Kevin Randle, a military intelligence expert and co-author of The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, argues the 1947 incident involved a heel-shaped craft (25–30 ft long) with five alien bodies—slender, hairless, and unlike primates—recovered by the 509th Bomb Group despite missing records. General Twining’s 1947 report and Project Moondust’s secret recovery of "discs" suggest a cover-up, though Randle insists no plausible alternative fits the evidence, including self-repairing metal. Witness threats and ambiguous FBI/Army documents, like J. Edgar Hoover’s July 10, 1947 note, fuel claims of suppression, while Roswell’s precedent echoes in cases like Kingman (1953) and Las Vegas (1962). Randle’s work implies government secrecy persists, with Project Blue Book whistleblowers allegedly silenced—yet skepticism lingers over uncorroborated accounts. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, there is a lot of news to talk about, and we're going to get to that this morning.
We're going to get to Open Mind Talk Radio.
The OJ situation continues, bombshell after bombshell, by the day, and today is no exception.
They've blown the grand jury right out of the water.
And we'll talk about that.
The president taking on conservative talk show hosts, specifically Rush Limbaugh, and I'm sure many others, probably this one included, will talk about that.
The economy, the dollar's in big trouble, we'll talk about that.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules on private property will definitely talk about that.
But I have promised you a guest this evening, this morning, and I am going to carry through with that.
There is a new book out entitled The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.
And this is somebody surely I would have normally scheduled for Dreamland.
But because of the timeline, Kevin Randall, co-author with Donald Schmidt, Kevin Randall is going to have, and Donald Schmidt are going to have some sort of expo or some sort of get-together up in the northwest part of the country, I believe, up in the Portland area or perhaps in Washington.
And so because of that time line, we decided to go ahead and have him on this evening.
You all know about Roswell, don't you?
On the back of the book, it says, this is the extraordinary true story of the crash of an alien spacecraft with a crew of five near Roswell, New Mexico, and the great lengths federal agencies went to to keep the news from becoming public.
By the way, this is soon to be a movie on Showtime.
The Chicago Sun-Times said the government covered up the crash for security reasons, and the cover-up continues to prevent panic.
Panic!
Chester W. Little, these brilliant science writers have demonstrated the validity of this UFO crash.
He is the Manhattan Project inventor, the first atomic detonator.
Dr. Richard Haynes, NASA research scientist, said, Randall and Schmidt's explosive and important book has set an extraordinary high standard of investigative scholarship.
So in other words, here are people who have looked into this closely and find apparently there to be a case, a strong case, that yes, it really happened by most UFO scholars.
This incident is considered to be the most authentic, well-documented case of a visit to Earth by aliens.
Not so intentional, perhaps.
So, off we go to, I think, Portland, Oregon.
Kevin Randall, welcome to the program.
Well, hold on there.
Let's put you over here and say now, Kevin Randall, welcome to the show.
I think I have to blame my partner, Don Schmidt, for that.
He's the Director of Special Investigations for the G. Allen Hyneck Center for UFO Studies.
And in the late 80s, the Center determined there was a lot of work still to be done on Roswell.
Witnesses that needed to be interviewed, people needed to be found.
And he wanted to bring someone on board who had a military background.
I had spent four years in the Army as a helicopter pilot and then 12 years in the Air Force, both in active duty and the active reserve as an intelligence officer.
And he thought that the military background would help me understand the mindset of the people we would be interviewing.
So in 1989, we began our search to find out what happened at Roswell, thinking that we would go into the town, spend three or four days there, find the prosaic answer, and then blow out of town with an answer and everybody would be happy.
I thought that we would, in a lot of the early UFO cases, if you go back to the primary sources, you can find a pretty interesting answer.
You can find something that makes sense that doesn't necessitate a belief in extraterrestrial spacecraft.
And we thought we would be able to do that, find a secret project, something like that that would explain the case.
But it didn't happen that way.
We began talking to the witnesses, such as Bill Brazil Jr., the son of the man who discovered the debris field.
And We sat with him for an hour and a half and listened to what he had to say and discovered that he was telling the truth as he knew it, and there was not a prosaic explanation.
And we expanded the search out from there, finding more witnesses, additional witnesses, people who clearly were in Roswell in 1947, the Provost Marshal, for example, the 509th Bomb Group.
Provost Marshal being akin to the chief of police telling us that the craft was extraterrestrial.
I mean, that's what he told me personally.
It was extraterrestrial.
And they were giving us first-hand testimony as opposed to the second and third-hand stories we'd had in the past.
The problem with that story is the Air Force offered that, or the Army actually at the time, offered that explanation almost immediately.
But we found the chief of staff of the 8th Air Force, General Thomas DuBose.
He said, no, no, the balloon explanation was designed specifically to get the reporters off General Raimi's back, General Raimi being the commander of the 8th Air Force, that the balloon explanation had been handed out to the reporters, but that was not the explanation for the crash of rocks.
See, that's where this story has diverged from your normal UFO story, is that there are a large number of witnesses, and a lot of them who are in positions of power in 1947.
We can demonstrate it by the records of who they were.
And we have those statements on audio and videotape.
Down in New Mexico, Representative Schiff there, of course, has started the GAO investigation.
I guess looking at the paper trail and the money trail and trying to figure out what really happened.
Because, of course, if it was transported up to Ohio, to Wright Pat in Ohio, there would be record of the flight, expenditures, I'm sure, and all kinds of things and ways to track it.
From what we understand, that's exactly what they're doing.
They're looking at this event in the context of other similar events.
For example, an experimental aircraft crashes.
How did the military respond to that?
What did they do?
How much money was spent?
And putting it in that kind of a context, looking to see if they can trace the paper trail.
We have records from flight crew members, for example, their personal flight logs showing some of these flights.
So we can document some of this ourselves.
And so from what we understand, the GAO investigation is going to look for those sorts of things, look to see what kind of records should have been created.
Unfortunately, we're dealing with an event that took place 47 years ago, and the records aren't as complete as we'd like them to be.
For example, I was able to get the morning reports.
I asked for the morning reports for the entire 509th bomb group.
What I got was the 509th headquarters company, and when I went back with a FOIA request, with a more specific request outlining the specific other units, they said those records don't exist.
So some of the records exist.
Some of them don't exist.
But curiously, in 1947, the 509th kept very complete unit histories from about April of 1947 through October.
So we have all of those.
We have a phone book that was published by the 509th Bomb Group for all the base telephones for August of 1947.
He came forward, corroborated some of that testimony forward.
We have Major Edwin Easley, the Provost Marshal, who talked about the creatures, who talked about the site north of Roswell, who gave us good ideas of what was going on on the site.
So we have a wide range of individuals that can provide us with eyewitness testimony that leads us to the conclusion that what was found was extraterrestrial.
Edwin Easley, as I said, told me specifically that it was extraterrestrial in origin.
Give me an example in some detail, if you can, of what you would consider to be some of the best first-hand testimony of exactly what they said they saw.
They saw a craft that was 25 to 30 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide, impacted in the slope about 40 miles northwest of Roswell.
There was one body, one of the fly crew laying outside the craft up against the cliff, one body that was outside the craft near it, and there were three bodies located inside the craft.
Four and a half to five and a half feet tall, very slender individuals.
The head slightly larger than a head would be on a human of a similar size.
The eyes slightly larger.
Not the black orbs we talk about from the abduction phenomenon, but eyes that are slightly larger than human eyes.
Heads that are hairless but covered with a slight peach fuzz or a fuzz-like Matting.
The arms are very skinny.
The bones are thin.
They're described as bird-like.
Now, the interesting thing is, some of the skeptical community said, well, what you've got there are people who saw primates or rhesus monkeys garbed in flying suits in test flights, and the men at Roswell were so caught up in the hysteria of the flying disc phenomena, they didn't recognize these apes for what they were.
And our answer is, if you take a look at the chimpanzee, the head is not larger, it's smaller.
What we're conducting at Roswell, for example, is not a scientific investigation, but is more akin to a criminal investigation.
We're searching for the evidence for science so that they can take a look at it.
But they claim to be looking as skeptics or debunkers at the UFO phenomena or claims of the paranormal, but they're not interested in looking at the evidence.
They know this can't possibly be, therefore it is not.
And it doesn't matter what we present in the way of evidence.
