementine, and it had been in roughly the same place taking the same photographs of Mars, would there be much of an argument about what we were seeing?
Because the noise levels would have been lower, the number of pictures would have been vastly superior.
The comparisons, we could have had color, we could have had stereo, we could have had multiple angles.
This problem would have been a non-problem.
We would have known or not known within hours of those images coming back, provided, again, that the politics within NASA were honest, and that's a completely separate discussion.
But technologically, no, if we'd had CCD imaging on Viking, the face on Mars would be a resolved mystery tonight.
This came to me in a fax from somebody at Cairo News, K-I-R-O up in Seattle.
It says, Russian and U.S. Mars mission planners are meeting at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, according to Aviation Week, to better define U.S.-Russian participation in a proposed space exploration program to be called Mars Together.
France, Germany, and Italy are also considering joining in the new 1998 unmanned mission to Mars.
Well, I know the Russians were supposed to launch this year.
In fact, we were kind of hoping that they would get a look at Sidonia, that they may even land one of their mini-rovers, and it was delayed.
It's been delayed now two years to 1996.
This is part of the ongoing discussion between NASA and the European space community, and of course the Russians have now joined the European space community for plans after 96.
The next opportunity is 98.
You get an opportunity to go to Mars roughly every two years.
So this is part of what we get to see in public.
What really is driving this, I basically could speculate, but I have no direct knowledge.
In other words, I don't know whether there is some plan to investigate the Sidonia objects quietly together or they don't even know they're there or they're pretending they're not there.
Well, let me put that hopefully in a correct perspective.
I was a NASA consultant.
I was a NASA fan from the beginning.
I mean, when I was at the museum in Springfield in 1964, I created a transcontinental project between the Museum of Science in Springfield and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena with an NBC affiliate named WTIC in Hartford, Connecticut.
It was owned by the Travelers Insurance Company.
We did an all-night program with everyone from Carl Sagan to Alan Hynek.
We broadcast the program by laser as an experimental technology for communication, foreshadowing ultimately someday what would be occurring across the solar system or between the moon and Earth or Mars and Earth and all that.
The program was nominated for a Peabody, and the occasion was the first flyby of the Mariner 4 spacecraft past Mars in July of 1965.
So I cannot say that I was an antagonist in the beginning, but what I have become is a critic because the agency has drifted away from the charter.
When you go back and look at how NASA was formed in 1958 as a unique government agency that was to be of service of, by, and for the people of the United States, if you read the charter, it says in one paragraph that there shall be all appropriate and widespread dissemination of the process and results of NASA's activities in the field of science and inquiry into the universe, et cetera, et cetera.
And what we have found and what has been documented not only by our own efforts, but by the efforts of people like Dr. Stan McDaniel, is that somehow NASA is not operating today in consonance with its charter.
Now, most of the people in NASA, the 99.9% who are heroic, pioneering, who believe in the charter, they would be appalled if they had done their homework and found what we have found.
So it's not that I'm opposed to NASA.
What I'm opposed to is the tiny handful of people who over the last 30 years, as we are now unfortunately able to document, have caused the agency to diverge more and more from its ideals, its goals, its vision, its principles, its ethics on which the American people have depended.
And we're doing this on behalf not only of people who care about NASA, but the people within the agency who are being sold down the river along with the rest of us.
If you read a document called the Brookings Report, which we have unearthed now as part of our political activities, you find that literally as NASA was being created in 1958, 1959, there was a general effort by the agency to reach out to the scientific community and to gather experts from a variety of fields,
anthropologists, economists, lawyers, politicians, industrialists, whatever, and to ask them, how do we do this, boys and girls?
How do we create a space agency and what should we do and what would the impact be back on the American society?
This study, which is available from federal archives all over the country, which was submitted by NASA to Congress in 1961, in April of 1961, by the then new Kennedy administration, turns out to have contained within it what I have now called the ticking time bomb, the kind of logical paradox.
Because on the one hand, NASA charter called for it to be the most open, democratized agency in the history of the federal government, in the history of this republic.
In this Brookings report, there is a section dealing with extraterrestrial intelligence, extraterrestrial life.
And in that section, NASA received recommendations that if it ever found artifacts, and it was expected that it might find, as part of its unmanned space activities, robots like Viking, or lunar orbiter or surveyor, or other missions out across the solar system, it might find artifacts.
And on page 215, this document predicts that.
It says that because of the potential for anthropological devastation, the fact that previous civilizations on Earth, when they have been forced to confront suddenly as advanced cultures completely above and beyond them, that they have disintegrated, it recommended that serious consideration be given to simply not revealing this data, to withholding this information from the American people and thereby from the rest of the world.
My God, that's the equivalent of an unconstitutional act.
In fact, the parallel, Richard, to what has occurred to our own Constitution since its penning, really there are many parallels.
So do you think it just might be that NASA, like every other bureaucracy, like our own damn federal government, got too big and as a natural course began to sort of draw in and become protective?
Well, if you look at the sociology of this institution and you understand that in the timeframe when this recommendation Was made by people of the level of competence and authority of Margaret Mead, who was a very well-known anthropologist of this period.
You know, the head of Harvard, the general counsel for the United Nations.
I mean, the names of the people on this Blue Ribbon Commission read like a who's who of American science and industry of the time period.
Coming out of the very paranoid McCarthy period, where we were afraid of our own shadow and everybody else's shadow, the idea that a bunch of very respected academics would basically say to NASA, look, if you find ETs, you could destroy civilization if you let it out, I think had a profound chilling effect on the scientists and the administrators and the engineers who have been running NASA for the last 30 years.
Politics is the art of dealing reality, spinning reality, not reality itself.
So regardless of whether you now look back in hindsight and say, oh, they were crazy to have thought that, the fact that, and I want to in a moment get into a couple of other governments that are in the same position kind of sociologically that we were 30 years ago, and that I've now dealt with.
I've had representatives come and stay with us and talk to me about how they would respond to this kind of information, given that their treatment of academics is very different than ours is now.
It's more like it was 30 years ago.
So we've been doing our homework into why this apparently was taken so, so seriously.
The upshot is that a lot of the people who created NASA, who commissioned this report from Brookings, remember Brookings is one of the world's most prestigious think tanks.
You've got to understand that these were well-meaning men, and they were men.
They were not women, because we're dealing with the 50s and 60s.
And when they got this recommendation, I think art that they felt they were doing a valiant public service in deciding that if they ever found the evidence, they would quietly put it in a drawer.
Several nights ago, Thursday of last week, I flew to Ohio, to Ohio State University, and to a literally packed auditorium, about 600 people, Independence Hall, we presented for four hours the results of the last year and a half of our Mars mission research.
We're going to have to, by the way, change the name of our organization because Mars is too narrow a focus.
And I'm in the process of kind of casting around for something that would be appropriate and would kind of embody the spirit of this inquiry as it broadens its focus.
But what we did is we presented a year and a half's worth of work.
We had four trays of slides.
We had 600 people stay four hours.
They gave me a five-minute standing ovation at the end.
And what's really neat is that we are drowning in data.
Whereas with Mars, we've been arguing, you know, almost like the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin and that classic thing with two photographs at two different lighting angles.
With the moon, we are data-rich.
We have literally thousands of pictures.
All told, NASA has millions of pictures.
Clementine, the recent Pentagon mission, itself took 1.5 million images of the moon.
We are stunningly data-rich.
Haven't you kind of wondered why we have never really seen the moon art?
Think back.
Go tomorrow when it's dawn and you've rested up from the night before, go to your library and take out a few astronomy texts and begin to look at the section on the Apollo missions to the moon or the moon in general.
What you're going to find, what we have found, what I have puzzled over For the last year and a half, is you're going to find in book after book and text after text and magazine article after magazine article the same tired half-dozen pictures of the moon.
Millions of pictures, and all we have gotten really to look at in the last 25 years, since Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in July of 1969, are basically the same six dumb images.
And you also have not seen any stunning three-dimensional flyovers of the moon.
That's for sure.
JPL, the Jeffrey Potion Laboratory, which is NASA's premier interplanetary mission central, during the Voyager missions, it brought online parallel processing machines and supercomputers and craze and whatever.
And during the Neptune flyby, it gave us within hours, practically, of the photographs from Voyager 2 of Triton, Neptune's large satellite.
It gave us a beautiful, incredible, three-dimensional flyover of Triton, this planet-sized moon orbiting Neptune at the edge of the solar system.
Have you ever seen a camera hovering, flying, skimming just above the Sea of Tranquility, darting across Copernicus, making a right turn at Archimedes, going through the Alpine Valley, shooting down over the rim of Tycho?
We have recreated our own version with Sidonia and Dr. Carlato and the imaging technologies at TASC, the Analytic Sciences Corporation in Reading when Mark worked there.
But think back, we had three extraordinary mapping cameras on Apollo's 50, 16, and 17.
These were 24-inch aerial reconnaissance cameras used by the military, you know, to photograph the heck out of Cuba and pinpoint the missile silos loaded with the best high-resolution aerial film that American technology could provide.
They map stunning orbit after orbit after orbit after orbit of the moon.
Well, they dare not show it to you because it contains evidence, stunning evidence of artificial structures that they, and we'll get to who they might be, have not wanted you to see for 30 years.
Brookings has been in full force, and we have been living a lie, Art.
And that's what I showed the crowd at Ohio State University, and that's why they gave me a standing ovation, because we finally broken the lie.
We are hoping to have an online video available so everyone can see these images on their VCR within a matter of weeks, hopefully next two or three weeks.
I have not been able to get the data into the hands of our computer people yet simply because I had to get the stereo and getting this silently, quietly out of NASA has been like pulling teeth on a mountain lion.
While the lion is asleep, you don't want to wake up the lion.
If we didn't want to include that, we could probably have this thing ready in a week or so.
But I want to wait about two or three weeks so that Carlado can take the stereo, the three-dimensional, two different missions, five different geometries, three different lightings that we've got of some of these objects, and literally create the 3D so that you will fly around the several thousand-foot-high crystalline skyscrapers we have found standing on the moon.
The geologists of our team, most of whom have not seen what I have been working on, because I've been holding it very close to the vest, some of them were able to assemble at Ohio State on Thursday night.
They were absolutely blown away.
They were boggled because they know that this is not what the geology of the moon should look like.
It just doesn't look like that, boys and girls.
And the amazing thing to me, more so than the artifacts, is how they've kept the secret.
And that, to me, is going to be the most amazing puzzle of all this because I can't imagine that we're the first to have seen this.
I do know that our technology is a lot better on one desk than all of NASA had when these photographs were taken.
But I also have now been seeing clues in the Lunar Science Conference papers, in the proceedings of the scientists get together every year in Houston, where they gather and present papers on the lunar studies, the rocks, and the photographs and all that.
I see lots and lots of clues that other scientists have seen some of this before and didn't know what they were seeing.
I also know that some scientists had to have known what they were seeing because there's just the fingerprints of their manipulation of the rest of them away.
It's like the 99% who are honest can be manipulated by the 1% who are not because the 99% believe that everybody is honest and they don't think anybody would ever lie to them in NASA and that's why this weirdness has succeeded.
Again, to see the level of detail, to know with absolute certainty what you're seeing, you have to be in lunar orbit.
Now, let me tell you one weirdness that I don't know where to put this on the landscape, and so I'll just lay out the evidence and you can decide what it means.
About a year ago, a Japanese television network came to us wanting to film me for a program vis-a-vis The Monuments of Mars.
So, I mean, I wasn't so much interested in the money as I was interested in the leverage that having a Japanese television network working with us could give us to answer a major mystery in my own mind.
In 1991, one of the major car companies in Japan, I believe it was Honda, put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon.
So rather than the normal international exchange of, you know, dollars for rights and all this, I basically propose we do this for a very modest amount, but I want access to the Japanese lunar pictures.
Literally, within hours of my sending this fax, where that was the condition for my going ahead with this arrangement, my contact sent me a copy of the Tokyo Times back by fax that morning, which announced that the Japanese spacecraft had crashed on the moon.
The fact that the Russians have now delayed again going on the wake of Mars Observer disappearing, you know, if it weren't for the fact that we've now got them by the...
We are the gatekeepers, and fortunately, the Constitution still prevails, and fortunately, we've got the data, and fortunately, the American people can take back their space program, but they've got to get mad enough to decide this nonsense is high time it ended.
You know, I had a meeting this afternoon with our production people, and I've set aside in the budget 100 copies, freebies, to be given out to media, political people, scientists, colleagues, kind of high-priority targets, because once you see what is there, what we have found, your life will never be the same again, and you will demand that Bill Clinton do with NASA what he's done with the Atomic Energy Commission, open the damn file.
We are talking with the Clinton administration even as we speak.
We had a conference call yesterday with one of the president's closest friends, someone who has taken the McDaniel document into the Oval Office.
And I am going to try to set up a situation where Bill Clinton either can become a hero, a la the man that he venerates, John Kennedy, or history will write something different.
The positive benefits, Brookings aside, the positive benefits of leveling with the American people, presenting clearly and concisely what we've got and now what we can do with it, the extraordinary opportunities and the benefits to the economy, to the global political situation,
to domestic peace and tranquility, all of the positive things that can happen by being honest on this issue, by going forward with the research and the development and making use of this knowledge for the benefit of all mankind, so far outweigh the fears of a few timid bureaucrats who have been huddling, quivering, shivering under the covers for 30 years because Margaret Mead said we would destroy civilization.
If you tell us, that will not happen.
This is the Star Trek generation, Art.
We have been raised on going where no one has gone before.
And I frankly think it's high time that we all grew up and we went ahead and made known what a few have known and have seen while the rest of us wondered.
Richard, maybe we're ready, but what about the rest of the world?
We are not alone.
In other words, we've come a long way, you're right, with the Star Trek generation, but I'm not sure they are in Argentina or in Britain or in Australia or in Japan or in a lot of other places.
Well, look, you know, we lived on this planet from the 50s to a couple years ago where children in every culture, every race, every creed, every color, every country went to bed at night.
And if they had access to any kind of media, at some level, as they went to bed, they thought, maybe I won't wake up in the morning because there'll be a nuclear Holocaust global nuclear war.
Nothing else could possibly compare to suicide by our own hand, the idiocy of the military and industrial complex run amok.
I think that this is where leadership has to assert itself.
The positive benefits, culturally, scientifically, technically, and economically, of pursuing this high frontier now, of verifying what's there, of exploring what's there, of returning the extraordinary knowledge of what's there.
When we get into the details of what is there, you'll see why we desperately need this knowledge back on Earth to help us save the Earth.
What makes you think they have not already explored it?
If they've done all this, the rest of this stuff in secret, why would you imagine they'd have as much knowledge as you may have and would not have acted on it?
And it's the application to society as a whole, the Baconian tradition of science art, where we have fallen woefully short.
Remember the mandate of NASA.
NASA's charter was to explore space and to create the technologies and the knowledge base to apply that wisdom and knowledge for the benefit of all mankind.
There has been a woeful gap between that vision and what in fact has taken place.
So maybe the science has been done by somebody, but it has not been applied to the benefit of society on this planet, and that's what has to happen now.
We have to reinvent the earth using this knowledge which someone has been sitting on for over 30 years.
What if the answer, though, Richard, is so awful, something that would, for example, deny the existence of God or cause people to believe that what they've always thought, their deepest faiths, are shattered?
I have to tell you, Richard, if I were a government guy and I had that information, I'd sit long and hard before I released it.
And what we found is that these structures on Mars, and I'll remain with Mars for a moment, are not laid out at random.
Part of our epistemology, part of how we know, or with a high level of confidence, strongly suggest, if you want to be really conservative, that there are structures on Mars is because they have a very precise and repeating, overwhelmingly repeating geometric pattern.
They are not laid out at random.
Mountains and craters and other things have a random distribution.
These things are as orderly, if you know what you're looking at in terms of geometry, as the streets of Albuquerque or Las Vegas or Los Angeles.
Well, no, it requires Euclidean geometry, but it's different angles.
Instead of right angles, we're dealing with multiples and submultiples of what we would call tetrahedral geometry, which is the geometry of a circle.
What are called polyhedra, many-sided figures inscribed within a sphere.
Plato was one of the first to make popular the so-called five platonic solids, which are these regular multiply-edged figures you see put inside spheres, sometimes in museum exhibits, sometimes in textbooks.
The simplest of those forms is the tetrahedron, which is a four-sided, four-cornered pyramid made out of a series of equilateral triangles.
If you take a sheet of paper, and you take a pen or a pencil, and a scissors, and a ruler, and you draw four equilateral triangles on the piece of paper.
Now, an equilateral triangle is a triangle whose sides and angles are all equal.
Remember, the angles in a triangle in two dimensions have to add up to 180 degrees.
So if you have a 60-degree angle, and a 60-degree angle, and a 60-degree angle, that satisfies the first criteria.
That makes 180.
And each edge will be exactly the same.
You cut those out, and you take a piece of, you take a tube of glue, or you take some masking tape or scotch tape, and you carefully glue them or tape them together into a pyramid.
And you've got one on the bottom and three on the sides, and it's got four sides and four corners, and there is a tetrahedral pyramid.
You put that in a sphere, and you're off and running.
In two dimensions, not in three, but in two dimensions, an equilateral triangle is the symbol, is the stand-in for this tetrahedron.
All right?
What led us to the site on the moon, where we have found the structures, is an 18-mile diameter crater in whose interior is an almost perfect equilateral triangle arc, which can be seen from the Earth with a telescope.
Well, you can't tell from the Earth-based photographs.
We've now acquired photographs taken by the Lick Observatory about 50, 60 years ago.
And these were available from NASA.
They were picked up by a colleague of mine at an archive in Hawaii, of all places.
We tried to get some full moon photographs from Lick directly, and for some curious reason, we couldn't get any.
I don't know whether it was because the people we were dealing with were kind of dumb, or they are not available, or I don't understand why, but we finally had to track down full moon pictures through a NASA archive out in Hawaii.
And when you scan them and put them up on the computer and enlarge them, lo and behold, this crater called Ukert has this stunningly perfect equilateral triangle inscribed within it.
It's the only crater on the moon that we've examined, and we've now looked at thousands of them, that has this.
Now, what makes this pretty interesting is that this crater at certain times is the closest crater to Earth on the moon.
It is in the center of the lunar disk.
It's right smack dab center of the visible side of the moon facing the Earth as the moon orbits around the Earth in about a month.
It's the place where, if you were putting something for intelligence on Earth to see when it developed telescopes art.
Well, on the rim of the crater, we can look at the brightness of the rim in various parts.
If you think of a crater as a circle, as a clock, and you have the clock at, let's say, midnight with the hands directly up, 3 o'clock would be with the hands at right angles, 6 o'clock would be with the hands opposite, and so on and so forth.
Think of a clock face, all right?
The equilateral triangle in Ukurt is basically midnight to 4 to 7 and back to midnight.
That's the edges.
It's straight up and down.
Now, on the rim around the crater, there are three bright sections, which are at 2, 10, and 6.
So it forms another equilateral triangle if you connect the edges outside of the interior equilateral triangle.
Like a double-inscribed equilateral triangle, which, of course, is the two-dimensional equivalent of the double-inscribed tetrahedron we have decoded through the monuments of Mars, if you looked at my UN tape 1,400 times, as some people, in fact, have.
So, you know, as Indiana Jones said in The Last Crusade, X does not mark the spot.
It turns out to be an equilateral triangle.
So we began pulling out of the files, or trying to pull out of the files through various sources and contacts, mission photography from the U.S. space program going back 30-plus years around this site, smack dab in the center of the moon.
And there are three sets of missions that obviously we wanted to look at.
Because the first thing that I thought would happen is there would be a wholesale fire if they knew I was looking at negatives for a particular part of the moon.
I don't want to sound a little paranoid, but, you know, with the weirdness that has been documented by McDaniel and others now over the Mars data, I wanted to play this real cool.
So the advantage of having a membership organization is you can have John Q. Public write very nice letters to the National Archives, which NASA has set up, and they can order photographs and negatives and things, and they never know that it is going to the research until it is too late.
We had some indication that, in fact, this is what was going on.
And let me tell you one piece of evidence.