For example, we can prove what ufologists have said for years.
The United States government had a secret project to investigate UFOs that was not Project Blue Book.
If you go back and look at the regulations, Air Force Regulation 200-2, dated August of 1954, tells me as a former Air Force intelligence officer, if I get a UFO report from a flight crew, I don't send it to Project Blue Book.
I send it to the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and they determine whether or not it goes on to Blue Book.
And a lot of times, for reasons we don't know, they didn't go on to Project Blue Book.
So we can prove the government had the secret project.
We have documentation to prove quite a bit of what we say.
But the other investigation continues on because we've run into people who have submitted UFO reports or have them investigated by government officials after 1969.
So yes, that secret investigation continues.
Part of it was disguised as Project Moondust.
We can prove Project Moondust existed.
And when New Mexican Senator Jeff Bingaman queried the Air Force about Project Moondust, which was designed specifically to recover material of unknown origin returning from space or that of foreign origin, and the unknown origin clearly can be UFOs, he was told no such project ever existed.
Moondust never existed.
When the documents were given to the Air Force, they said, we'd like to amend our last statement.
We've got the Air Force lying to a United States senator about a project that clearly existed.
When we queried them about it, they said that project no longer exists, but we know from other documents the name has been changed because Moondust was compromised.
We have very little information about that other than the documentation we have from Project Moondust, and Moondust clearly is looking for stuff.
If Roswell took place, they would assume that it could happen again.
And Moondust, because of its mandate to recover returning space debris of foreign origin or unknown origin, clearly could cover another crash of an alien spacecraft if it happened.
That would be encompassed in part of Moondust's mandate.
There's no doubt in our mind, and I say ours, Don Schmidt's in my mind, that what happened in 1947 was a recovery of an alien spacecraft, and it set the tone for UFO research from that point onwards.
This is the best documented because of the number of witnesses and the documentation available.
But we have other information.
For example, there is beginning to build a body of evidence for a crash near Kingman, Arizona in 1953.
There's another one near Las Vegas in 1962.
And what's interesting about this one is the Air Force actually broke the sighting into two parts, part of it over Utah, part of it over Nevada.
So they have two separate sightings, but if you take a look at it, it's one single event.
And the Air Force card from the Nellis Air Force Base said it was seen on radar, but there was no visual sightings.
If you go back to the Las Vegas Sun for, I believe it was April 19th, 1962, the banner headline says, Brilliant red explosion flares in Las Vegas sky.
And there are eyewitnesses who talk about this, including the staff photographer of the newspaper at the time, who saw this thing in the sky as it detonated.
There's another case from Ubituper, Brazil, in 1957, where bits of metal were picked up and analyzed by the Brazilian government, who said it was magnesium of a purity unobtainable at Earth at the time.
That metal was analyzed again by Condon, who said, well, the sample we looked at wasn't that pure.
Therefore, all the samples were not that pure, which is a conclusion that scientifically they couldn't draw.
I could understand, for example, they would have an experimental craft up and it would crash.
Then it would make sense.
The government certainly would cover it up.
So it does seem to me the burden of proof is that it was extraterrestrial in origin, not that there was a crash, because that could easily have occurred.
I think the point is there was a cover-up that took place, and it persists today.
We've tried to research as carefully as possible all the alternative explanations.
We looked into the Northrop Flying Wing, for example, because one researcher suggested that was what crashed there.
We found it couldn't possibly have been.
We looked at the rocket research out of white sand.
Nothing there to account for it.
We looked into the balloon launchings of various projects, including Project Mogul, which was this idea that if you could put an instrument package into this acoustical level in the atmosphere, like the acoustical level in the ocean, they could monitor Soviet atomic experiments.
And they couldn't discover a way of doing that, and they couldn't find the acoustical level, so Project Mogul doesn't exist.
We looked at the alternative explanations and could find nothing that would account for the crash in the right timeframe, the types of debris that was talked about, and the bodies.
When you get to the bodies, it becomes very important.
I suppose on the part of the government, I simply concede to you, well, yes, there was a crash there, but, you know, it was one of ours.
I mean, so then the burden of proof, really, once you acknowledge there was a crash, and I believe there was, the burden of proof is that it was of extraterrestrial origin.
I guess what I'm trying to say is we must convince the journalistic community here is an event that deserves research and that we can prove the crash took place and we can prove the cover-up.
Why does the cover-up persist today?
Why can't we get the proper answers?
When they present documentation, it does not cover the events that Roswell.
What would we have been testing in 1947 that would be persisting as a secret today?
Even the early crashes of the SR-71 and some of those are still partially classified.
But we can get documentation and we can write those things off.
We can realize what's going on.
But with Roswell, it's completely missing.
For example, the Project Blue Book files, lots of these kinds of stories early on in the UFO phenomena, part of the Project Blue Book files.
There's no mention of Roswell.
There's no file for Roswell in Project Blue Book.
Why not?
We can find some documentation that relates to it.
There's an FBI document where J. Edgar Hoover in his own handwriting suggests something about the disks recovered and the Army wouldn't let the FBI see it.
Now, there are alternative explanations for that handwritten note, but it opens the door for us.
Well, what happened was Brigadier General Shogun, who was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Air Intelligence in 1947, had asked the FBI to investigate the backgrounds of people who saw flying saucers.
The FBI thought they should do that.
In fact, there was a number of endorsements.
This document is dated 10 July 1947, not long after the events in Roswell.
Hoover, in his handwritten endorsement, says, I would do this, but before we do it, I want to see, I want complete access to discs recovered.
For example, and then there's this ambiguous little statement.
We don't know whether it's SWLA or what it says, but he says, in the LA case, for example, the Army grabbed it, wouldn't let anybody have it for even a cursory examination.
So we've got a statement that talks about discs recovered and the fact the Army grabbed it, which fits the Roswell events exactly.
But it's ambiguous enough that we can't say, well, here's proof positive in G. Edgar Hoover's own handwriting proving that there were crashed flying saucers.
But it opens the door for that.
General Twining in September of 1947 issued a report based on, again, information submitted by Schovin that said that the first paragraph says that the phenomenon being talked about is something real, not illusionary or fictitious, meaning flying this.
Later on, he says due consideration must be given to the fact that there is no exhibits in the form of crash-recovered debris.
But what he's saying is in that specific sample provided by Shulgun, there was nothing that alluded to a crashed flying saucer.
But that does not mean that Twining wasn't aware of the events in Roswell.
Well, as you know, maybe you don't know, I'm literally almost at Dreamland, not quite at Dreamland, it's just over the hill from me here.
And we see a lot of things flying in the skies, and for a long time there were very persistent reports, even some eyewitness testimony, of there being disks at an area called S4, which is just sort of an adjacent area to Dreamland.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that area you're referring to, of course, is also an area where there's a lot of legitimate experimental aircraft being tested.
Well, that may be, Kevin, but if so, then our own experimentation, as documented with a lot of video cameras and so forth, is of circular craft that are able to do things that you would associate with flying saucers.
But it may be, as has been alleged, that it's experimentation with something that was captured from the aliens, or experimentation of an alien-type craft based on the technology recovered at Roswell, among other places.
But we have to keep in the back of our minds that the secrecy may just revolve around the fact that it's our own experimentation, and we don't want that sort of thing leaking out into the general public at this time.
We have to keep that in the back of our mind.
But there's always this other intriguing possibility.
And if we can establish that Roswell is extraterrestrial, then those sorts of speculations take on an added dimension because we've already leaped the first hurdle, which is to get the craft here from another planet.
We've proven that.
Now it's distinctly possible that we do, in fact, have a craft, and we are, in fact, experimenting with it.
I mean, if you're convinced, you sound like a rational person to me.
Thank you.
As a result of all your investigation, are you absolutely convinced or just about convinced or what is your confidence level that Roswell was extraterrestrial in origin?
The government probably knows about it, probably is covering it up.
And here we sit like a person with a can of some of the fine tuna that I sell, turning it over and over without a can opener, trying to figure out how to get it open.
Well, as I said, one of the ways we get it open is to convince the media to look into it and start pressing it.
If we cannot convince the media, we'll never be able to create the pressure for Congress to act.
If we can blow it off by saying, well, you know, it's just a bunch of kooks and we don't have to worry about it, or I'm too sophisticated to believe in this stuff, we're never going to get anywhere.