I was able to get hold of a catalog from the Apollo 10 mission published in 1971.
Apollo 10 was the precursor to the lunar landing.
It literally was a year ago, a couple, I'm sorry, 25 years ago, a couple weeks ago.
May 25th, 1969 was the successful orbiting of Apollo 10.
And of course, I vividly remember it because that was my, you know, I was involved at CBS.
I was science advisor to Walter Cronkite.
You know, a young kid of 23, the power of being advisor to the most powerful television network in the world.
Yes.
You can imagine how you felt at that time.
Well, I felt that way.
So I remember vividly where I was, what I was doing, what we were all doing during this mission.
Little did I imagine, Art, that a quarter of a century later, I'd be looking at photographs acquired by that mission and finding stunning stuff that A, proves that there's somebody else out there, and B, that our government has not leveled with us for a quarter of a century.
I would never have imagined, ever, that I would be in that position, but that's where we are.
So anyway, I got this catalog from one of our Mars mission members, and in going through it, I noticed something peculiar from Apollo 10.
In these catalogs that have been published on every mission, going back now to Apollo 8, what NASA has done in consonance with the charter is to publish voluminous amounts of data.
You know, it's almost like one of those old Johnny Carson routines.
Everything you ever wanted to know about an Apollo mission is contained within these covers.
Also, in the back of the catalogs, they provided, in postage stamp size, actual reproductions of every photograph taken during the mission.
This is the still.
These were the Hasselblad stills.
The film cameras, the sequence cameras are not available.
Because remember, when this technology was used, we were limited to film.
Now, of course, you could have video previews of what the film cameras recorded, and you could simply order the video cassette of, you know, ex-orbit and that kind of thing.
Anyway, in the back of this catalog, Apollo 10, published in 1971.
Mission took place in 1969, catalog published in 71.
I'm looking through it, and I'm looking in the back at the reproduction of the photographs themselves, and I begin to notice something pretty weird.
NASA's catalog process of photo reproduction is lousy.
If you go from upper left to lower right, there's about half a dozen pictures on each page, and you would have overexposed, blank, underexposed, okay, underexposed, blank, blank, overexposed, so-so, underexposed, blank, blank, blank, overexposed.
And I began to compare that mission with the previous catalog from Apollo 8, where, with the exception of a couple, three frames, every photograph was perfect.
Then I got an Apollo 12 catalog, which contained the data from the rendezvous and landing near the Surveyor 3 spacecraft by Alan Bean in the Sea of Storms in November of 69, second lunar landing mission.
I recall.
And there were 50-some, 60-some pictures reproduced in that catalog, and those were all perfect.
And I began to say, this is kind of weird.
Because either we had a drastic falloff in catalog production technology at NASA between 1969 and 1971, or we had a radical shortage of ink, particularly white ink, okay?
Or maybe there's something more interesting because the photographs that were blank were of Ukurk.
Anyway, the bottom line is we can prove that someone has faked the data.
Someone has altered the data.
So if you were a geologist in Dubuque at the university and you were ordering from the NASA catalog photographs from the National Archive, would you pay hundreds of dollars for a blank frame?
Now, the even more interesting thing is we began to go through this process in depth, and I began to order the same frames from Houston and from other archives.
And you've seen the brilliant reflections of the skyscrapers and all those glass buildings now with parallel windows that form mirrors at sunset at the right angle?
Absolutely.
LA Law had some beautiful aerials during some of the latter years of their series where they had helicopter shots going between the skyscrapers in downtown L.A., and you get wondrous light reflections.
I'm doing this because this data has got to get out.
And I'm going to be seeing some Hollywood people, producers, media types.
And I'm just using the opportunity en route to another conference in Hawaii to show people in various parts of the country what their government has taken from them and not let them see for 30 years.
The reason we picked Ohio State is that the invitation came up, you know, kind of at the right time.
It's ironic that it's Ohio State because they have a radio astronomer named Frank Krause who was a rebel in his day and who built, with great opposition, a kind of amateur radio telescope, which was one of the first to be used for SETI, for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
And it felt to me kind of appropriate to stand on the stage at Ohio State and debut photographic evidence, incontrovertible evidence, that there is something on the moon that does not belong, built by someone a long time ago, and this government did not tell the citizens who paid for the pictures in the trip.
I can't imagine that this government, having that information, would not, if necessary, conduct a secret trip to the moon and go and visit this edifice, whatever it is.
Within 48 hours of my address at Ohio State, I got a call from a very well-connected intelligence source who has now told me two things that I need.
This came in so recently that I have not been able to check it out.
He told me that there is a representative of the Army Intelligence Service, the Army Intelligence Corps, who wants to talk to me on the record and will attest to the fact that they've known this for 30 years.
The other thing this source told me was that there was a recent briefing in England of a group using current Clementine data from the recently completed Pentagon mission to the moon.
Richard Hoagland, author of Monuments of Mars, NASA consultant at one time, is our guest, and he's kind of blowing it wide open this morning.
Says he's found and has absolute proof.
Not wondering about it proof, not speculative discussion, but proof that there are artificial structures on Mars, not little ones either.
Biggins.
Real big ones.
And so we're going to be talking more about that.
And now back to Richard Hoagland.
Richard.
Richard, if, you know, this radio program's going to a lot of the country.
And if, as a result of this radio program, somebody at one of the big networks or one of the major newspapers around the country would like to contact you, verify your information, and get themselves the story of the century, would you be up for that?
No, I mean, we would not have done this at Ohio State on Thursday night if we weren't ready.
And the only hang-up is that I want to get this into the hands of ordinary folks in a way that they can really walk through.
If you present these photographs just as photographs, some people will instantly recognize how extraordinary and anomalous they are.
But we live in a culture where there is, either by accident or design, almost what I call educational dysfunction.
People don't understand process anymore.
They don't understand how the lunar environment is so radically different than the Earth that what we're seeing, things sticking up a mile or two into the sky, cannot possibly exist.
That glass, cubicle, geometric structures reflecting sunlight as a spacecraft goes by cannot exist naturally in the lunar environment.
So what I did at Ohio State is I basically gave everyone a step-by-step instructional program in how to view the moon, starting at square one.
And I took them through the processes, the geology, the environment, the comparison with Earth, the fact that you don't have water, you don't have air, you don't have clouds, you don't have geology as we know it.
It's a very simple, stochastic, erosional environment where nothing but a meteoric bombardment beats down everything, bashes, bashes, smashes, destroys.
So you basically have rounded terrain eventually with lots and lots of rounded craters.
The things we're seeing set against that terrain are so stunning that if you're a geologist, you literally leap out of your seat, as I had two guys do at Ohio State the other night.
Jim Arjavik and Dr. Bruce Cornet.
Dr. Cornette, who is a former geologist with the Lamont Dougherty Observatory here in New York at Columbia University, has written a paper, a technical review of our data, and it has been published on the Internet.
I mean, Cornette basically affirms everything we think we've got.
And that was up until, what, three or four weeks ago, and he had not seen the data recently up until the other night.
So I had several new things that we had been working on to surprise him.
And surprise him we did.
But what he has done is to provide this independent critique with the frame numbers.
And it's very important that we get people the frame numbers so they now can begin to order them from Houston, from the National Space Science Data Center outside Washington, from the other NASA archives.
And maybe more important is they begin to look to their own files and their own collectibles that they've squirreled away over the years.
A lot of the good information that we got early on in this investigation came from private individuals who basically were amateur astronomers and space program aficionados who just kept everything, thank God.
You see, in the beginning, Art, the system was honest, that NASA gave away thousands upon thousands of pictures.
The way we're going to keep this honest is that since we've now identified some of those hidden material, we will compare what NASA has in the archive now with what they gave us and with what people have been retaining in private reserves and private archives.
If all the data sets don't match, if 4822 from Apollo 10, AS1032-4822, isn't the same in every single representation, you got them.
Oh, because they're incredibly ancient and eroded.
They have been bashed to hell by hundreds of millions of years of meteorite bombardment if the calibration curves that we get from other space science input is accurate.
This is so awesomely old that I can tell you what happened now.
We found this stuff.
Somebody in NASA looked at the photographs or put the data together and they figured it out and they took it to a tiny handful in this government and they literally freaked out and they said, oh my God, we can't show anybody this.
And they hid it from the rest of NASA and the rest of us and they've been terrified that someone would find out for 30 plus years.
This last Sunday on Dreamland, I had a physicist on who is of the opinion that we have had a number of polar changes, polar shifts, and that there have been previous civilizations that are not necessarily,
in other words, that our current ETs, if they exist, are not really from any place else, but in fact from previous civilizations where humanity has risen to some level or another of technology and then been smashed down, much like the dinosaurs, by polar shifts.
Okay, next week, no, two weeks from now, I am coming to your part of the country.
I'm coming to Arizona, and I'm going to get together with some Hopi elders because our calculations in terms of the hyperdimensional physics, looking backward now at the history of the Earth, indicate that, in fact, this is quite possible.
And I believe that the four worlds of the Hopi reflect the idea of four previous epochs where civilization rose to a remarkable height and then something happened.
Okay, well, for some reason, they're going to sit down and talk to me.
They have seen the UN briefing.
They had seen the tape.
And it apparently is now time for us to have the conversation.
The reason that this is good timing is because I believe that if one is concerned that this could happen again, in this physics, there are things we can do.
We are not powerless to do something about this, as awesome as that may sound.
And part of the secret, part of the reason why we've got to get to the moon is to find out the knowledge and expertise which I think must exist there in some archives, plural, that is at a level below the level of meteorite bombardment and devastation we see, Because from other indications, I think that things probably go down as deep in the moon as they extend above it in terms of the photographs that we've been analyzing.
One of the reasons I brought that up or set that up, Richard, is because I set that up because if we're looking for motivations to keep something secret, if the answer is that we're going to get wiped out, there's going to be a polar shift, and according to this physicist, that would produce 800 mile-an-hour winds, it would literally bury this civilization, just about any traces of this civilization, the earth changes that would occur and so forth, would devastate it.
He says there are prior civilizations, and they are literally buried down very far.
We're seeing detail down to the order of meters, all right, feet on these photographs.
One of our geologists believes that some of the photographs that I'm showing are the footings in the northwestern area of the actual dome, that the erosion has been so severe that we're now seeing the foundations.
What we see are mile after mile after mile of absolutely parallel double craters, all aligned with each other in three dimensions.
Oh, did I mention that this stuff is made out of glass?
Glass has a certain refractive index, and as you change the angle, there are predictable laws called Snell's laws of refraction and reflection.
And this stuff is built out of glass.
Now, before you say, wait a minute, he's gone over the edge here, there is a NASA study which I cite, you know, and you'll see in the video, by a gentleman who is located not very far from you, as Miles Go.
He is at the Los Alamos National Laboratory over in New Mexico.
About two-thirds of the lunar surface is silicon and oxygen, which is silicon dioxide, better known as quartz, better known as sand, better known as glass, guys, if you apply some heat to it.
The other thing is that in an airless, waterless environment, such as the moon, or an anhydrous environment, don't you love those technical terms?
Glass will not crack and have crystal dislocations.
So Blake's calculations are that glass will have the structural strength of steel.
Now, when you see what we've got to show you, somebody put this knowledge to good use and built some pretty amazing and extraordinarily awesome stuff a long time ago.
And we're looking at stuff on a scale so vast, Art, the only thing I can term it is mega-engineering.
But what we're dealing with is a structure on the moon, Mari Crisium, which is the size of the basin of Los Angeles, domed over, with a dome that rises, in some places, we think, 60, 70 miles high.
Geometric fragments of glass reflecting in the sun with shadows and 3D structure and the associated rebar, the matrix, the dark, probably titanium-iron matrix that held them together.
Have you ever seen close-up photos of the Biosphere 2 in Arizona?
But I guess I say again, Richard, unless you force this wide open, which of course is what you're trying to do, if they've kept it secret and they knew it was there, I would have to say they went and took a look.
Which is why President Bill Clinton has got to do with this what he did with the AEC.
I mean, look, what is more horrible?
The revelation that this government of buying for the people deliberately gave radioactive breakfast cereals to mentally retarded children in institutions in New England at the height of the Cold War under the guise of national security, gag me with a spoon, or that we've taken some pictures of an ancient civilization on the moon and we're simply going to open the files, show people what we've got, and now go back and exploit what we found.
Hazel O'Leary says that he brought them all into the Oval Office within days of the inauguration and basically said, look, guys, go to the files, find out what's there, and make it public.
What bothers me is that Dan Golden, head of NASA, holdover from Bush Quayle, is still head of NASA.
My sources, my close sources to the Clintons tell me that the reason is that they've been very busy with a lot of other stuff, and NASA, frankly, has not gotten the attention that it deserves.
I am willing to accept that at face value.
The ACID test will be after I have shown the administration what we've got, and that is on track.
We have had discussions now with the right people, and conversations are proceeding very fast.
And those tapes that are going to come to you are also going to Washington and Little Rock and other places.
Well, what if the air is not as fresh as you might imagine?
In other words, if it leads everybody to a conclusion that with regard to God or faith or our immediate or near future and the possibilities of this civilization disappearing as others may have?
I just had a fact come in from someone that I kind of want to answer obliquely on your program.
That's fine.
Because it brings up a point that people might be curious about.
This is someone who's listening to your program, and he had a thought that the safest place on the moon to build would be in the center of the disk, because the spot enjoys the maximum amount of shielding by the Earth, in perennial, from random meteor impacts.
He says, I'm not suggesting that this would be the only reason to locate there, but it would be a nice, if marginal, perk.
Unfortunately, that's all dead wrong.
See, the celestial mechanics of this are very intriguing.
What we have found is there's a range of structures on the moon now, and there are regions where things are really in horrible shape, bad shape.
Then there are other regions where they're in much better shape.
And we've been trying to understand why.
And it turns out that there are regions on the moon that are more protected from meteor bombardment than others.
This is going to be difficult to do without the pictures, but let's try.
When you look at the moon on a full moon night, you see the familiar dark circular areas called mare, which means seas in Latin.
Galileo thought they were oceans.
They are not.
Modern astronomers think they are lava plains caused by upwellings of lava.
I'm beginning to suspect that they are not.
They might, in fact, be the remains of these cities with glass domes over them.
Yeah, except for our Mari Imbrium.
Mariumbrium, which is the one in the upper left-hand corner, appears, by the way, to be an upwelling of lava.
And by accident, as I was going through these lunar science conference papers, I found papers that were decrying the lack of what they call wrinkle ridges on the Maria.
A wrinkle ridge is a geological term for a lava flow.
Anyway, on the left-hand side of the full moon, when you look at the moon on a full moon night, on the upper left-hand side, there's this huge circular basin called Mare Imbrium.
That does appear to have been filled with lava.
It's the only Mare on the Moon that these guys, this paper, found that had actual wrinkle ridges and lava flows and all that.
And as a byproduct of doing the work on the artifacts, guess what we discovered in these papers is the upwelling point for the lava that flowed to fill Mare Embrium, 19.5 north.
Which is the geometry of the circumscribed tetrahedron, the way the planetary physics works.
We found all the way across the solar system that the largest upwelling of lavas or energy or verticular spots on giant planets or the sun spots on the sun is at 19.5 north and south.
Well, on the front side of the moon in the upper left-hand side of the disk, there is this upwelling between the crater Euler and I forget the other one, and the paper says it's between about 19 and about 22 north, with the median being at 19.5 north.
In those lunar rocks, we probably have crushed bits of debris of stuff that's not natural that is artificial, which means that in the half ton of lunar material that the astronauts brought back, if we're lucky, there is actual artificial material mixed in that should be evident in the chemical and isotopic and other signature analysis.
I mean, that's a very, very, very outside perspective.
When you really get into the papers, and I have now spent a year and a half going through the papers, there are wondrous clues that in some of the material returned by the astronauts, we have actual samples of beaten, smashed, previously manufactured stuff.
Because of the weird chemistry, the weird isotopes.
I mean, a seismograph is a sound wave detector through rock.
And when you have an earthquake in China, you know, during the Cold War, we put up a lot of networks of seismic instruments around the world to kind of catch the Russians to see if they were banging off nuclear tests as part of, you know, the violation of the test ban treaty.
Now we have all these neat seismic arrays, and we have computers, and we can do 3D tomography, kind of X-ray, sonar, seismic X-ray of the interior of the Earth using this technology from the Cold War.
Well, we took a few instruments, somewhat primitive.
The principal investigator was a colleague of Dr. Cornett's at Lamont Doherty, a guy named Dr. Gary Latham, who I met at CBS when I was Cronkite's science advisor back in the days of the Apollo program.
Very nice guy.
He had a team of scientists stretching from Rice University to MIT, and I think even a couple over in Japan.
And they fielded about five or six instruments in various places around the moon during the Apollo program.
The Apollo 11 astronauts left, the seismic instrument, the Apollo 12 astronauts, and so on and so on.
Some of them lasted for the full program.
Some of them crapped out two weeks after they were left.
The Apollo 11 instrument died about two weeks after the astronauts came home, I think.
But they were powered by a nuclear battery, and they basically ran until NASA turned the whole network off for some mysterious reason.
I mean, they claimed they couldn't afford it.
You know how much it cost to run the Apollo seismic network and all the other instruments that were left behind?
It's because the seismic data is a major clue to artificial structures on the moon.
Your listener with his facts is onto it.
Let me try to explain this because this is important because we have not only looked at the pictures, we've also looked at all of the other correlative data sets, all of the other instrument readings and observations, and we've got one hell of a picture which is converging on, we've got it.
We've got it nailed.
There are things there that are not natural, and they're large, and they're extensive, and they affected the seismic instrument readings.
And this is how it worked.
During the several years the network survived, that it was allowed to run and return data from 1969 to 1977 when they suddenly turned them off.
Miles and miles and miles of computer tape are recorded of instrument readings from five or six sites around the front side of the moon where the Apollo astronauts had left these instruments.
And during the Apollo program itself, NASA directed the final stage of the Apollo moon rocket to crash land on the moon.
And the ascent stage of the lunar module, when the astronauts came back up and rendezvoused with the command module and transferred everything to come home, they left the ascent stage, which was the top of the lunar module in orbit.
It then could be commanded by radio to deorbit and impact on the moon.
And the idea was, on Earth, when you're doing seismic surveys, you need a powerful source of sound waves.
If you wait for a natural earthquake, you may wait a long time.
So the same technique was applied to the moon, except the astronauts did not bring dynamite, although in fact they did bring some shape charges that they set off by remote control after Apollo 17 when the astronauts were safely en route home.
What they did was they would direct the third stages, the S-4B stage, the upper stage of the Apollo stack, as it was called.
Remember, you leave the Earth at 25,000 miles per hour.
So it would be like it was about the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT, if I remember my numbers.
11 tons of TNT.
When these things hit, and they were directed to land in very precise areas so that the sound waves would reach all of the seismographs, you basically got instantaneous profile, or not instantaneous, but with sound traveled at a certain velocity through the moon's crust.
So by watching the delays and which seismographs were activated first and second and third, you get a beautiful mapping of the surface composition and velocity and structure and all that of the moon.
Well, the first one they did this with, which was Apollo 11, the damn moon rang for over an hour.
If you know how trestle structures are made, large honeycomb structures.
If you get a sound wave going in a honeycomb truss structure, the waves will shuttle back and forth and be reflected back and forth by the truss, and you have created, in essence, a standing wave reservoir that will store the sound energy, and it will leak slowly out into the surrounding environment so that if you get it going, if you get it excited, if you get it vibrating like a tuning fork, it will hum for a long time.
I think in 77, they figured out that the seismographs were literally recording with every impact of a meteor evidence of these structures, and they turned the switch off.
Knowing that the reason for skyscrapers on Earth is due to economic competition for land in certain geographic areas, what would be the reason for a skyscraper on the moon?
There is no competition for land on the moon, so it would be more economically logical to build smaller structures covering a larger area.
We cannot apply conventional terrestrial late 20th century economics to this.
If there's one thing I can say with absolute certainty, believe me, there's not very many things I can say with certainty other than this stuff is real, I can say this.
Made of high-tech materials, titanium, steel, glass, whatever.
They were not built by Mohawks.
We're not talking about conventional terrestrial building technology.