But if we can convince people that the level of research is high enough and the documentation is good enough, then we can apply that pressure to the proper individuals in Congress.
And Congressman Schiff and the GAO investigation is certainly a step in the right direction.
The work being done by Senator Jeff Bingaman and other senators to find out what's going on with moon dust is a step in the right direction.
What about Hazel O'Leary, who has released all this information in the administration about past atomic experiments, plutonium injections, and all the rest of the horrible stuff?
We think that part of the problem may be they're still concerned about a panic.
And I say I don't see how that can be, because if they told us tomorrow that the flying sausages were real, they're extraterrestrial, and one crashed at Roswell, your immediate reaction might be to panic.
But then you'll say, you know, this happened 47 years ago.
How has it adversely affected my life?
But if one lands at the Pentagon tomorrow, we're not going to have that nice cushion to fall back on.
Well, I've done a talk show now, this round of talk shows anyway, for about nine years, Kevin, and I can tell you something.
If the news got out that indeed the ETs are here, that perhaps it leads back toward the possibility that they are, in effect, our creators or manipulators.
Kevin, I'm telling you, I talked to the religious folks all across this country.
They'd fill these little aliens, if they still existed, with so much lead that they'd be nothing but a big donut hole.
I'm not kidding you.
There would be panic.
There would be a lot of anger.
And a lot of times when you talk about these topics, Kevin, there's a lot of anger from these people.
So I don't discount people saying, oh, no, there would be panic and social disruption.
Right, but what about all of the years of reports of abductions?
You know, if those are true, Kevin, that would seem to suggest that we are aware of what's going on, or maybe we've made a deal with the aliens or whatever it is, and they'd be very unlikely to reveal something like that.
Or they haven't figured out the codes, if you will, of the spacecraft.
They don't know how to make it work yet.
They don't know how to create the metal.
We have descriptions of metal at the debris field at Roswell that when you picked it up and you fold it up into a ball, it would unfold itself without a sign of a crease.
What does that do to the body shop?
The next time you have a fender bender in the car, you back up and the fender repairs itself.
So there are all kinds of questions that need to be addressed about what would be the ramifications after we learn the truth.
But at some point, we're going to know the truth.
Something is going to happen, and it's going to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And yet there are people today who know that we never landed on the moon.
And suppose I came to you just before you were about to have your big news conference, and I said, Kevin, I'm from the government, agency I can't even talk about.
We understand what you have.
We have concluded over the years that to release such information would be detrimental to the national security, and we're asking you not to release what you've got.
I'm aware that the Brookings Institution, for example, in 1962 did a study.
They took 15 different disciplines and asked them, theologians, anthropologists, economists, what would happen if there was a confrontation between people of Earth and an alien civilization.
Not necessarily a face-to-face confrontation, but the fact we learned about it through radio astronomy.
And of those disciplines, 14 of them said it would be disastrous to our civilization.
But isn't that also the way our civilization grows and becomes better?
Well, we're giving a lecture on what we've learned about Roswell, including some of the new testimony that we've developed in the last two or three weeks to corroborate some of the things that we found at the Red Lion Lloyd Center in downtown Portland, Oregon.
It starts at 2 o'clock on Sunday afternoon.
And Mike Linneman is going to be there as well talking about some of his research.
And Don Schmidt, my partner from the center, is going to be there.
Well, it says here they have to cough up $15, and for that, you get all three of us talking about our research, and it's at the Red Lion Lloyd Center in downtown Portland, Oregon.
And for ticket information in this area, they can call 224-8499.
It kind of depends on their persuasion and what they're looking for.
But what we've tried to do is put together a case that's not necessarily a scientific case, but more of the kind of case you would present going into a court of law.
We're in a search for the proper evidence for the scientific community.
I don't think we've come up with the evidence the scientific community can take into the laboratory and analyze.
But we found the kind of evidence that endorses this sort of an investigation.
So that's kind of where we are.
We've had colleagues with the scientific band take a look at the information.
They have suggested ways that we could have improved the work.
One of the complaints was the footnotes didn't contain enough data about how the interviews were conducted and whether or not they were on audio or videotape.
And almost all the interviews we conducted are on either or audio or videotape.
So it's not just necessarily you have to take our interpretation of what somebody said to us in a private conversation.
There are some videotape presentations out that include parts of those interviews.
The Fund for UFO Research, for example, has one called The Recollections of Roswell Part 2 that they sell that has quite a bit of that kind of material in it.
He's co-author of The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.
The best documented case of an alien crash on Earth.
And I'm going to give you a chance to talk to him here in a moment.
I just got a fact in, and I guess 2020 did a pretty good piece on the new case of the flesh-eating ate-by-face off strap A. And you might be interested in this.
The Center for Disease Control predicts 1,000 new cases of that this year, but experts are saying the cases will exceed 7,000 this year.
For Kevin Randall, in a related, sort of a related question, did any of the personnel who came into contact with any alien crew members, alive or dead, contract any new virus or bacterial infection?
And could any new diseases we have appearing today be a result of this contact?
We have no evidence that any of the people who came in contact with the bodies manifested any type of illness or disease that would be related directly to that contact.
In fact, one man had sent me a letter and suggested that because there were no outbreaks of a new disease that swept the planet clean of humanity, it proved that the Roswell didn't happen.
There are many diseases that we have that are species-specific.
Reptiles can't get certain diseases that affect mammals.
I agree that's a ridiculous statement, but that was his premise.
And my response was that there are diseases that are very species-specific, and the fact that we didn't contract some alien bug does not prove that it did or did not happen.
All it means is it did not happen.
We have no evidence that any of the diseases that are affecting the human race today are a result of something that happened at Roswell 47 years ago.
Oh, well, actually, I was just curious about something.
Your guest had mentioned earlier, and I don't know if you picked up on this, but he mentioned something to the effect that most people know today that the moonshot was just a Hollywood production.
I think that if the government could answer that question, they would love to have an answer.
The only clue that's ever come out of the UFO phenomenon, of course, is the Betty Hill star map, which is a result of her abduction back in 1961, and Marjorie Fish attempting to find which section of the galaxy came from, suggesting they may have been from Zeta 1, Zeta 2 reticuli.
But I don't think that's a very good clue.
What happened at Roswell, we, meaning we civilians outside the government, have no clues about where they came from.
We had some vibrations today before I asked my question.
About between 5 and 10 after 10 in the morning, everything was calm, and all of a sudden, my windows, I have huge windows, four sets of huge windows, rattled and vibrated like 100 bass drums for about three seconds.
For the scientific community, the evidence they require is somewhat different than the evidence we've been searching for.
We need to prove the case so we know where to look for the proper evidence, I guess.
unidentified
Okay, now, so how do they explain?
I mean, Roswell's been around forever.
I can't believe there haven't been 10,000 scientists that aren't curious, but how do they explain the absolute evidence of the pyramids and that they could not have been built by anybody here?
My undergraduate degree was in anthropology, but my area of emphasis was Mesoamerica and the Central Andes as opposed to Egyptology.
But I know that I have seen the theories that have been presented lately about how the pyramids were constructed in Egypt, and the theories that they're being presented seem to make some sense about how they did it.
And I know that they just uncovered not too long ago the remains of the city at the base of one of the major pyramids to suggest that it was not the slave labor we've been led to believe, but actually a public works project, if you will.
So there's evidence that needs to be looked at and examined.
And I think that we need to take a skeptical eye to all the evidence and look at it rationally and try to determine whether or not the explanations being offered make sense to us rather than reject them out of hand.
Okay, Kevin, have you looked at all at the work of Richard Hoagland with respect to Mars and the structures on Mars and the mathematical similarities to the pyramids here on Earth, and now his latest work with regard to the moon.
I've heard him on the radio and I've read his book because I found it fascinating.
And I think that the face on Mars, for example, I mean, there is an area where it demands that we take another look at it.
Unfortunately, I like to joke about the reason we don't know more about it is because the aliens blew up the Mars observer, so we wouldn't have the answers and could question it longer.
Well, it is because it would suggest that either an ancient alien civilization visited here, or in the view of some, Kevin, there was a prior civilization, or even many of them, here on Earth that may have at one time colonized Mars.
And I think that if we found the artifact on Mars to be in fact a manufactured artifact, that would be pretty much evidence that somebody was traveling through space at some point.