What we're looking at was done by robots because of the scale, the mega engineering, and the energy source was obviously an application of the physics, hyperdimensional physics.
With those two prerequisites, robotics and unlimited energy, the idea of cost is a non-sequitur.
It doesn't mean anything.
Whoever did this was not considering cost.
But it's interesting that the stuff we have found, and it's very tall, it would have the most extraordinary view of the Earth, which would be directly overhead, 80 times brighter than full moonlight, a glorious blue-green disk twirling against black space in the vacuum every 24 hours.
Well, they're boggled because I frankly think they're more boggled by the political implications than by the technical because they don't really understand what it means to have discovered this much stuff, this vast and this old.
We don't think normally in these timeframes.
This is cosmic time.
This is more the scale of my dear friend Arthur C. Clarke.
That's why I opened my presentation at Ohio State with a reprise of 2001.
He came up with it and then rejected it because he thought pyramids were a cliché.
But I'll tell you where this is going.
I think that a lot of our science fiction is really Jungian collective unconscious memories because somehow we're plugged in and some of us know some of this stuff at some deep level and it comes out as good science fiction.
Now, I can't prove that yet, but it's a hell of a model to start working on.
Again, the physicist that I had on this last Sunday said that he believes that we have some sort of genetic or collective memory that is largely blanked out by the noise level of today's society.
But some are in tune, and some know that a drastic change, in his view, this polar shift, is coming, and somehow collectively we feel that coming.
Well, I don't know whether I agree that we feel that, but I think that we may have memories of previous epochs when the environment suddenly radically changed.
And what I am hoping to do with this research project is to get a handle on the physics of those changes and simply prevent them.
Now, why would we possibly be able to even consider such an awesome feat?
I mean, isn't nature too big for us to handle?
That's where the lunar material is crucially important because the scale of what we're seeing on the moon art and the awesome nature of how it is distributed indicate to me that we're dealing with a physics that can handle terrestrial earth changes provided we get smart enough, quick enough, and apply this knowledge.
Well, we have some models, and they're just the beginnings of models, and they're not rigorous mathematical models yet.
They're basically qualitative.
We're in the process of trying to figure out why there should have been these Earth changes in the past as part of our geophysics, part of the hyperdimensional physics that we've been working on to go for the monuments of Mars.
And that's what I'm going to sit down with a Hopi and talk about.
And in the sense that the essence of good science is prediction, what I'm hoping will happen is I will lay out our model for what I think happens.
My guest is Richard Hoagland, and he's blowing people away this morning.
No question about that.
Blowing people away.
As a matter of fact, I've got some faxes here, and we're about to get back to Richard Hoagland.
One of them says, wow, wow, wow, in giant letters at the top.
Richard, I know you're listening, so contemplate this while I do a little work.
What is the single most compelling piece of evidence that you have?
Is it possible these reflections were just light on the camera lens itself, or perhaps defects in the film?
That's one, Richard.
Dear Art, sorry if I missed it, but has your guest said anything about a possible relationship between the structures on Mars, the moon, and our own pyramids in Egypt?
Richard Nart, we've done quite a bit of reading and studying of the Hopi Indians and what the white man calls their myths and legends.
There is one that is very interesting considering the Hopi have contacted you and want to meet with you.
The legend talks about when the Eagle is seen on the moon, then they would know that the time of the present world was drawing to an end since our first lunar landing craft was named Eagle.
I find this fact linked with your new information about the structures apparent on the moon to be very interesting and wonder if this fact would have anything to do with the request of the Hopi to meet with you from KSB in St. Louis.
Is it possible our guest has been keeping a lid on this because it's the most benign aspect of the E.T cover-up?
And we'll get back to Richard Hoagland and possibly the answer to some of those questions.
The most striking is the symbol, the sign that led us to this site.
We have an 18-mile crater called Ukurt that's located about seven degrees north of the lunar equator.
The libration can bring it down to where it's at the sub-earth point or close to it at some times.
And inside this crater, there is an 80-diameter equilateral triangle.
And around the rim, there are three bright portions that when you connect those edges, you get a double-inscribed equilateral triangle, one within the other.
And that, of course, is the mathematics represented in the monuments of Mars and at the Giza Plateau and in many ancient sites around the world in other cultures.
So in the sense of there being a connection, that's the starting point for the connection.
Somebody knew the same math and geometry and physics.
Yeah, I think I know what the reader is, or the author of that fact is trying to get at.
Look, the reason that we're going to get viciously shot at for this, and it's already begun on the Internet, people are saying awesomely weird things about us, is because as long as you can keep this investigation in Airy Fairyland, not in Dreamland, Airy Fairyland, you don't have to confront the idea the human race is not alone.
It is not a science.
It's the stuff on the back of cereal boxes, in the tabloids, you know, in the National Choir.
it's not science.
As soon as you have one bona fide, replicable, agreed-upon extraterrestrial artifact, suddenly ETs go from being, you know, sightings material to being New York Times material and general science discussion.
Well, given that we're getting about 99% of the scientists who see this data jumping up and down and freaking out and saying, oh, my God, look at that.
I have had my eye on the Hopi for some time because I've been looking at the geophysics.
You know, I have a very, how should I say, at one sense, utilitarian view of the usefulness of science.
I think science should be in service to mankind, to humankind.
And the idea that we could develop a physics, you know, decode these monuments, decode a physics, and then not put it to use seemed to me kind of silly.
And as we went through this, I began to realize that there were certain predictions in the physics that said that because of the current configuration of the solar system, and as you go through certain geometries of the planets relative to each other and to the sun over very long periods of time, tens of thousands of years, you might run into problems.
And then I began to look at our kind of map of this and reflect on, you know, the Hopi prophecies and the other ancient material from ethnic cultures around the world.
And I began to see a possible relationship between our predictions and their data.
And then when I met some of them at the United Nations here in New York, that's the one advantage of being here in New Jersey, you're close to New York, I realized I really needed to have a quiet conversation, so I arranged to get copies of the UN briefing on Mars into their hands.
And when I was in Albuquerque recently, I met with Thomas Benyaka, who is the Hopi spokesperson of the prophecies.
And we agreed that at some point in the near future, I would come out and spend some time.
And they agreed to bring some other folks, you know, elders together, and we're going to sit down and have a kind of a quiet conversation.
It was very interesting talking about the tetrahedral geometry and the 19.5 number that certain monuments seem to come to, like on the moon and places here on Earth and stuff.
I have two questions.
I'd like to know, will this information you have, Mr. Elbin, be available out on video?
And when you mentioned earlier something about a Mars-Moon connection that brought you there to this place, I think you said the Ukurit crater.
Right.
Is there a 19.5 latitude or measurement or something in that connection with where Mars is in this particular area that you've been talking about?
No, Ukurt lies about 7.5 north and about 1.5 east in the current lunar mapping coordinate system.
It wasn't the latitude.
It was this huge symbol.
Ukurt is an 18-mile diameter circular feature.
We call it a crater.
But at high noon, at full moon, when the sun is directly overhead, the bottom of Ukurt has a stunning, perfect equilateral triangle.
And Ukurt is the closest crater at some times to the Earth.
It's almost at the sub-Earth point.
In other words, you draw a line between the center of the Earth and the center of the moon, and it has to go through or very close to Ukert.
The idea that in the middle of the lunar disk with a telescope you can see a symbol that is the essence of our decoding of the monuments of Mars and the whole physics, that was just too irresistible not to pursue, and of course that resulted in us finding what we've now found.
You want to go to a local photographic supply facility, good photo lab, photo shop.
If you have a friend with a dark room, you're in Clover.
You want to make sectional enlargements of your negatives into very large prints.
We've been using 20 by 24 print enlargements.
You then want to scan them with a flatbed scanner, grayscale.
You want to then, using commercially available programs, photo programs, you want to enhance, contrast, enhance, difference, subtract, ratio, sharpen, all the traditional things you would do with images.
And you want to examine various sections of the photographs using this methodology.
What you can use as a guide is the video.
The video will have on the video the frame numbers, so each time there's an enlargement or a section, we will refer to the section of the photograph that we have used.
And the idea here is to duplicate, to follow our trail, follow our lead, and to confirm what we have found.
You also want to request the Lunar Orbiter Series.
Lunar Orbiter 3.
The convention for ordering photographs from NSSDC, which is the National Space Science Data Center, which is at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
That's all you have to write.
National Space Science Data Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.
You want the Apollo 10 series, AS1032, 4809 through 4822.
The Lunar Orbiter Series, the following frames.
Roman Numel 3, that stands for Mission Number 3, Lunar Orbiter 3.
Dash 84M.
On 84M, you will see a 7-mile-high crystalline tower perched on the edge of the moon.
It is a perspective shot looking southwest from just south of Ukurk toward the southwestern edge of Sinus Medi.
And on the horizon, you will see something that has no business being there.
Together, located 250 miles from the camera, because that's the distance of the horizon from the orbiter, at the altitude of 30 miles, which is where the picture was taken.
They were 30 miles down on the deck.
You will see two objects sticking up above the horizon.
One is about a mile and a half high.
We call it the shard.
And it's sharp-edged.
It has internal geometric detail.
It has a long shadow extending out to the right, out to the northwest.
And it looks like the World Trade Tower cut off about a third of the way up.
Next to it, you will see a kind of a fuzzy, indistinct thing that is several times higher.
When you do the proper enhancement, that turns out to be a mile-wide mega-cube of glass crystalline cubes perched on a tower extending seven miles down to the lunar surface at the edge of the moon's disk.
This is where things get really cute because we've been going to various archives.
We had my friend Joe Gill, who is the head of, or was the head of Sotheby's in New York, moved to Hawaii recently, asked me what can I do to help, and I told him to please go to the Hawaiian Archive, NASA's Archive at the University of Hawaii.
Now, this is what you're going to find when you get there.
This Hawaiian archive, which is on a rock 6,000 miles away from me right now, not exactly easy to get to, does not contain any facilities for making copies of any of the NASA data.
They have a copy stand, but you must bring your own camera and your own film.
Now, is this a way that the American people are well served by their tax dollars?
The data in the charter, it says the widest appropriate dissemination.
Is that the widest appropriate dissemination where I have to bring a brownie camera to photograph a print that my astronauts took on the moon that's my data?