Well, there are a lot of people who speculate that there have been prior civilizations, that there have been cycles here on Earth when man has come and man has gone, generally because of polar shifts and other great earth changes that have occurred.
Again, it's an interesting theory, and I know that I used to study what was called oops, out-of-place things, out-of-place artifacts.
And these were nails found in solid rock or the spark plug found in the geode, that sort of thing.
Things that clearly shouldn't be there but are in fact there.
And how do you explain a nail being pulled out of a block of granite for crying out loud if the nail wasn't dropped at the granite was forming millions of years ago, which would be suggestive of that?
There's the tracks of the human and the dinosaur that they have in the bed, the riverbeds in Texas.
And I've heard theories that seem plausible that the dinosaur walked through the place, the area solidified.
Later on, it softened up, and then a human walked through it and left his footprint.
So it looks like the footprints of a human with the footprints of a dinosaur.
It was another type of dinosaur that had a human-looking footprint.
You know, there are interesting things that I think we need to look at without an idea to, well, it can't possibly be, therefore it is not.
I think that there is some good credibility to the abduction phenomenon.
I also think there's some very poor research that's been done.
If you go back and you read some of the earlier works on abductions, you see that the technician or the hypnotherapist has asked very leading questions and has led the witness in a lot of directions.
We know from our current studies about the false memory syndrome, where you can actually induce memories in people by trying to convince them that events took place.
So our level of research as researchers must increase and must improve so that those kind of criticisms can't be directed at us.
But I looked at one of the abduction cases from 1973.
I looked at it in 1976.
And the thing that's always bothered me about this is the number of people from the same family abducted.
And the oldest daughter said that she thought the abduction took place at 1 o'clock in the morning.
But the mother told me that they'd filed a police report because they thought there was somebody messing with the house, some kind of an intruder, although I hesitate to use that term.
And I went and found the police report.
The police report had been filed at 12.40 a.m.
There was no way that the youngest daughter could be abducted at 1 o'clock in the morning if they were conscious enough to make a police report at 12.40.
But then I discovered the youngest daughter was nearsighted, and the clock that she saw, the hands were almost the same size.
So if you didn't get a look at the clock, five minutes after 12 looks an awful lot like 1 o'clock in the morning.
And that's the kind of a detail that somebody inventing a story isn't going to make up.
So something clearly happened to this family, and I don't know what it is.
And it seems to fit into the abduction phenomenon.
So there are some interesting cases.
I don't think it's nearly as prevalent as we're led to believe, but I think there is something to the phenomenon.
Well, it winds back into what I was saying earlier, Kevin.
If the abductions are real, then the implication clearly would be, if you believe in the government cover-up, that they're well aware of the abductions.
So then I think, well, if that's true, there's no chance at all that they're ever going to tell us the truth or that we're going to be able to dig it out because they've made a deal and the chances of their revealing that are almost zero.
Given that scenario, I think you're probably right.
But the decision can be taken out of their hands.
And of course, if one lands at the United Nations, then the decision is taken out of their hands.
But if there is no deal between our government and the aliens to allow the abductions to take place, and if the abduction phenomenon isn't as widespread as it seems to be, then there may be no deal, and we may be able to dig something out.
Frankie Rowe, for example, whose father was a firefighter in Roswell in 1947, said that her father said one was alive and that they drove it out of the impact site into the base hospital.
But I have to stress, we have no first-hand corroboration for that.
We've also heard that one survived a number of years after this event and died in 1952, I think.
Again, we have no first-hand corroboration for that at this time.
unidentified
Yeah, I'd heard that also.
And in light of that, it's possibly conceivable that they did find out where they're from, but they're just not, nobody knows for sure.
There may be, even if the entire crew was killed, there may have been clues in the ship that would have given us a clue about where they came from, some kind of StarMaps or something like that.
We don't have access to that information, but the government, the people who are responsible for the retrieval, may have that information.
I'd just like to know, many, many years ago when I was a young lad, there were two publications running simultaneously.
One was Reader's Digest, which is still running.
The other one was a small book in the same format called Coronet.
And somewhere around 52, 53, 54, they ran a small color pictorial in the back of Coronette, which was a common feature with the magazine at that time, and did a whole feature on Roswell.
Now, I don't know whether your guest is aware of that or not, or maybe he could find some archives to go back to that.
I live in Iowa myself, and the University of Iowa has all those magazines there.
We'd heard the story that one of the issues had been dealt with the crash and had disappeared completely.
So we went back through them in the 40s and looked to see if there was anything missing and there wasn't.
I hadn't heard that there was something like that from Coronet in the early 50s, you say?
unidentified
Well, I hope so.
I remember seeing the issue, and it fascinated me.
And the issue was around my family home for many years.
As a matter of fact, a few years ago when I was back home, I looked for it, but it had gone.
It'd probably been thrown out, but I know when I was a young lad, somewhere between, oh, let's say, 10, 12 years of age, which would have, I guess, put us, what, 46, 56?
I know they have it at the University of Iowa Libraries.
I think one of the first things I'm going to do next week is go down there and take a look at the issues and see if I can find that.
I hadn't heard that, and I would think that if something like that had happened prior to this point, somebody would have mentioned it and would have come forward.
He is co-author, along with Donald Schmidt, of the truth about the UFO crash at Roswell, New Mexico.
I had a mistake there.
I assume you know it's Roswell.
And that's what we're talking about, the possibility that a UFO crashed, alien beings and ships were recovered.
And what that means for us, and of course, the moment this is actually proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it will be the biggest story of all of human history.
The best information we have is part of the debris went to the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The craft itself and the majority of the debris and the bodies eventually made it to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Wright Field at the time.
One of the bodies supposedly went to Lowry Army Airfield in 1947 because that's where the Army had its mortuary service.
The information we have now is the craft and the bodies are located in a special facility in the middle of Nevada, which is not part of the Groom Lake Greenland Area 51 complex.
But that information about it being in Nevada is pretty speculative.
We can trace the stuff in 47 to the bases in Ohio, and we've got evidence it was there for a period after that.
And then we have other things that tell us where it may have gone or where it may be still.
But, of course, you don't dispose of unique samples, so they're somewhere.
On this whole thing about abduction, what I don't understand, and I've kind of failed to believe, is that if the government had a deal made with these aliens to kind of look the other way for an abduction, why would they go through abducting and keeping it as a hot topic when wouldn't they be able to find volunteers to have them study or learn?
I mean, we're talking tables here, medical procedures, long needles, and you'd volunteer?
unidentified
Oh, sure.
It wouldn't be any different from some of the physicals that would go through here today.
And I think the exchange of knowledge, it would seem that if they had volunteers, there would be less reports of abductions, and then you've got the movies, you've got the reports.
It would keep the whole issue of aliens in the news.
Why would anybody become a believer based on the fact that they saw a flash in the sky and it coincides with the rest at Roswell without seeing what happened at Roswell to become a believer on the basis of a flash?
Well, my question would be, how does he relate it to the crash at Roswell if he was four or five years old?
How does he know it was related to that?
The best evidence we had is that there was no flash.
There was a streak of light that was seen, but the people who saw it were all in the Roswell area, and it wasn't very high in the atmosphere when it happened.
Otherwise, we would have had reports like that from all over the southwest, and we could write that off as some kind of a meteoric phenomenon or an astronomical phenomenon.
So the fact he's in Phoenix, and I just don't see how that would relate to Roswell at all.
And it's a dumb question, but how come we can get pictures of aliens with Clinton and Limbaugh on supermarket tabloids, but I can never find one with my camera?
There is, however, a good question buried in that humor, and it is, Kevin, with all of the video recorders and all of the cameras and all of the UFOs, it seems like we ought to have better photographic evidence than we do, or do we have good evidence?
There was a picture taken in McMinnville, Oregon, for example, in 1950 that's very good.
Or the Rex Heflin pictures from California in 1966.
There were some good video footage just taken, coincidentally, in Roswell in, I think it was late March of this year that they've shown on television a number of times that is very provocative.
But I think the difference is when we're talking about a UFO, it's very close to the ground.
It's not seen over a wide, wide area, so that the opportunities to film it or photograph it are somewhat limited.
And I know of cases where people are just in awe of what they're seeing with a camera hanging around their necks, and they never think to use them.
People called me up later and said, well, how come you didn't have a camera?
Well, because I don't carry a camera around as a normal part of my life.
And even if I'd had one, the chances of getting it out in the dark situation I was in, getting it focused, and getting anything at all usable would be slim and none.
I think people also overlook that if you're trying to photograph an object that is fairly small in the sky that you can make out with your eye, but when you try to photograph it, you lose an awful lot of detail.
There's a lot of variables involved.
There have been some very good photographic evidence, but even if we had outstanding photographs taken tomorrow, that's not going to prove it because with the technology available today, you can fake things so many different ways that it's impossible to detect.
Is there anything, Kevin, do you think that is going to come along either your book or follow-up to your book or more evidence that at any point is going to blow this thing wide open?
There are hints of documentation that we might be able to get our hands on.
And when I say we, I mean we as a community as opposed to Don and me specifically that may provide us with a way of breaking the thing wide open.
There may be some eyewitness testimony that if the specific people will come forward and there is the talk of one or two major generals who are involved in it.
I think if you get someone of that stature to come forward, say, yes, I was directly involved and this is what I saw, that will go a long way to adding to our credibility.
One of them is Frankie Rowe, who is a 12-year-old girl, was visited by four military people, and she was told that if she talked about this, the family would end up at Orchard Park, which was a prisoner of war camp, and she'd be taken out in the desert, and she wouldn't come back.
Now, you could assume that maybe the 12-year-old misunderstood what she was being told by the military.
She overreacted to it.
We've had it corroborated by other family members, but there are other civilians.
Glenn Dennis, the Roswell Morritian, was told he'd be picking his bones out of the sand.
Sheriff Wilcox's family, Sheriff Wilcox was told that if he talked about it, his family would be killed.
One of the deputies that we found was still alive said he wouldn't talk to us because he didn't want to get shot.
So we can document through the testimony of the people involved that they clearly were threatened.
And it's absolutely correct.
Why, if it's just a weatherboard, or even if it's a secret project, why are they threatening people with those kinds of dire consequences when other secrets have not been guarded with that kind of savagery?
Well, if all of that is true and they were threatening to shoot people for looking into it, what makes you think you're not going to attract some lead?
Hey, I read a story when I was a young man that it said that at the end of World War II, that the OSA or the Secret Service, they went into Germany and the Russians and the Americans and everything.
And they split the scientists and everything.
And they had an identical plane prior to 1947 that was identified.
And they said they had several prototypes, Nazi Germany.
Wildcard Line 2, you're on the air with Kevin Randall.
Hi.
unidentified
Good morning, Art.
This is Rick, a rebellious cab driver out of Portland, and I wanted to ask your guest if he had a take on the incident that Richard Hloaglin brought up, referring to a firefight in the sky up against something over the skies of Los Angeles in 1942.
The only thing I know is what the conventional wisdom is, that it was supposedly written off as war nerves and hysteria, and there was nothing really being shot at by the people.
They thought there was something there.
That's the only thing I know about it.
I haven't heard that Richard Hoagland has any evidence or any theories that go beyond that.
I've heard the same thing, and that's about I heard that there were some massive sightings in the Mexico City area, and there was some good videotape taken, and that's really about all I know about it.
And I believe the dynamics of the re-entry is such that at a low altitude, you wouldn't have anything appear to go horizontally unless it's controlled in some fashion.
All right, that's Kevin Randall, co-author of The Truth About the UFO crash at Roswell.
What we're going to do now is pause at the top of the hour, do a little bit of news, come back, and open the well, we'll do a normal open, and there's an awful lot of news to talk about.
Things are popping all over the place, so we're about to get into it.
Brace yourself a Friday night, Saturday morning.
From the high desert to the nation, this is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified
The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More Somewhere in Time coming out.
You're listening to Art Bell somewhere in time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM from June 24th, 1994.
I'm going to give you a couple of things to think about here because there is a lot of news going on for a Saturday morning.
Hey, it's the weekend, everybody.
But wow, the news.
No doubt about it.
A legal bombshell.
The defense of O.J. Simpson received what is certainly a remarkable boost yesterday when a judge did something that I have never seen a judge do before.
And indeed, it is confirmed as being very unusual.
He went along with a request by Simpson's attorney.
He asked members or queried members of a grand jury considering an indictment against Simpson for murder if they had been affected by the massive publicity surrounding this case.
The answer was yes, and the grand jury was ordered immediately dissolved incredibly.
So, while the case against Simpson goes on, the job of prosecuting just got a lot, lot harder.
Attorney Shapiro charged, quote, prejudicial and improper expressions of personal opinions and uncorrected false and misleading descriptions of evidence uncovered in the investigation of this case, end quote.
The judge bought it.
The order is done.
The grand jury action is ended.
The files are sealed permanently.
Now, what brought this on?
Well, a whole raft of things brought it on.
The 911 tapes were said to be exactly what I told you they were, very prejudicial.
And the fact is, some members of that grand jury apparently heard them.
But that's not all.
That's not all.
Marcia Clark, the prosecutor in the case, I can only imagine this must have been a mistake, a slip of the lip, but what a slip of the lip.
She said, and I quote, quote, Mr. Simpson is charged alone because he is the sole murderer, end quote.
Well, that's got to be a mistake, a slip of the lip, eh, Marcia?
Because you never say he is the sole murderer.
You say he is the sole murder suspect or something like that.
You don't say the sole murderer.
That would have to be considered somewhat prejudgmental and certainly very prejudicial, and so it's another one of the mistakes made.
Now the evidence.
Are you ready for even more changes?
Remember the bloody ski mask?
Doesn't exist.
They've got a blue ski cap they might have found there, but not a ski mask.
No blood on it.
Remember the bloody clothing yesterday, yesterday's story, was supposed to be in the washing machine in his house?
Well, the LAPD has thus far had no comment on that evidence at all.
Remember the supposed Army entrenching tool that was found as the murder weapon, LA Times, Daily News rather, reported that.
LAPD denies it.
No entrenching tool.
No murder weapon.
Remember the report of blood in the golf bag?
LAPD now denies it.
Not true.
Remember the report of scratches on Simpson's hand?
Incredibly, Shapiro denies it.
Not even a scratch.
Maybe just one little mark where he had a broken glass.
Nothing more, they say, than paper cuts.
Paper cuts.
Credible.
Remember the concealed hand?
The hand under the bag all the way to Chicago?
The flight attendant now denies she ever said anything like that.
And in fact, the passenger who sat all that time with OJ also didn't see it.
Then, of course, there's Garcetti, one of the prosecutors who said, well, he wouldn't be surprised.
Last Sunday on Brinkley, he wouldn't be surprised to see a confession forthcoming from O.J. The pre-trial hearing, in other words, the prosecution of O.J. is now going to go forward, but I don't know where it's going to go.
Where's the meat?
Where's the evidence?
There'll be a pre-trial hearing on Thursday.
Can he possibly get a fair trial?
I'm beginning to wonder if, in fact, he can.
You know, in a lot of cases, they say, well, it's going to be hard, but, oh, we'll get a jury.
And they got one for Rodney King.
Maybe they're going to get one for O.J., but I just don't see how this man can get a fair trial anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
And I'm not even so sure we could change the venue to Europe and get a fair trial.
Do you think he actually might beat the charge?
Might beat it?
On Thursday, in this pretrial hearing, they will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to even bring him to trial.
And I guess I've got to ask, where indeed is the evidence?
Remember the groundskeeper?
There's another one.
Kalen, I think his name is, Cato Kalen.
He's going to testify for OJ, not against OJ.
So what's going to happen on Thursday?
Well, I'll tell you, the prosecution had better have its evidence together, or that judge could set OJ free.
Might have to set him free.
Without a DNA test against Simpson, do they have any case at all?
I'm beginning to wonder.
And so what began at the beginning of the week as what seemed like overwhelming evidence against O.J., we end the week with anything but overwhelming evidence.
In fact, a question in my mind about whether they even have enough evidence to bound him over, hold him over for trial.
And have you heard the latest?
Now, O.J.'s very capable attorney is aided by none other than Alan Dershowitz and Melvin Bellai.
That's right, Melvin Belli, actively involved.
Boy, what a character he is.
Melvin's something else.
Very effective.
So is Dershowitz.