Anyway, Joe went there and he photographed a series of photos and he sent them back and I thought it would just be useful to record that in fact the data exists there.
Okay, well, let me finish telling you the story of 84M, Lunar Orbiter 384M, because it's really revealing of the process that's been going on and how it's taken some clever detective work to figure it out, to find it.
It says in Hawaii, Murray, we got one in Washington, one set we're supposed to have, and there's supposed to be a duplicate set of the same picture in Hawaii.
So my friend Joe Gil goes in with his camera, they give him a copy stand, they give him a prints, he takes the pictures, he sends the negative to me, we haven't developed the lab, we blow them up, and I begin to look at them just as a kind of a, you know, trying to touch every base.
The caption says it's one of one.
Very important.
Lunar Orbiter 3 picture image 84M 1 of 1.
It says the date when it was taken, which is February of 67, the date when it was rid out of the spacecraft.
You have to understand that this was actual film art that was loaded into an unmanned satellite by Kodak, sent to the moon, photographs taken with a high-resolution and medium-resolution camera, two lenses, two different cameras on the same film.
The film was then developed in the spacecraft, physically developed in zero gravity in this very, I mean, for 67, this was pretty sophisticated.
They then scanned it with a pre-laser light source.
This was not even laser scanning.
This was a 6.5 micron mirror beam that was scanned.
It was then converted into digital information, sent back to Earth, reconstructed with television equipment on the ground at the Goddard Space Flight Center, photographed off the TV screen.
Those photographs turned into little 35 millimeter negatives.
The negatives assembled by hand into master 20 by 24 inch negatives.
Those copied, those turned into prints, those made into negatives that were used to make the copies we eventually got.
Not really, because I didn't want to alert the guys that we were looking.
We had to be very judicious.
But let me go back to Hawaii because Hawaii has a set.
So Joe photographs this set, and it says one of one gives the dates when it was read out.
You have to understand the fact that this is real film we're talking about.
This is not an electronic image.
This is actual film scanned in the spacecraft.
When the spacecraft crashed on the moon, eventually, because of the lunar orbit perturbations, the film and the spacecraft were destroyed.
That film is somewhere lying in a crater on the moon.
But the electronic version of the film is back on Earth.
Before Kodak sent the film in the spacecraft, it pre-exposed a pattern of little crosses, registration marks, which are used to correct out any geometric irregularities.
This is where things get really interesting.
On the photo we've been getting from Washington, the shard, the mile and a half tower cut off at the knees like the World Trade Tower lopped off in a nuclear war, has one of these little registration marks right above it, sitting in the dark lunar sky, to the left of this glass cubicle tower complex located a few miles to the south.
When I examine the photograph that Joe Gill sent me from the one in Hawaii, the little registration mark has moved to the south of the tower, seven miles to the south on the image.
Unless someone put together the mosaic of framelets and they made a mistake and they put together part of another frame where the registration marks would have moved because it would have been a few moments between the first picture and the second picture.
And parallax and triangulation would have moved the objects relative to the frame on the lunar surface.
So when we went to the original, that's when I found these registration marks cannot be moved.
And the whole mechanism of the photo transport and embossing and all that.
So it said in that little documentation that came with this huge, huge catalog of photographs, which are 400 dot per inch, you know, halftone screening, it said that the spacecraft could be commanded to take photos in a sequence of four, eight, or sixteen images in rapid-fire sequence.
Yeah, thanks, Richard, for all the work you're doing.
Thank you.
What I wanted to know is about the space probe Clementine, how it got mysteriously lost, and that asteroid it's supposed to photograph in the solar system in August, I believe it is, Geographos, right?
Well, gentlemen, with all due respect, I think you're asking the wrong question.
The real question is: why Clementine?
Why did the Pentagon, the ballistic missile defense organization, the folks that brought you SDI, that are trying to protect us from the onslaught of Russian missiles, nuclear warheads, why did they suddenly get a bee in their bonnet and decide to go to the moon and photograph the hell out of the moon in only a year and a half?
Well, the answer is they're looking at what we found.
Look, in Washington, think of Washington as a medieval kingdom where you have a bunch of barons and fiefdoms, and to sit at Arthur's round table, you know, you've got to have power.
To have power, you have to have knowledge.
Various parts of the government are not cooperating.
They are at war with each other, you know, in this barony fiefdom model.
So let's say that, you know, BMDO, the Pentagon, suddenly realizes one day that it's been snookered by NASA all these years.
But it can't get access to the real NASA photograph.
One and a half million stunning CCD images of the moon art.
Now, here's something interesting.
When I asked the chief scientist, who was a friend of mine from NASA, who was supposed to kind of orchestrate the science for the mission, I said to him very innocently, because I knew the answer before I asked, I said, Gene, why aren't you going lower than 400 miles?
Remember, the lunar orbiters were put into orbit down to 30 miles, right down on the deck.
Because the lunar orbiters experienced orbital instabilities, meaning that the orbit changes a little bit because of the uneven mass concentration in the moon.
Because some of this stuff sticks up above 70 miles and they would get whacked.
It is a prayer art that we didn't kill the astronauts.
I will show you, when you see the video, you will see something sailing by outside the window we call the castle that is big enough and close enough to see the pigeons on it.
And the astronaut, I've got the verbal debriefings where they were looking at things before sunrise, and they saw the glints off the structure, and they obviously didn't recognize what they were seeing.
They took time-lapse photographs for coronal studies, where we can see bits of debris above the spacecraft altitude, because this thing had towers.
When it was new, this was a stunning, wondrous tour de force in architecture.
It was a mega engineering of a scale that is almost mind-boggling to begin to comprehend.
And what we're seeing is a pale shadow, an ancient, ancient shadow down through unimaginable millennia, millions, hundreds of millions of years, the amount of erosion we're seeing.
In fact, it can be very few people in NASA because if you control the photographic flow and you control the access by producing dumb catalogs of black pictures that no one on their right mind would ever order except us, and if you control who gets back, haven't we kind of wondered why we never went back to the moon?
And why the first mission back in 23 years was an unmanned Pentagon mission that photographed the hell out of the place and then promptly dropped dead?
Well, to all intents and purposes, this is where things get really cute.
The ostensible reason that John Noble Wilford, my esteemed colleague at the New York Times, apparently bought Hookline and Sinker.
You know, I am very depressed with the state of reporting in the United States of America.
We either have a very dumb class of reporters or we have people who simply don't want to really know what's going on because, God, it might infect their job.
It must be incredible laziness because John Wilford, who should know better, published the story, come out of the Pentagon, that the Clementine's purpose was to test SDI technology.
Now, SDI, Space Defense Initiative, finding one bullet with another and knocking it down at intercept speeds of 30,000 miles per hour.
So how do you test sensors that are supposed to find one little tiny sliver of technology in the dark speeding down with a nuclear warhead with another one?
Obviously, you go to a big silvery target like the moon and park in orbit and take pictures.
So guess what BMDO did the morning that Clementine on May 3rd was designed to leave lunar orbit?
It announced it was closing down operations.
It was killing the program.
It was pulling the plug financially.
New York Times, boys and girls, I've got the clippings.
They're on the video.
You'll see them.
And it was only two senators and a congressman who hit the warpath when they heard this that saved the program.
Because by Wednesday morning, they had forced General O'Neill, head of BMDO, to recant and somehow find $3.2 million to keep Clementine going to the Geographos Rendezvous in August on Saturday.
And then we have Hubble and we have all the But this is what's really important.
Why did - when they couldn't kill it financially, don't you think it's cute that a couple days later they have a computer problem and it dies and disappears?
When I flew into Albuquerque the other day at noon, I wish I had a camera because you fly over a couple of parking lots there by Kirtland.
And the car windshields, of course, are all oriented at relatively the same angle.
So you get these specular reflections off the glass changing with angle.
Right.
And, you know, on television, if you see helicopter shots of L.A. on L.A. Law or whatever, you'll see these reflections.
That's what we're seeing in the photographs.
And we can time them and do the geometry, and we can connect them to sequences.
That's why you need to get the whole sequence on Apollo 10 from 4809 through 4822, scan them, put them in the computer, make a quick time movie if you have a Mac, and you'll see stunning specular reflections popping up in an area in the back of one of the complexes that looks like Los Angeles seen from the air.
We don't have a record, we don't have a log of how But we know the distance, and we know the orbit altitude, and we know then, because of Kepler's third law, the orbit velocity.
And since you have meteor bombardment, and meteor bombardment tends to toss things out in all directions, some, since what we're seeing is so extensive in scientist Medi, some of the meteors had to have tossed things into tranquility.
Even if tranquility is what it has been claimed to be, a Mari surface, a natural lava surface, some of the samples, I think because of the weird chemistry, are samples of the artificial stuff.
Remember the lunar, the first lunar science conference when the geologists were asked to kind of quantify and characterize the moon and its formation process as derived from analysis of the samples?
And they got the idea that the moon had to have been covered with a very high-temperature refractory material at several thousand degrees floating on top, simmering for a billion years or something.
I mean, this is what's going to be so mind-boggling and rather embarrassing for some of these geologists because they've been snookered.
They have been model-driven.
I've got papers where now, and I'm fortunate that we have the papers because at least I know they're honest.
They see things, they're writing about them, it's obvious they're projecting a geological interpretation on what we now know is a geometric and artificial thing.
And the crucial thing for me is that it means that most of the system was honest.
That they were not lying, they were not faking, they were not deluding, they were basically doing science, but they were doing science constrained with one arm tied behind them because other guys were not pulling them in on the data that would have allowed them to fill in the real picture.
In fact, that was one of the things that we had planned to do.
If you get the right telescope and the right combination of wavelengths, oh, oh, I've got to tell you this story.
Clementine data.
Clementine carried a laser in polar orbit, right?
400 miles up.
The idea is to bounce the laser beam directly off the ground beneath and time the echo up to the spacecraft and thereby derive an altimetry trace, a profile, around and around and around and around the moon.
And in polar orbit, of course, in a month, you map the entire moon, depending upon how many times you can pulse the laser per second.
Remember, I now have NASA people leaking to me, calling me up, faxing me, sending me data because most of the system is honest art, and they are as mad and as upset that they've been snookered as the rest of us.