It's almost the equivalent of the hand of the Creator coming down on O.J.'s legal defense team's side or something.
It's unbelievable the power of the attorneys on his side.
And I'm frankly beginning to wonder where they are with this case.
So that's where the O.J. Simpson story sits this morning.
And it is nothing other than incredible.
So if you have comments, they're welcome, of course.
Then the economy.
Brace yourself.
There is more severe trouble for the dollar on the world currency markets.
Big trouble yesterday, folks.
It's beginning to cause a domino effect that is knocking down dominoes on Wall Street.
It may require yet another interest rate hike.
Wall Street doesn't like that idea one bit, and the Dow fell 62 points yesterday, 140 points since Monday, not good.
The dollar is falling against other currencies despite the best efforts of the central banks of the world.
They've been intervening, buying dollars.
It has not helped.
The dollar has continued to plunge near the 100 yen mark, for example, right now.
Not good.
So my question, despite Greenspan's statement the other day about the relative health of the U.S. economy, I know there are a lot of you out there that watch all of this very carefully.
And I would ask you this morning, where are we going?
What have we got here?
How serious is this?
When you have a currency fall, unchecked by even central bank intervention, you've got something fairly serious going on.
So where do you all think this is going?
Another interest rate hike, Wall Street crash, currency devaluation.
What's going on here?
Yesterday, a Supreme Court ruling that affects just about every landowner in America.
Do you own land?
The question is, how much power should the federal government have to regulate landowners?
In other words, the federal government coming to you and telling you what you must do with your land, your land, in a certain way to preserve the environment.
The case stems from the Portland area.
A lot of news up there lately.
Tigert, Oregon specifically.
And the question was, if the owner of a plumbing supply business up there wanted to have a bigger store, she, in this case, she, must give the local government, must give the local government one-tenth of her land.
Just give it to the government.
So that the government, in this case, the municipality, could build a bike path and provide for flood control.
Well, I understand the flood control, but since when, when you want to increase a business on your own damn land, do you have to give some to the city within which you reside so they can have a bike path?
Well, the Supreme Court said no, barely.
In a 5-4 vote, they said there was, listen to this, not enough of a connection between the city's demands and the effects of expanding the business.
But it was close, very close, a 5-4 vote.
And that should scare the whiskers right off you.
Well, political news, there's a lot of that.
Mr. Clinton has had a terrible week.
Now, I don't know if he's still in St. Louis where he was earlier in the day, but he may be.
And I guess he was doing a talk show on KMOX, our affiliate's competitor there in St. Louis.
And the president took off, really began to complain bitterly about the religious right in America.
Falwell, who, as you know, is distributing a tape with a number of people who don't have much good to say about the president.
Some cases, very serious allegations, which I too agree are kind of too far out for me, thank you.
But he complained bitterly about Falwell and his tape.
The president took off on Rush Limbaugh.
As a matter of fact, he said on that show, after I get off the air today, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say anything he wants, and I won't have the opportunity to respond, and there's no truth detector, end quote.
Well, since when does the President of the United States feel it necessary to take off at a talk show host?
I'll tell you what it sounds like.
If you listen to the President's words and you read not very far between the lines, it would be pretty simple to translate this complaint to legislation in the form of regurgitating the fairness doctrine.
Now I can just feel it in my bones.
Rush Limbaugh, in his typical way, responded by saying, well, does this mean the president's going to start agreeing with me with regard to the comment about the truth detector?
So what do you think about what the president said?
What do you think this means?
What does it mean?
Does it mean the president is getting ready to come after the talk show, host?
Well, this one ought to put a little crick in your neck.
This comes from Reuters News Service, and I picked it off internet.
A British scientific research body said Friday, it's found evidence of a rapid rise in temperature in Antarctica that could cause a global disaster.
The British Antarctic Survey's Faraday Research Base on the Antarctic Peninsula has recorded the fastest sustained warming since worldwide temperature records began 130 years ago.
The rise is the fastest we've got on record.
People should be looking to the future or the consequences could be quite dire, according to Dr. John King, head of the survey's meteorological group.
Temperatures at Faraday have been recorded since 1947.
Interesting year.
Show a rise of about a half a degree centigrade a decade.
Scientists fear the sensitive Antarctic region is acting as a warning beacon that the global climate is rising.
It could be a sentinel region, according to King.
The global warming theory predicts man-made pollutants in the atmosphere will trap the sun's heat, warming the globe, melting the polar ice sheets, not good.
The subsequent rise in world water levels would submerge vast tracts of inhabited land.
Are you listening, Seattle?
Are you listening, San Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego?
Gurgle, gurgle.
So there it is.
That's Reuters news from London.
It sounds to me as though they're saying, look out, it's going to melt.
It's going to melt.
It's getting hot.
You think that's true?
Or do you think that's a bunch of ballooning?
All right, we'll get to two-way talk here in a moment.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from June 24th, 1994.
First of all, let me just say that I want to thank Bill Clinton for finally coming out and giving these religious Bible thumpers who are trying to take over a political party, what for?
Well, if I were you, I wouldn't call him a scuzz bucket.
I think that, you know, don't you worry about being eternally damned, Charles?
unidentified
No, when that guy did that, I was going to call into his show and say, I'm going to send the money to God so I can hurry up and kill the guy.
I mean, I could care less whether God killed him or not.
But the guy's, what Bill Clinton's basically saying is that these people have no right to involve themselves in politics to the level that they've done.
Well, Rush Limbaugh, well, the man is politically extreme, and he's got an open air three hours a day to basically attack and lie about Bill Clinton's record.
And when you've got somebody lying about your record three hours a day, that's bound to distort every single thing that you're doing.
And unlike newspapers that bury it on the last page, if I made a mistake, I'll put it right here on the front page.
I think I Said that the attorneys now working on the side of OJ were Alan Dershowitz and Melvin Bellai.
I probably meant to say Alan Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey.
And it is a pretty close association because I heard, so it was F. Lee Bailey, I guess, not Melvin Belli.
It seems like Melvin ought to be involved, though.
F. Lee Bailey, I think, consults now, they said, on a daily basis.
Isn't that what they said?
So that's being very closely involved indeed with the case.
Here is from St. Louis, Dateline St. Louis, a prodigy internet story.
President Clinton, in an Airborne Live radio interview Friday, heatedly lashed out at Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio talk show hosts, accusing them of, quote, a constant, unremitting drumbeat of cynicism, end quote.
In a phone call to a St. Louis talk radio station, MOX it is, from Air Force One, Clinton also took on evangelical Christian broadcasters mentioning Jerry Falwell by name.
Said, quote, remember, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple.
Didn't try to take over the job of the money changers, Clinton said, ooh, that's pretty severe stuff.
Now back to one in sympathy with that kind of rhetoric.
Charles, you're back on the air again.
unidentified
Well, you're damn right, Bill Clinton should be upset.
I think it would be on the same level if I got a radio talk show and I constantly, three hours a day, was bombarding you.
All right, but listen, Charlie, if he can have, in other words, I guess we're saying he has a right to have the Attack Bill Clinton show if that's what he wants it to be.
And you have a right to have an Attack Art Bell show if you want it to be that way.
Now, Charlie, you don't want to lose that right, do you?
unidentified
No, but what Bill Clinton is saying is that it's a right, but it's irresponsible.
And there's a difference between giving people rights and just letting people do what the heck they want to do.
I think he's crossed over that line.
And I think what Bill Clinton is saying is we need to push Rush Limbaugh back a little, and we absolutely must stop the religious right.
And I think people like yourself, well, you're an extremist, but I mean, normal people, even in the Republican Party, should fear the religious Bible thumpers from getting into the political ring.
It's a point of view I don't want to share, but it's a point of view.
The question is, how you, quote, knock or push people like Rush Limbaugh back?
See, what you're ignoring is that he's now on, what, 600 and some odd radio stations?
So how do you push him back, Charles?
You might wish him back, but I don't know about pushing him back unless you want to regulate, unless you want to tamper around under the hood with the First Amendment a little bit, maybe a re gap of the blugs in the First Amendment engine.
Is that what you want to do, Charles?
We're on almost just about 100.
Matter of fact, we're going to be celebrating, I think, 100 radio stations next week or at the latest, the week after.
I don't know.
We'll have to see what...
Up near the Canadian border.
So I guess what I'm saying is my show, Russia's show, a lot of other shows out there are immensely popular, and they are where they are, not because of anybody's particular political view, but because of popularity.
Because of popularity.
Because it gets ratings, because people listen, because sponsors sponsor, because they're going viable entities.
So unless you're willing to regulate or legislate against shows like this one or Rush's, you might be a wishing and a hoping, but you better not be pushing and a shoving.
On the basis of the telephone calls, there's a lot of screaming and yelling, but there's no a thumping and a hitting.
Not any that I was able to hear.
unidentified
And then you hear like this, this knock where he sounds like he's closer and he's supposed to be checking a bedroom door to see who's behind it or something.
It proves that they fought like cats and dogs, and that there may have been a lot going on.
What it does not prove is that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
unidentified
I'll bet you he didn't, Art.
You know, another thing that disturbed me was they showed video of Nicole's sister removing articles and showed her with a box and putting them in her trunk out of this Nicole's house, and that seems highly irregular.
Count this as one of the biggest stories of the year.
Maybe the biggest.
Thank you very much for the call.
A really big story.
And whether I'll tell you, there is the possibility that the prosecution will not be able to muster enough evidence to even ensure that he's bound over for trial.
Being a 24-year-old, I don't really have $1,000 to blow.
But, you know, one of the things that bothered me, I've been keeping a track on the news, and me and a buddy of mine were listening to the comments that I came across on Cam O X. Yes.
And what I have found, which really scares me about my generation, which is pretty screwed up at the time, is the general attitude is that they believe with basically what Clinton says.
They're pretty much anti-religious, very socialist.
I don't know who it was, but the president jumped all over his stuff.
I mean, the poor guy simply asked Clinton about the thievery, or maybe it shouldn't be called the thievery, souvenir hunting of the White House staff while they were on board this aircraft carrier, right?
And the president came unglued at the guy, and, you know, as a talk show host, I mean, after all, having the president of the United States on, that must have been a rough one.
unidentified
Yeah.
Well, I mean, the host tried to ask him a few questions, and it sounded like to me that President Clinton just basically was livid and basically lost his cool.
He was just having to shout over the aircraft noise going on or something or another.
Baloney, this guy was crawling out of his skin.
unidentified
Right.
Well, I saw video footage on that just probably about an hour ago, and the hosts of the show were looking at each other in amazement, like, I can't believe this is happening.
And, you know, being a young man here in St. Louis and interacting with a lot of people of my generation, you know, I've been called a racist, an extremist.
There are a number of people that, you know, well, I was in Chicago about three weeks ago with a bunch of people, mid-20s.
Most of them are going to law school.
And what really surprised me, we got into a lot of political discussions while we were out on the town.
And of the 25 people I happened to be out with at the time, 22 of them basically said that they were socialist and they thought that it would be okay to give up their rights.
And that scares me because that's a predominant attitude amongst the 20-something generation.
Well, I thought a lot of what the president had to say yesterday was very chilling indeed because it feels like a precursor to either regulation or legislation that would attempt to silence such critics.
unidentified
Uh-huh.
Well, you know what is amazing to me, him being the president of the United States, if anybody has the ability to get his word and his message out, it's this man.
And, you know, I mean, who is he to start going off and putting down talk show host?
This is a free country where he used to be.
I'm not so sure if my generation is going to have much of a free country in the next 10 to 20 years or even in the next couple.
And I asked almost that very question in a different form yesterday morning.
In another 30 or 50 years, as we all look back at America's history, on roughly what date do you think we will conclude that American individualism, American basic freedoms, as described in the Bill of Rights, basically began to disappear?
What sort of historical judgment would you make about that?
You know, you complain and you bitch and you moan about Rush and about Jerry Falwell and the religious right and all the rest of it.
Let's get to the bottom line, Doc.
What do you want done?
unidentified
I think most Americans believe in the separation of church and state.
And I don't think they want people, fanatics, like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robinson getting into the White House or getting into Congress and telling the American people that if you don't believe the way we believe, you're not an American.
We're going to have religious wars and all kinds of things that the Republicans said in the 1992 Republican Convention.
I don't think America wants that.
And I think I have a lot of Republican friends that are pretty worried and pretty upset about this.
In fact, a couple of them are thinking about leaving the Republican Party.
Benjamo, question is, what do you want to do about it?
unidentified
Well, I don't want to do anything about it because I'm not worried about it because it's going to hurt the Republicans in the elections.
So I hope they keep it up and escalate it myself.
But I'm just bringing out the facts of life.
And as far as Limbaugh goes, he'll throw out anything across the radio.
He won't exactly say, you know, I got evidence.
I think it's 100% true.
But what he'll say, he'll just throw out anything that some hobo in Arkansas will bring up.
Any allegation that has no evidence, that's unfounded, he'll throw it out there to try to make people think it's true because so many people think Limbaugh is God.
You know, all the dittoheads out there, they think that they're brainwashed is what they are.
And believe me, I don't want to do anything about it.
No, once Whitewater, once Clinton is not guilty of murder, once they can't prove Paula Jones, when all these charges that you guys have been bringing up are proven to be not true, the Republican Party is going to take a big hit.
And because people are going to see right through it, people aren't stupid.
They know it's partisan.
They know what the Republican strategy is.
Just throw everything in the kitchen sink at them, and something might stick because they can't beat him on his policies.
The deficit's coming down.
Jobs are going up.
We're on our way to peace in North Korea.
He's fighting for universal health care.
He's tough on crime.
He's tough on welfare reform.
And he stole those issues from the Republicans, and they're mad.
And so they're trying, the only way they can defeat him, because they know he's such a great campaigner, too, is to throw this illegal, unfounded, untruth charges at him.
Yeah, I heard the sheriff of the town said why they had better not break the law, and he sounded like he was ready to go charging in himself.
And I don't know.
Why do we have to have more of this?
unidentified
I don't know.
I'm just tired of it.
I'm tired of the OJ thing.
I'm more concerned about the way this country's going and the socialistic aspects of what's happening and what's going to be left for the next generation.
Yeah, but can't you almost see him sitting at his Oval Office desk having one of his well-renowned private fits of temper and grabbing the old executive order for him and assigning it, and who knows what would happen then?
unidentified
Not at all, because I think the fit of temper becomes, it passes and it's also tempered by cooler heads.
The point is that I think he's correct, and that Rush presenting his show as this beacon of truth, when in fact it's nothing more than his opinion most of the time.
No, I just, you know, the Supreme Court had a ruling yesterday with regard to this, and I'm trying to describe to you the difference, the real difference and the important difference in our points of view about things.
So I'm not going to pull with my neighbor if he wants to take my land.
unidentified
But we have to find the middle ground, otherwise what we end up with is civil war.
And that doesn't do anybody any good on either side of the fence, does it?
But we have a system that's designed to have this adversarial relationship, for example, between the press and government, various forms of government or branches of government.
And without that, we've got much more danger to our future than if we were all somehow talked into pulling on the same train.
unidentified
I absolutely agree with you.
I mean, the press as watchdog, which they're roundly criticized for whenever as being negative reporting and so on and so forth.
Rush has his right, but he should not present as fact and truth that which isn't.
And that's where we get down to.
There's a big difference between a commentator and a journalist.
Yes, and he claims that his listeners do, but when the caller calls in and says, mega dittos, Rush, in other words, I agree with everything you say, I don't think there's much, you know, there isn't discerning listening going on.
Look, the only rap that I would have against Rush, and he has every right to do it, there's all kinds of different talk radio.
And I feel that the best argument against imposition of the fairness doctrine or whatever it is that our Prez has in mind is the open line aspect of talk radio.
And I think that any commentator, a talk show host, worth his salt, should not be afraid to face the calls as they come in.
And by that I mean not screening them out for content or general interest level or a ratio of agreement with the talk show host before the call is put through on the little computer screen.
You can always recognize shows that have that because they will say, John from Milwaukee.
Hi, welcome to the show.
Well, the only way John from Milwaukee could be known before the fact was that somebody picked up the call and screened it.
And then there are various levels of screening for agreement, for interest, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You can screen for all kinds of things.
And as I've said, the best argument against a prepared point of view or a managed point of view is not managing.
That's the best argument against it.
It's what we do here.
It's a braver form of talk radio.