So that's how I've been getting some of these photographs and some of this information.
I got leaked to me a set of view graphs from an official Clementine briefing at NASA shortly after the mission went into lunar orbit.
And one of the scientists involved is from Goddard.
His name is Dr. Smith.
He was the principal scientist from NASA in charge of the laser altimetry experiment.
That experiment was to use a telescope that also was used to take the highest resolution pictures, about 10 meter 30 feet resolution pictures from 400 miles altitude.
It was boresighted, meaning it was co-aligned optically with the laser.
Poor Dr. Smith reports in this meeting, and I get the report, you know, like a few hours later, that unfortunately the telescope is fine, but he's got bizarre scattering in his laser return signal.
And what they had to do is they had to computer process like crazy the data, massage it like hell, to get rid of all the extraneous reflections so he could get some kind of mean profile.
So there's stunning data which gives us 3D structure of the glass structures as the spacecraft orbits overhead and Dr. Smith, because he's got one arm tied behind his back.
You're going to suggest this to him and I actually had a colleague of mine send a fax to his office suggesting during Clementine that there was some work on anomalous photometric properties that predicted curious scattering.
Because I didn't want them to turn off the instrument and think it was not working.
although we don't know that they continue to take data and there is that data in raw form and when it is properly It had very small pulse width, meaning high resolution in time.
Mr. Hoagland, you've been on Mr. Bell's show several times.
I wish you would elaborate on the Manor Block glyph, and I would like to get a hold of you for a guest of mine on a TV show of the MCTV Cable Network up here, which is not in conjunction with or against Art Bell up here.
There were, back during the Lunar Orbiter program, there was a brief flap about some spires discovered on a Lunar Orbiter 2 photograph that was published by Tom O'Toole on the front page of the Washington Post, and it all went away.
But they were minuscule.
They were, you know, 7,500 feet high compared to what we've got.
what I was referring there was Mare Embrium appears to be the only true lava upwelling that exists on the moon.
The papers that I've been going through complain that even on close inspection, the signatures of lava lakes that should be on the floors of the other maria are missing.
They're not there.
And these authors are very perplexed and puzzled and kind of bewildered why the only clear flows of lava they can find are on Imbrium, and they are coming up from an upwelling vent at 19.5.
So I was using that as an affirmation that our physics, our geophysics of how planetary energy upwells at these specific latitudes, in fact, is working on the moon, which we found by accident in going through these papers.
The Mare Crisium dome, which appears to be in much better shape than the Sinus Medi dome, if I can use those terms, has a 20-mile-high tower, which we found on an Apollo 16 frame.
And we don't have stereo of it yet, but we know the stereo has to exist because this was in an area heavily photographed by the Apollo Pan cameras and the mapping cameras and the Hanhill Hasselblatz.
And it's only a matter of time until we get the companion frames to do the 3D.
unidentified
I've got one more question.
Go ahead.
The federal people did a sting operation against NASA not too long ago.
Well, should somebody like 60 Minutes get some photographs, go sit down with Golden in his office the way they always do and sweat him with the photographs?
We unveil this after a year and a half at Ohio State.
My colleagues, some of them, have not yet actually seen the data.
It's that brand new.
But I wanted to come out on record with it so that if the archives are tampered with, there will be a way to trace it.
We have Visa card numbers, order numbers, lab numbers.
We have documented everything we got from NASA.
What I find interesting is that our lab people here in New York were in Houston and tried to have a meeting with the head of the photographic lab to see the original negatives and spent several days fruitlessly and has spent several weeks now playing telephone tag, unable to make contact with the head of the lab in Houston.
The data is there and it's so robust, and there's so much more we haven't had a chance to look at.
I am strongly suspecting that the scale and scope of what is there is going to be so mind-boggling that if NASA had a wholesale book burning tomorrow, they couldn't get rid of all the evidence.
I mean, we have really covered ourselves carefully, and we're not speculating beyond the data.
I mean, I can sit here for the next hour and get into who, what, how, why, and when, and I will not do that because I want us to go back to the moon and find out who, why, how, what, and when.
In your book, you laid out three possibilities of the origin of the monuments of Mars, and it seems now that you're kind of changing your mind on that, that you're opening yourself up to the possibility of maybe there was a technical civilization here before.
You know, when you look at the solar system, and again, I want to go back to Brookings, what really impresses me is how perceptive the Brookings document in hindsight was.
How perceptive Carl Sagan was.
He's changed, you know, he's gotten dumber in recent years, but he used to be a pretty bright guy.
He said back in 1962 in a paper that relativistic spaceflight, visitors from some other solar system, colonizing, staking out territory, doing incredible things in the solar system, might be anticipated and discovered through NASA's activities.
It's amazing how Carl has kind of gotten a little bit slower since he wrote that paper.
unidentified
I agree.
But if you take what the, I'm sorry, what was that guest you had on Dreamland, R.W. R.W. Whitfield.
Yes.
If you take the theory that he had, which I really don't want to agree with because it just seems so astounding anyway, but if you took that theory and you applied it to the moon, let's say that at one time, or throughout many times, according to him, that maybe man did achieve some sort of technological advancement that would have put him on the moon where he could have built those structures.
The provisional dating of the structures we're seeing on the moon.
Again, if the meteor fluxes as measured by the last 30 years of spaceflight are nearly correct, remember the long-duration exposure facility that NASA almost lost in Earth orbit?
Where they put it up and then they had the Challenger disaster.
This was a device about the size of a boxcar, studded with different kinds of materials, called a long-duration exposure facility because it was designed to expose materials to the space environment, including micrometeorites.
It stayed up much longer than it was intended, so we got a much better database for how meteorites whacked the hell out of structural materials above the atmosphere.
Using that data and applying it to the amount of degradation we're seeing in the lunar materials, the lunar structures, if these things are not a half a billion years old, I'll eat my hat.
Now, why do I pick that time?
Now, right away, that means they're not human.
They're so far before the only thing existing on Earth at a half a billion years, guys, was blue-green algae of the present generation of humans.
Well, but let's keep that for a moment on the shelf.
What I'm getting at here, and I didn't pick the half-billion year thing just by accident.
If the erosional curves are real, and if this stuff is that awesomely, achingly, incredibly old, that means these guys were there when life on Earth was not.
Now, look at the coincidence, because that half-billion-year timeframe is suddenly when life on Earth took a dramatic and startling and stunning upturn.
Are we possibly looking at a race of cosmic engineers who, in fact, created the context for the eventual evolution of life on this planet in this solar system?
In other words, I don't think we're looking at stuff from here at all, gentlemen.
He's been with us the whole way, and it looks like he'll make it this morning.
He's back on the East Coast, where it's already after 6 o'clock in the morning, so this guy has a real constitution.
That's what I think.
Anyway, we'll be back to him, and I've got a fax for him that's a devil's advocate sort of fax that I think it's from somebody who works for, know, is director of something called Horizon Technology up in the Seattle area.
So that's a comment, Richard.
A little bit of station keeping.
KOGO Radio just announced that beginning not this Sunday, but next, they will begin carrying Dreamland in its entirety.
That San Diego, L.A. market beginning to carry Dreamland beginning a week from this coming Sunday.
Congratulations, everybody in Southern California.
You're going to really enjoy it.
One other thing, there have been so many inquiries that I'm just going to go ahead and do it right now.
If you want a tape of this program, the one you're hearing right now, you can call 24 hours a day and order it, and I can understand why you would want it.
There has been so much detail in this program that it is a document of its own.
The tape ordering number is Area Code 503-664-7966.
Well, the obvious counter to that is go get the data and look at the photographs yourself.
And NASA gave out, see, the thing that's going to keep the system honest is NASA gave out so many free copies of the original that there's a lot of photos all over the world, not just in the United States, but in Canada, in England, in France, in Germany, in Italy, and, you know, the Far East, the Near East, archives, museums, private collections.
We need to, with the Internet and with CNN and with global telecommunications, find those people who have original material, particularly if they have documented the source, and simply compare the various generations of pictures.
I think that's one of the reasons why NASA has never, ever made a consistent argument against the geometry involved in the monuments of Mars.
Remember, we discovered and measured our geometry on orthographically corrected pictures from the Viking mission of Mars.
When we published that data at the NASA Lewis Research Center, when we laid it out in an invited presentation for NASA Lewis, I expected at the very least that somebody in NASA would make the measurements and claim they didn't work.
Instead, what they've done is the character assassination we've gotten used to because in hindsight I now know that if someone in NASA were to attempt to replicate the data and it did work, they wouldn't dare publish it because it would go against the prevailing political wisdom.
And if they tried to alter the data to demonstrate, quote, it didn't work, they could always count on or be apprehensive of that someone somewhere in the world with an unaltered NASA Viking data set would come forth with a measurement that proved it did work, and then they would be caught in the cover-up.
Well, the fact is that these photographs exist in so many places.
And again, I got onto this through private archives.
You know, Mr. Wonkey was terribly helpful.
There are people who've been assiduously collecting NASA data from 20, 30 years.
There's too much of it.
It's like my grandmother used to say, you can't stuff all the feathers back in the pillowcase.
We're going to be able to prove by comparing old data with new data up to and including the Clementine data, which we must, of course, demand.
I mean, one and a half million images on how many CDs that would be stacked up halfway from here to the moon.
That data, by the way, is not covered by the Space Act.
There is nothing that mandates that that data will ever be turned over to the people.
The fact that it is all on CD, meaning we could see it tomorrow, and they're not planning to release it until December, indicates to me that somebody somewhere is very busy with a cray removing from one data set any incriminating objects.
Because look, if you look at the moon with low enough resolution, it will look like the moon should look.
It's only if you explore the details and if you understand lighting geometry and the refractive index of materials and you make comparisons that you find with current computer technology what we have found.
I think that the computer nerds of the world are going to come into their own, frankly, Art.
So do I. Because this is now where democracy really comes to the fore.
It means someone who has spent a lot of time getting to be an expert, and I used to take it as a kind of a weird compliment because when my friends were running around dissipating, I was looking at lunar data, and now it's paying off.
Yeah, I'm so happy to hear about the structures, the tetrahedral structure, and the equilateral triangles, because it's a key point in my theory, Sement.