And I'm not saying that I'm that much braver than anybody else.
I'm just saying that it's a good way to do it, and it's a good argument against regulation.
And generally, if B-52 comes down in any sort of populated area, anybody generally on the ground does not live through the experience.
unidentified
Oh, well, it's good that they lived then, that the people on the ground did.
Well, anyways, once again, that's very, very too bad.
And the people there have my condolences on that.
Anyways, let me move on.
I, of course, consider myself a liberal, or at least have in the past.
And I'm upset about this idea that I'm somehow out to take away people's guns or to take you off the air.
I'm a fascist.
This to me is not fair discourse.
You know, there was a fact that was on earlier where a fellow said that how often conservatism is equated with fascism.
Well, I actually agree with them, and I'd like to say that how often even my views are equated as being communism.
As a matter of fact, just yesterday on local radio, some woman thought I was a communist and she called in, oh, I'm a communist, and that somehow discredited everything I'm saying.
When I'm actually, I'm not.
I believe in liberty and republic.
So I think that this kind of discourse can go both ways.
And presidents, as a general rule, are best advised to stay above this sort of thing, criticism of this sort in the media.
And to lash out that way, particularly in a sort of lost-temper situation, is pretty chilling when you're the president.
unidentified
Well, I have had many difficulties with various things in the Clinton administration.
I will say, though, that in my viewpoint, even Reagan, with the criticism he got, didn't seem to be as horrible.
I mean, to me, the never-minding policy things and things you disagree with, the way that Clinton was handled by the Republicans from the very beginning was absolutely, I mean, if anything could drive someone over the edge, to me, and this is all how it seems to me,
of course, it was how Clinton, not that everything wasn't fit, not that everything was unfair, but how Clinton was handled, just the from the very beginning, that whole, really, that whole Republican National Convention to me was a very, very big buffoon, I don't know how to describe it.
Can I call to talk about the aliens you were speaking of earlier?
Yes.
I found out that you get a lot of information and little pieces of a puzzle and it starts forming a picture.
And on abductions, there are certain people who are abducted throughout their entire life.
And this is used for experimentation and or, as one woman on a show was saying, she was implanted and then abducted again and they were taken out and bored were taken out and then they were grown in test tubes, so to speak.
And this is to get people or aliens who look like us, who could pass for us down here.
Well, to me, as I listened to Doc this morning, I could almost see Bill Clinton slowly descending to earth on gossamer wings, you know, an angelic figure come to set all right with us.
unidentified
Well, I'm going to tell You that not all people that have a faith are ignorant.
I am very interested in history.
I've read a lot about the Civil War, about Abraham Lincoln, the black movement.
I've served in the Air Force.
I worked on the Minuteman Missile Project.
I've studied on In Search of Noah's Ark, which was James Irwin, who was an astronaut, was very interested in.
I love politics.
I have a rounded view, but when it comes to my faith, I'm very centered on it because I know exactly what I believe.
But I don't believe in pushing it off on anybody else either.
And I just don't understand the mentality of somebody that will say, buy the thumper.
For the decline and death of his health program and now the crime bill.
There is a provision that he's put in the crime bill, Jose, that would allow prisoners to file appeals based on the fact that more of one race than another is executed.
He's going to have to come at Rush in a different way.
He's going to have to regulate Rush off the air, bring back the fairness doctrine, and I would imagine, if you read between the lines, that's probably going to be next.
unidentified
Sounds like it.
On the fairness doctrine, doesn't it work?
It wouldn't put you off the air, but like the little stations?
I mean, not just the little, but any of the stations.
If people that are listening to it don't like it, they can...
It basically would require that if one point of view is consistently or repetitively aired, that an equal opposing voice would have to be provided.
Now, the end effect of that for the licensees of the radio stations would be that there would be so much they would have to do that it would be easier for them in the end and cheaper for them to just throw up their arms and say, we give up.
The San Gene would provide an output that would be compatible with weather facts.
So sure, you can do that.
And if you know where to listen and so forth, you can get weather pictures that will show you basically what other forecasters see, maps of the United States with clouds and weather fronts and all the rest of it, if you know what to look for.
Yes, and I saw Vance Davis up in the Puget Sound area tonight, and I listened to you on my way back home.
And I wanted to tell you a little bit about what he had to say, but first of all, I wanted to talk to you about the health care program.
Sure.
And I really don't think that it's dead like you do because just today, moderate, as they're called, moderate Republicans have been trying to work something out with Democrats.
And he was saying the people of his generation, a lot of them are socialists, and I see the same darn thing.
And it makes me nervous and a little bit put off because when I was younger, 14, 15, I thought a lot of people I was around were pretty rational thinking youngsters.
And it seems like once they've gone through the school system, once they've gone through college, they come out and a lot of them are, what I would say, confused.
It's going to die because there are things in it that the Republicans will not swallow and will not allow, and it will be talked to death.
unidentified
Well, so far, a couple of appointments have been made in the committee that they have not been able to do the committee appointments of well, they just haven't met.
And fortunately, and it's very good news, that it's not out of committee yet.
The President's health care bill, as he's described it, in absolutely impossible trouble.
And these things ought to be in trouble.
We don't want them passed.
So this is good news.
And what you heard the president do yesterday with regard to the Republicans, the religious right, and Rush Limbaugh, that was sort of a flashpoint expression of frustration at these things not going through.
He needed somebody to blame.
Falwell's a good whipping boy.
Rush Limbaugh's a good whipping boy.
Conservative talk shows a good whipping boy, so that's fine.
It's just that we need to watch carefully that it is not something more ominous than that.
You heard a severe presidential temper yesterday.
It could be manifested next in regulatory action or some sort of presidential action with regard to talk shows.
That would not be good.
A couple of notes here very quickly.
Time is rapidly escaping, I'm sorry to say, and this program is nearly over.
I will be back Sunday this coming on many of these same stations with Dreamland.
And this Sunday's Dreamland features Dr. Bruce McAbee, who is one of the greats when it comes to scientific investigation of UFO evidence.
So don't you dare miss that, Dr. Bruce McAbee, coming this Sunday on Dreamland.
It'll be a hot one beginning at 7 o'clock Pacific time.
If your station does not yet have Dreamland, call and be nice when you do it and ask your station manager or program director if it wouldn't be possible to take Dreamland.
Now, it does not always have to air at the time that it airs, Sunday, 7 to 10.
A lot of stations have obligations.
They can record it off the network and replay it.
And by the way, the network replays Dreamland every Saturday afternoon between 5 and 8 p.m., 5 and 8 o'clock Pacific Time.
So there are plenty of opportunities.
You can tape it.
You can play it back.
One way or the other, I would just like to see it get to the audience.
A lot of people want it.
When you call your radio station, be nice.
Be polite.
I've got some people out there so desperate to get it, they call these radio stations and they say something like this.
You know, what you've got on the air is really a bunch of crap.
What a bunch of crappy programming.
Why don't you get Dreamland?
Well, there's just a great introduction and way to get Dreamland on the air.
You insult the person that you're talking to.
Don't do that.
You know, one person's trash is another person's treasure.
And it may be that if it's some sports show or something, there's a lot of people out there treasuring it could care less about Dreamland.
So be nice and just express your wish and ask nicely and say thank you.
That's the way to deal with people.
You get, what is it, more flies with honey than vinegar or something.
Not to compare radio station ownership as flies, but you want to be nice to them if you can, so please do.
The other is, as soon as I get off The air here, I will go on short wave.
That's right.
Warm up the big rig over here, and I'll be on the 75-meter band, 3892, 3.892, lower sideband.
As soon as I get off the air, minutes from right now.
On the wildcard line, you're on the air, top of the morning.
And a lot of the hunting, homestead, horse, and camping magazines are warning about bills floating through Congress about fees and taxes and outlawing general use of these lands for just about any purpose on trails, parks, and all of these things.
And it seems like they're coming after it like gun control.
And these environmentalists are just really fueling the fire, and it's just getting out of control.
You know, every night I listen, I hear Charlie and Doctor come on in, and it makes everybody want to call in to rebut whatever they had to say.
I just wanted to say one thing about Clinton and what he did yesterday with the right very quickly.
Okay.
He never misses a photo opportunity to put a cross in the sand over in Europe or every time he's coming out of church and stuff, yet he still wants to bring down the religious right and everything.