Well, one of the problems that we're going to have is now separating on the moon those things which are natural from those things that are not, dependent upon resolution, of course.
We have had the idea that every time you see a hole, it's a crater, an impact crater.
What has not been recognized, and I will send you to any decent lunar map, notice, if you will, how many of the craters are hexagonal in form.
unidentified
Right.
The hexagon is the center of the cube, which is the key part to my theory.
And there are 27 lines on the general cubic surface, hyperdimensional solution by Copseter and others.
unidentified
Right.
Now, the thing I want to point out is that the reason I think the government wants to suppress this data immensely is the fact that if you have access to the unified field theory, you understand how systems work.
And if you apply that to sociology, you understand that the chaos in this country is artificially created so that the forms of order basically have all the power and control what goes on.
So it's a power thing.
retaining power to suppress this.
And I think it's in their best interest to try and keep it from the public so that they don't think about...
Can you imagine what I've been going through sitting in a computer screen staring at something that Arthur and other comrades of mine in the science and the science fiction fields would drool, would give their right arm to know exists?
Well, I certainly absolutely agree, Richard, that if you had come out and you weren't ready, it would have been disastrous even to a future look into this.
Well, this, by the way, is why all those kooky, idiotic books by Cooper and others about the insanity going on on the moon have all been disinformation.
We have been subjected to an absolutely brilliant disinformation campaign from the day that Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, which basically had the effect of marginalizing and segregating various parts of the population.
There's a whole cadre of books that basically, the bottom line is we never went there.
Then there's the whole cadre that claim, oh, there are alien bases on the moon and they're in lockstep with the government and they've got big, you know, huge vats with human body parts floating in them and all this garbage.
Then there's the group which claim that there's top secret, incredible super science developed by the Trilateral Commission, and the brain drain is stealing all kinds of British scientists, you know, the alternative three scenario.
Each of these, I now believe, is absolute claptrap designed to keep the New York Times from ever looking at a lunar photograph and saying, what's that?
So that's a two-dimensional tetrahedron, you know, interlocked tetrahedron.
unidentified
So given everything that you said so far, if you were to try to communicate with some species or something in the future, right, let's say, you would try and draw something that was for sure would not occur in nature.
Which would be a circle, and any given straight line actually doesn't occur in nature as well as I know.
Yeah, you missed my discussion of the Brookings report.
What we have found is a NASA study that was commissioned very early in NASA's history, a few months after it was formed in 1958, which basically told the agency that if they discovered artifacts or evidence of ETs, they should hush them up because if they didn't, they might destroy civilization.
So we've had this ticking logical time bomb at the heart of the edifice.
We have a whole bunch of honest, visionary, dedicated people, and deep inside, they're serving a structure which basically can't fulfill their dreams because if it does, they've been told they will destroy that which they hold most dear.
The best shot would be to, on the internet, find the government internet address for the National Space Science Data Center, which is at the Goddard Space Flight Center right outside Washington, D.C. That is the NASA-designated archive of all this data.
And that's where we've been getting our data from.
The other possibility is the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas, which is another NASA center.
And then there are other archives scattered around.
There's one in Hawaii, the Planetary Data Science Center in Hawaii.
There's one at the University of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
But I would start with NSSDC because I know they're on the internet.
And the librarians there are very friendly and very helpful.
And you just ask for the frame numbers and you order them, and they'll be a few dollars per per frame.
Well, William Herschel, who was a brilliant astronomer, in fact he was kind of the grandfather of state time astronomy in England, he observed an eclipse of the moon with his big reflectors.
He built big reflectors.
And he described Art seeing like bonfires glowing about 150 points of red, deep red light during a total eclipse of the moon.
Blew him away.
Couldn't understand what was causing because he thought they were volcanoes.
Well, if Mr. Gates wants to go down in history as opening the system and providing a renaissance for the American century, this is the way to do it.
The space program, gentlemen, was still born.
The Kennedy vision never got off the launching pad.
It was choked off by a bunch of timid wimps.
And we've got to take it back.
unidentified
There's two things that come to mind in listening to your in Genesis, it talks about the Lord looked down and he saw that there was nothing impossible for man when he was watching them build the Tower of Babel and that they were using very advanced materials like bituminous byproducts for the mortar and whatever else, and that by scrambling their tongues and whatever else like that, they had to disband their project.
Okay, well, this work, of course, began with our Mars investigation, and the book is titled The Monuments of Mars, A City on the Edge of Forever.
We revised it in 1992, including the material we presented at the United Nations.
We also have a series of video briefings of NASA.
Remember, we've been invited in the front door at NASA to show our Mars work now five times.
The NASA-Lewis presentation is on tape, the UN presentation is on tape, and our lunar work is going to be volume three of the video series, and it will be available through the 800 number probably within about a month.
I think that there's major political tampering and there is desperation because it's almost like we're in quarantine.
It almost is if the fix is in at so many levels.
And no matter what nation, remember I said earlier this evening that as I began to inquire about the Japanese car company, Honda, that sent a mission to the moon, the day after I inquired, there appeared a thing in the Tokyo Times saying spacecraft crashed on moon, no pictures.
How can we live in a schizophrenic culture where we're supposed to have a set of documents that says that government is a servant of the people, and in fact, we're their slaves?
but after that they are they did more study to show that all they could all be explained by inorganic chemical reaction you know funny chemistry was that was the uh...
NASA, again, claims that which it can't substantiate.
You know, it reminds me of that old joke.
Remember Chevy Chase said, you know, you used to come on Saturday Night Live and say, I'm Chevy Chase and you're not.
Well, NASA's attitude is we're NASA and you're not.
And no one has had the temerity, the chutzpah, to basically ask them what's really going on, to show us the data.
When you look at those experiments, they did not duplicate Levin's curves or Oriyama's curves or some of the other real experiments from Mars.
They came close, but in this game, close is no cigar.
If we just came close, what do you think they would do to us?
You've got to have it.
And they didn't have it, but they lived on their reputation.
And until they killed seven human beings, all right, which was an agency disaster of the first magnitude, we basically let them have a free ride.
now look what's happened we have telescopes to go into orbit with lenses again oh Yes.
One of our Mars members on my prodding wrote to the Space Telescope Institute and asked them if they could, very innocently, nothing given away, could you gentlemen please point Alt Hubble toward the moon and take pictures?
Now the fact is that some of this structure is so big it can be seen with Hubble.
And since we now know where to look and you can look at crissium and see it under correct lighting from Earth, one of the things I'm going to do in Los Angeles is to lay out for the amateur astronomer crowd in Southern California how you can see this stuff from the ground.
There was back in the 1950s, the astronomer royal of England, H.P. Wilkins, who wrote a series of books, who thought he saw a 60-mile long lunar bridge.
I think what he saw now was part of the structure of the dome collapsing and causing light reflections for a while, and then it collapsed to the surface, and of course it would go away.
And if you want to come and see these pictures, be prepared to stay a while because I'm going to do this in three hours, in two segments, on Sunday night, what is it, June, what is Sunday next?
June 12th at the LAX Hyatt at the airport at the UFO Expo West.
I'm going to talk about Clementine, the Mars data, the moon-Mars connection, and show hundreds of photographs of structures the likes of which you would not believe.
I think that, frankly, looking at those pictures, there's nothing there.
I think that's part of the disinformation.
If it isn't, I think Mr. Leonard was incredibly naive, and I think what he interprets as what he calls them X-beams and drillers and all that is massive mega-engineering that no one in their right mind would ever have proposed.
But in looking at his photographs, they're so bad in quality compared to what we've got.
And plus the technology, all he had was basically prints from NASA headquarters or from Goddard.
And then he would photographically enlarge them.
We have applied the state-of-the-art computer technology, and frankly, I think that's our edge.
You know, when you can redo and redo and re-enhance until you can actually bring out subtleties so you can see it, you've got basically the edge that the government has had all these years.
In other words, Richard, for example, you can look through one of the clear portions of, say, one of the windows and see the, what, the other side of the structure or something internally in the structure or what?
Well, what you see are multi-level planes reflecting and scattering light at different angles.
You see 3D tetrahedral hexagonal geometry where you have three different angles coming together.
You can see footings for the dome in one area on the southwestern edge of Ukurt.
There's a crater called Kaladny, and just north of Kaladny, if you look at a lunar map, there's a wonderful lunar orbiter shot, which is 385M, and then you want to get 385H1, H2, and H3.
These are frame numbers.
The M's are a medium shot.
The H's are nested inside the M's as high-resolution, eight times better detail footprints laid out across the lunar surface because of the projected geometry of how the lunar orbiter was looking northeast.
When you look closely at the H's of the 85 series, you will see some amazing structure.
You will see row upon row upon row upon row of double craters.
Our producer here in New York called them post holes.
I termed them stringers, and Ron Nix, one of our geologists, thought they were the structural footings of the north edge of the dome that basically held up all this massive megatonnage of glass and titanium and steel.
Whatever they are, they're incredibly regular.
They're 3D, and they're anchored in a crystalline, semi-transparent matrix, and you're looking through several layers.
And I'll show all this in Los Angeles, so keep your head on.
He went on some of the ship cruises I arranged in my multifarious career.
I organized seminars at sea on the QE2 and on the Stotten Dam.
And we've shared a number of things over the years together, and I certainly care as much as he does about the future of the space program and the future of this country.
Carl is willing to put himself on the line in terms of nuclear issues.
Whether you agree with someone or not, the fact that they're willing to be arrested, go to jail for their beliefs, I think is a very important data point.
If someone who believes that passionately in certain things is approached by a government structure that basically lays out that if this comes out in the wrong way, it will destroy civilization, don't you think that good men and good women can be bought by a combination of that?
Because who wants to have on their shoulders responsibility for, you know, radically altering or destroying civilization?
If they did, I'd ask them to provide me with real evidence.
And I mean real evidence, not just propaganda.
Because I do think there will be some substantial alteration, but my predisposition would be that those who are in danger of being destroyed are people who are in power to remain in power.
That knowledge is power, and here we have the most extraordinary possibility for empowerment and democratization of a physics and a technology that can not only save the planet, but can empower individuals.
That we cannot allow it to be suppressed any longer.